Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Biodiversity conservation are increasingly focused on involving stakeholder engagement, making power a key concept in understanding its success and failure. Power is often conceptualized as unidimensional and coercive, but a multidimensional view better reflects structural power, as well as its productive and enabling potential. This paper investigates how different dimensions of power in participatory processes affect biodiversity conservation objectives. Six case studies from Europe and Asia‐Pacific were analysed using an adapted framework that explores the interlinkages between ‘power over’ and ‘transformative power’, looking at the scale and space in which power occurs, and analysing in which arenas of power and under which form of expression it appears. The framework distinguishes between the different ways to exert influence (‘power to’, ‘power with’, ‘power within’, ‘power for’), as well as the dynamics of domination and resistance observed in decision‐making (visible power), hidden biases and exclusionary experiences (hidden power), and actions that either reinforce or resist social norms and beliefs (invisible and systematic power). Focusing on biodiversity, the different arenas of power allow us to go deeper than the surface issues and conflicting interests of diverse participants, regarding for example wildlife, to question underlying power dynamics. Different expressions of power, more specifically the ‘power for’ dimension, allow an understanding of how participants integrate nature and biodiversity in their aspirations. The different levels of power also highlight the need to focus not only on the local level but to analyse how participatory processes are embedded in national, or even international governance in a globalized world. Finally, they shed light on two challenges in participatory processes regarding biodiversity: the representation of non‐human interests (designated here as ‘beyond‐human’ voices), and the integration of multiple forms of knowledge systems. Synthesis and applications: Integrating power into biodiversity issues involves deconstructing normalized discourses that focus solely on certain more powerful human agents, their interests and scientific knowledge, and creating new narratives, knowledge and embodied practice of learning and action to encompass a wider diversity of voices and views. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Biodiversity conservation are increasingly focused on involving stakeholder engagement, making power a key concept in understanding its success and failure. Power is often conceptualized as unidimensional and coercive, but a multidimensional view better reflects structural power, as well as its productive and enabling potential. This paper investigates how different dimensions of power in participatory processes affect biodiversity conservation objectives. Six case studies from Europe and Asia‐Pacific were analysed using an adapted framework that explores the interlinkages between ‘power over’ and ‘transformative power’, looking at the scale and space in which power occurs, and analysing in which arenas of power and under which form of expression it appears. The framework distinguishes between the different ways to exert influence (‘power to’, ‘power with’, ‘power within’, ‘power for’), as well as the dynamics of domination and resistance observed in decision‐making (visible power), hidden biases and exclusionary experiences (hidden power), and actions that either reinforce or resist social norms and beliefs (invisible and systematic power). Focusing on biodiversity, the different arenas of power allow us to go deeper than the surface issues and conflicting interests of diverse participants, regarding for example wildlife, to question underlying power dynamics. Different expressions of power, more specifically the ‘power for’ dimension, allow an understanding of how participants integrate nature and biodiversity in their aspirations. The different levels of power also highlight the need to focus not only on the local level but to analyse how participatory processes are embedded in national, or even international governance in a globalized world. Finally, they shed light on two challenges in participatory processes regarding biodiversity: the representation of non‐human interests (designated here as ‘beyond‐human’ voices), and the integration of multiple forms of knowledge systems. Synthesis and applications: Integrating power into biodiversity issues involves deconstructing normalized discourses that focus solely on certain more powerful human agents, their interests and scientific knowledge, and creating new narratives, knowledge and embodied practice of learning and action to encompass a wider diversity of voices and views. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Biodiversity experts now widely acknowledge that transformative change is best supported through transdisciplinary collaborations. Yet, such collaborations rarely successfully occur in major biodiversity research institutions and those that do rarely achieve the paradigmatic effects they aim to deliver. To gain some insight into this global phenomenon, we surveyed Swiss-based researchers and non-academic stakeholders addressing global change and biodiversity. In this article, we connect our findings to global patterns in transdisciplinary transformative change initiatives (TTCIs) and heuristically divide collaboration barriers into two categories: lack of resources and lack of vital functional elements. Two of the major themes that emerged from this research were the continued difficulties with (1) establishing a common ‘language’, understanding, and goals, and (2) meaningful pluralization of knowledge in transdisciplinary collaborations aimed at addressing global change and biodiversity loss. The former is widely cited in the literature as contributing to the failure of TTCIs in the form of incoherent problem-framing, while the latter is often identified as contributing to the lack of structural transformative change (e.g., paradigmatic shifts) in completed initiatives. Another major theme reflected in TTCI literature was limited time. Moreover, based on our own extensive inter- and transdisciplinary experience, we agree with other experts that there is a persistent lack of understanding of the potential contributions of critical social science (CSS) to TTCIs. We thus argue that enhancing resource availability for TTCIs, especially tools for improving CSS literacy, could save time and support both problem-framing alignment and delivery of the structural/paradigmatic changes we aspire to.
The need for public engagement is increasingly evident as discussions intensify around emerging methods for carbon dioxide removal and controversial proposals around solar geoengineering. Based on 44 focus groups in 22 countries across the Global North and Global South (N = 323 participants), this article traces public preferences for a variety of bottom-up and top-down engagement practices ranging from information recipient to broad decision authority. Here, we show that engagement practices need to be responsive to local political cultures and socio-technical environments, while attending to the global dimensions and interconnectedness of the issues at stake. Establishing public engagement as a cornerstone of inclusive and sustainable governance of climate-intervention technologies requires (i) recognizing the diversity of forms and intensities of engaging, (ii) considering national contexts and modes of engagement, (iii) tailoring to technological idiosyncrasies, (iv) adopting power-sensitive practices, (v) accounting for publics’ prior experience, (vi) establishing trust and procedural legitimacy and (vii) engaging with tensions and value disagreements.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.