IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v18y2018i6d10.1007_s10784-018-9415-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries

Author

Listed:
  • Ria Dunkley

    (University of Glasgow)

  • Susan Baker

    (Cardiff University)

  • Natasha Constant

    (Cardiff University
    University of Venda)

  • Angelina Sanderson-Bellamy

    (Cardiff University)

Abstract

The IPBES conceptual framework (CF) serves an instrumental value to translate usable knowledge into policy across spatial scales, alongside a normative function to engage diverse knowledge systems, promoting inclusivity and enhancing legitimacy. It has been argued that the CF operates as a boundary object, a communication and organisation tool for those working across diverse knowledge systems, designed to help them reach shared goals. The paper focuses on this claim, exploring the three core characteristics of a boundary object: interpretive flexibility, material and organisational structure, and the recognition of dissention. We suggest that too much emphasis is placed within the CF upon interpretive flexibility, whilst meeting information needs and the work requirements of all individuals, groups and communities who use the CF are overlooked. By forcing consensus, the IPBES CF ignores the critical dimensions of a boundary object. We argue that embracing the full characteristics of a boundary object will enable the IPBES to support knowledge coproduction and translation across the knowledge systems, better achieving its goal of providing policy advice.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:18:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s10784-018-9415-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-018-9415-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-018-9415-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-018-9415-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Thomas Koetz & Katharine Farrell & Peter Bridgewater, 2012. "Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Montana, Jasper, 2017. "Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 20-27.
    4. Abson, D.J. & von Wehrden, H. & Baumgärtner, S. & Fischer, J. & Hanspach, J. & Härdtle, W. & Heinrichs, H. & Klein, A.M. & Lang, D.J. & Martens, P. & Walmsley, D., 2014. "Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 29-37.
    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. Obermeister, Noam, 2017. "From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 80-86.
    7. Löfmarck, Erik & Lidskog, Rolf, 2017. "Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 22-28.
    8. Terry Williams & Preston Hardison, 2013. "Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(3), pages 531-544, October.
    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. Benjamin Bergerot, 2022. "The Citizen Science Paradox," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, July.
    2. George Atisa, 2020. "Policy adoption, legislative developments, and implementation: the resulting global differences among countries in the management of biological resources," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 141-159, March.

    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. 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).
    2. Karl Dudman & Sara Wit, 2021. "An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-12, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Monika Berg & Rolf Lidskog, 2018. "Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 11-24, May.
    5. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    6. María D. López-Rodríguez & Javier Cabello & Hermelindo Castro & Jaime Rodríguez, 2019. "Social Learning for Facilitating Dialogue and Understanding of the Ecosystem Services Approach: Lessons from a Cross-Border Experience in the Alboran Marine Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, September.
    7. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    8. Alonso Roldán, Virginia & Galván, David E. & Lopes, Priscila F.M. & López, Jaime & Sanderson Bellamy, Angelina & Gallego, Federico & Cinti, Ana & Rius, Pía & Schröter, Barbara & Aguado, Mateo & Muñoz , 2019. "Are we seeing the whole picture in land-sea systems? Opportunities and challenges for operationalizing the ES concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Sophie Peter, 2020. "Integrating Key Insights of Sociological Risk Theory into the Ecosystem Services Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    11. Matteo De Donà, 2022. "‘Getting the Science Right’? Epistemic Framings of Global Soil and Land Degradation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    13. Christophe Béné & Timothy Frankenberger & Tiffany Griffin & Mark Langworthy & Monica Mueller & Stephanie Martin, 2019. "‘Perception matters’: New insights into the subjective dimension of resilience in the context of humanitarian and food security crises," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 19(3), pages 186-210, July.
    14. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Jens Koehrsen, 2017. "Boundary Bridging Arrangements: A Boundary Work Approach to Local Energy Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-23, March.
    16. Engler, John-Oliver & Kretschmer, Max-Friedemann & Rathgens, Julius & Ament, Joe A. & Huth, Thomas & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2024. "15 years of degrowth research: A systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    17. Jarvis, Diane & Stoeckl, Natalie & Larson, Silva & Grainger, Daniel & Addison, Jane & Larson, Anna, 2021. "The Learning Generated Through Indigenous Natural Resources Management Programs Increases Quality of Life for Indigenous People – Improving Numerous Contributors to Wellbeing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    19. Marcellus Forh Mbah & Chidi Ezegwu, 2024. "The Decolonisation of Climate Change and Environmental Education in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, April.
    20. Suich, Helen & Howe, Caroline & Mace, Georgina, 2015. "Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical links," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 137-147.

    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:spr:ieaple:v:18:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s10784-018-9415-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.