IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v46y2014i3p581-597.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)

Author

Listed:
  • Esther Turnhout

    (Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, PO box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Katja Neves

    (Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. (H-1125-44), Montreal, Quebec, Canada)

  • Elisa de Lijster

    (Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University. PO box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Current policies and practices in biodiversity conservation have been increasingly influenced by neoliberal approaches since the 1990s. The authors focus on the principle of transparency as a self-proclaimed basis of neoliberal environmental governance, and on the role of standardized science-based measurements which it purportedly affords. The authors introduce the term ‘measurementality’ to signify the governance logic that emerges when transparency comes to stand next to effectiveness and efficiency as neoliberal principles and to highlight the connections that are forged between economic, managerial, and technocratic discourses. The example of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is used to discuss the role of measurementality in global biodiversity governance. The analysis suggests that IPBES aims to coordinate the science–policy interface in order to optimize the generation of user-friendly knowledge of those elements of biodiversity that are considered politically and economically relevant: At the current economic juncture, these being in essence ecosystem services. Based on these findings, the authors proceed by critically reflecting on the ways in which the measurementality logic of IPBES may not only result in an impoverishment of the biodiversity research agenda, but also in an impoverished understanding of biodiversity itself. To conclude, the authors argue that measurementality is part and parcel of the neoliberal paradigm in which science produces the raw materials for subsequent control and exchange and that, as a result, the intersection of science, discourse, policy, and economics within these governance systems requires sustained critical scrutiny.

Suggested Citation

  • Esther Turnhout & Katja Neves & Elisa de Lijster, 2014. "‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 581-597, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:46:y:2014:i:3:p:581-597
    DOI: 10.1068/a4629
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a4629
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a4629?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald Mackenzie & Fabian Muniesa & Lucia Siu, 2007. "Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics," Post-Print halshs-00149145, HAL.
    2. Aarti Gupta, 2008. "Transparency Under Scrutiny: Information Disclosure in Global Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, May.
    3. Arun Agrawal, 1995. "Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 26(3), pages 413-439, July.
    4. Aarti Gupta, 2010. "Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: A Coming of Age?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, August.
    5. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327, January.
    6. Natascha Mueller-Hirth, 2012. "If You Don't Count, You Don't Count: Monitoring and Evaluation in South African NGOs," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 649-670, May.
    7. Steve Rayner, 2003. "Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 163-170, June.
    8. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sullivan, S. & Hannis, M., 2015. "Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 162-173.
    2. Arts, Bas & Behagel, Jelle & Turnhout, Esther & de Koning, Jessica & van Bommel, Séverine, 2014. "A practice based approach to forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 4-11.
    3. Ria Dunkley & Susan Baker & Natasha Constant & Angelina Sanderson-Bellamy, 2018. "Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 779-799, December.
    4. Vilde S. Amundsen & Tonje C. Osmundsen, 2019. "Virtually the Reality: Negotiating the Distance between Standards and Local Realities When Certifying Sustainable Aquaculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-10, May.
    5. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    6. Adeyeye, Yemi & Hagerman, Shannon & Pelai, Ricardo, 2019. "Seeking procedural equity in global environmental governance: Indigenous participation and knowledge politics in forest and landscape restoration debates at the 2016 World Conservation Congress," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raoul Beunen & Kristof Van Assche & Monica Gruezmacher, 2022. "Evolutionary Perspectives on Environmental Governance: Strategy and the Co-Construction of Governance, Community, and Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    3. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    4. Tammy Tabe, 2019. "Climate Change Migration and Displacement: Learning from Past Relocations in the Pacific," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Kate Elizabeth Gannon, Mike Hulme, 2017. "Geoengineering at the ‘edge of the world’: exploring perceptions of ocean fertilization through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation," GRI Working Papers 280, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    7. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    8. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Sanober Naheed & Salman Shooshtarian, 2021. "A Review of Cultural Background and Thermal Perceptions in Urban Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Friederike Hartz, 2024. "“We are not droids”– IPCC participants’ senses of responsibility and affective experiences across the production, assessment, communication and enactment of climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(6), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Hall, C. Michael & Amelung, Bas & Cohen, Scott & Eijgelaar, Eke & Gössling, Stefan & Higham, James & Leemans, Rik & Peeters, Paul & Ram, Yael & Scott, Daniel & Aall, Carlo & Abegg, Bruno & Araña, Jorg, 2015. "No time for smokescreen skepticism: A rejoinder to Shani and Arad," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 341-347.
    12. Nancy Menning, 2018. "Narrating climate change as a rite of passage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 343-353, March.
    13. Mercedes Bleda & Elisabeth Krull & Jonatan Pinkse & Eleni Christodoulou, 2023. "Organizational heuristics and firms' sensemaking for climate change adaptation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 6124-6137, December.
    14. Richard Matthew, 2014. "Integrating climate change into peacebuilding," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 83-93, March.
    15. Chhetri, Netra & Ghimire, Rajiv & Wagner, Melissa & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Global citizen deliberation: Case of world-wide views on climate and energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. Hochachka, Gail, 2021. "Integrating the four faces of climate change adaptation: Towards transformative change in Guatemalan coffee communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    17. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    18. repec:sae:envval:v:24:y:2015:i:6:p:755-776 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Robert, Christopher LeBaron & Zeckhauser, Richard Jay, 2010. "The Methodology of Positive Policy Analysis," Scholarly Articles 4450129, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Georgina Endfield & Carol Morris, 2012. "Cultural spaces of climate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 1-4, July.
    21. George Ferns & Kenneth Amaeshi & Aliette Lambert, 2019. "Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 201-231, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:46:y:2014:i:3:p:581-597. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.