Governing for Transformative Change across the Biodiversity–Climate–Society Nexus

Pascual, Unai; McElwee, Pamela; Diamond, Sarah E.; Ngo, Hien T.; Bai, Xuemei; Cheung, William W. L.; Lim, Michelle; Steiner, Nadja; Agard, John; Donatti, Camila I.; Duarte, Carlos M.; Leemans, Rik; Managi, Shunsuke; Pires, Aliny P. F.; Reyes‐García, Victoria; Trisos, Christopher H.; Scholes, Robert J.; Pörtner, Hans‐Otto

doi:10.1093/biosci/biac031

Cited by 75 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 192 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Q method also gives well interpretable results even with smaller sample sizes (Zabala, Sandbrook & Mukherjee 2018), which allows for its application in smaller negotiation or discussion cases, too. It further enables the uncovering and acknowledgement of hidden and marginalized perspectives (Ockwell 2008;Mazur & Asah 2013), which is critical for transformative governance (Pascual et al 2022), and thus supports inclusiveness in consensus building processes. At the same time, depending on the context the Q approach is applied in (e.g., who is participating, or what kind of statements is assessed), it is important to consider and account for potential ethical-political implications of the analysis (West & Schill 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Q approach to consensus building: integrating diverse perspectives to guide decision-making

Geschke¹,

Urbach²,

Prescott³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Decision-making processes are complex and time-intensive, particularly when a consensus needs to be achieved amongst more than two parties. Discussions and negotiations must consider all relevant stakeholders and their individual perspectives on the decision to be taken. Methods for identifying, understanding, and acknowledging divergent perspectives can support successful consensus building. A tool pointing to those perspectives that have a consensus is missing though.2. Here, we propose a policy support tool to statistically guide the processes of consensus building around sets of goals or statements, using the Q method. Priority rankings of the goals or statements are used to analyze group perspectives. Our Q approach then expands Q method by consolidating the group perspectives and producing a novel consensus priority score indicating the level of consensual preference or priority for each goal or statement.3. We demonstrate the applicability of our Q approach in a hypothetical prioritization example involving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although all 193 United Nation’s member states have agreed upon the 17 SDGs, the implementation of sustainable development measures often requires the prioritization of one or more goals. In the example, we use 40 individual stakeholder perspectives to identify which SDGs should be prioritized to successfully achieve the 2030 Agenda. This is, to satisfy most of the 40 people the best way possible, SGDs 4, 8, and 3. It is important to note that every individual perspective matters.4. The Q approach to consensus building provides a transparent and replicable method to calculate consensus priority scores for goals or statements of interest and identify those that have medium to high consensus. The approach can be applied to a wide range of situations where diverse perspectives and objectives need to be reconciled and synthesized at a range of scales. It can thereby be applied in consensus building processes from subnational to international levels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Q approach to consensus building: integrating diverse perspectives to guide decision-making

Geschke¹,

Urbach²,

Prescott³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, by foregrounding a region and conducting an analysis of the immanent possibilities, barriers and challenges for advancing transformative change on the ground, our study has also contributed to the recent, growing body of literature that is moving the transformative governance research agenda forward, from a conceptual discussion of the term and its application to particular issue-areas (e.g. biodiversity loss, climate change) towards the collection of empirical data and the drawing of lessons for sustainability transformations (Aguiar et al, 2021;Coffey et al, 2022;Pascual et al, 2022;Pickering et al, 2022;Rusch et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After presenting the project (origins, goals, vision and current status and activities), we clarify its transformative potential, identify the main obstacles it has faced and reflect on both possibilities for implementation and the problems it could raise, illuminating policy implications. Through this in‐depth case study, the article contributes to emerging debates about Anthropocene governance (Biermann, 2014; Chandler, 2018; Dryzek & Pickering, 2019; Pattberg & Zelli, 2016); the possibilities of social transformation towards sustainability (Avelino et al, 2016; Grin et al, 2010; Pascual et al, 2022; Reyers et al, 2018; Scoones et al, 2020; Visseren‐Hamakers et al, 2021); and the Amazon as an incubator for transformative innovation for sustainable governance (Brondizio et al, 2021; Futemma et al, 2020; Milhorance & Bursztyn, 2018).…”

Section: Rethinking Governance In the Anthropocene To Spur Transforma...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Transformative change is understood as a system‐wide reconfiguration of the economic, social and technological structures, norms and rules, paradigms, goals and values driving ecological problems (IPBES, 2019). In achieving such change, transformative governance 1 is key (Chaffin et al, 2016; Pascual et al, 2022; Visseren‐Hamakers et al, 2021). Using the Amazon as a case study, this article will investigate the operational framework, sociopolitical importance and practical openings of transformative governance in redressing structural inequalities, curbing environmental destruction and fostering sustainability transformations.…”

Section: Rethinking Governance In the Anthropocene To Spur Transforma...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards a transformative governance of the Amazon

Pereira

Terrenas

2022

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crises of the Anthropocene can neither be confronted incrementally nor through short‐term, reductionist strategies. As the risk of severe, irreversible socioecological damage increases, transformative change towards achieving long‐term sustainability becomes ever‐pressing. Against this backdrop, we explore how transformative governance can help strengthen ecosystem resilience, empower vulnerable communities and ensure sustainable development in the Amazon. The article starts by briefly reviewing the concept of transformative governance, arguing that it provides an adequate framework for thinking about and responding to the challenges of the Anthropocene. It then looks at how extant governance practices are destroying and fragmenting the Amazon, eroding the resilience of regional ecosystems. It proceeds by investigating how the Andes–Amazon–Atlantic Corridor, a transnational project aligned with the normative commitments and operational principles of transformative governance, aimed at protecting, restoring and building socioecological connectivity in the region, can offer an alternative pathway for Amazonian development in the new geological epoch.

show abstract

“…(Balmford et al, 2021). Furthermore, the dominance of these political economic forces emphasises the need for transformative governance that can better deliver across the biodiversity-climate-society nexus (Pascual et al, 2022). diverse partnerships with local stakeholders (Almeida, 2004).…”

Section: Conventional Impact Appraisal Underplays the Centrality Of Q...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparative performance of land sharing, land sparing type interventions on place‐based human well‐being

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Environment-facing interventions impact the distribution, use of and access of natural resources and have important implications for all dimensions (material, relational, quality of life) of human well-being (HWB). Yet conventional impact metrics routinely surpass the non-material impacts which may be particularly salient in rural contexts where small-scale farmers depend directly on the land and biodiversity. Furthermore, little is known about the comparative performance of distinct interventions along a land-sharing, versus land sparing gradient, on local definitions of HWB.2. We address this knowledge gap, adopting a perception-based impact evaluation within communities across four intervention types representing the land sparing, sharing gradient: intensified industrial soy production (n = 60 HHs), a protected area (n = 70), an extractive reserve (n = 70) and a national forest (n = 70) in Pará in the Brazilian Amazon. We collected data using the Global Person Generated Index (GPGI) with household heads (n = 270) in eight communities (two per intervention type). Focus group discussions (n = 8) solicited residents' perceptions of impact pathways.3. Our findings highlight the important contribution of relational and subjective dimensions to HWB and call in to question the dominance of material measures in standard impact appraisals.4. Furthermore, we show that single sector and integrated approaches generate 'polarized impact footprints' in which integrated approaches achieve (a) more impact, which is (b) more often positive and (c) locally salient, the inverse is true for single-sector sparing style approaches.5. Areas of well-being that matter locally (culture, health and social relations), but are not impacted by interventions are relational, and point towards the potential of rights-based conservation to empower rural smallholders to remain in their communities while flourishing.

show abstract

Governing for Transformative Change across the Biodiversity–Climate–Society Nexus

Cited by 75 publications

References 192 publications

The Q approach to consensus building: integrating diverse perspectives to guide decision-making

The Q approach to consensus building: integrating diverse perspectives to guide decision-making

Towards a transformative governance of the Amazon

The comparative performance of land sharing, land sparing type interventions on place‐based human well‐being

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About