159
2013). This is well supported by López-Rodríguez et al. (2015) and Nesshöver et al.
(2016), who noted the contribution of scientists’ and policymakers’ joint efforts to
identify priority environmental issues, delivering a consolidated body of scientific
knowledge to support relevant policies, as well as to identify research gaps to
address emerging issues. This also applies to ecosystem management. Drawing on
their experience with scientists’ engagement in the management of Greater Blue
Mountains World Heritage Area in Australia, Chapple et al. (2011) emphasized the
importance of the collaboration and information flow between scientists and managers to collectively define problems and management objectives that guide research
directions and uptake.
8.3.2.3 SPI Structure
The most common challenges to structuring SPIs included assembling a range of
knowledge holders and experts relevant to topics (Ferreira et al. 2012; Plant and
Ryan 2013; Spranger et al. 2014; Schewenius et al. 2014; Hauck et al. 2014; Walther
et al. 2016); the high level of complexity of decision-making processes (Young et al.
2014; Tzankova 2017); and the need to ensure a sound scientific basis of the SPIs.
A lack of incentives for scientists and policymakers to participate in SPIs (Granjou
and Mauz 2012; Sarkki et al. 2013) and fragmentation of interests of the members
involved in the SPIs (Gustafsson and Lidskog 2013; Hauck et al. 2014; Arpin et al.
2016) constitute further challenges.
In terms of solutions to these problems, the formulation of SPIs with transparent
and open structures was frequently identified as a solution. For example, Arpin et al.
(2016) found that the major challenges in the process of establishing IPBES were
handling the fragmentation and plasticity of the group of interest involved in the
institutionalization process, and the ‘exercise of an art of having everybody on
board through techniques of inclusiveness’ was a key to success. Many studies
observed that, in order to tackle complex and multidimensional issues of biodiversity, it is vital to have collaborative interdisciplinary teams and to involve scientists,
policymakers, legal experts, and practitioners from various fields/sectors (Srebotnjak
2007; Koetz et al. 2008; Arts and Buizer 2009; Mishra et al. 2009; Blythe and Dadi
2012; Ferreira et al. 2012; Kueffer et al. 2012; Paloniemi et al. 2012; Giakoumi
et al. 2012; Ardoin and Heimlich 2013; Gustafsson and Lidskog 2013; Keune et al.
2013; Young et al. 2014; Hauck et al. 2014; Chaves et al. 2015; Sarkki et al. 2015;
Andaloro et al. 2016; Arpin et al. 2016; Kovács and Pataki 2016; Walther et al.
2016). Kueffer et al. (2012), noting the complexity of problems, and impartiality of
expertise and salience of knowledge which impede effective research for sustainable development, found that one solution is to conduct research in interdisciplinary
teams, forming research partnerships with actors and experts from outside academia, and framing research questions with the aim of solving specific problems. In
order to do so, Seddon et al. (2016) suggested that ecologists and conservation biologists need to engage much more strongly with, and draw on, the social sciences as
well as the humanities. It was also considered critical to establish a discussion plat8 Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces
2013). This is well supported by López-Rodríguez et al. (2015) and Nesshöver et al.
(2016), who noted the contribution of scientists’ and policymakers’ joint efforts to
identify priority environmental issues, delivering a consolidated body of scientific
knowledge to support relevant policies, as well as to identify research gaps to
address emerging issues. This also applies to ecosystem management. Drawing on
their experience with scientists’ engagement in the management of Greater Blue
Mountains World Heritage Area in Australia, Chapple et al. (2011) emphasized the
importance of the collaboration and information flow between scientists and managers to collectively define problems and management objectives that guide research
directions and uptake.
8.3.2.3 SPI Structure
The most common challenges to structuring SPIs included assembling a range of
knowledge holders and experts relevant to topics (Ferreira et al. 2012; Plant and
Ryan 2013; Spranger et al. 2014; Schewenius et al. 2014; Hauck et al. 2014; Walther
et al. 2016); the high level of complexity of decision-making processes (Young et al.
2014; Tzankova 2017); and the need to ensure a sound scientific basis of the SPIs.
A lack of incentives for scientists and policymakers to participate in SPIs (Granjou
and Mauz 2012; Sarkki et al. 2013) and fragmentation of interests of the members
involved in the SPIs (Gustafsson and Lidskog 2013; Hauck et al. 2014; Arpin et al.
2016) constitute further challenges.
In terms of solutions to these problems, the formulation of SPIs with transparent
and open structures was frequently identified as a solution. For example, Arpin et al.
(2016) found that the major challenges in the process of establishing IPBES were
handling the fragmentation and plasticity of the group of interest involved in the
institutionalization process, and the ‘exercise of an art of having everybody on
board through techniques of inclusiveness’ was a key to success. Many studies
observed that, in order to tackle complex and multidimensional issues of biodiversity, it is vital to have collaborative interdisciplinary teams and to involve scientists,
policymakers, legal experts, and practitioners from various fields/sectors (Srebotnjak
2007; Koetz et al. 2008; Arts and Buizer 2009; Mishra et al. 2009; Blythe and Dadi
2012; Ferreira et al. 2012; Kueffer et al. 2012; Paloniemi et al. 2012; Giakoumi
et al. 2012; Ardoin and Heimlich 2013; Gustafsson and Lidskog 2013; Keune et al.
2013; Young et al. 2014; Hauck et al. 2014; Chaves et al. 2015; Sarkki et al. 2015;
Andaloro et al. 2016; Arpin et al. 2016; Kovács and Pataki 2016; Walther et al.
2016). Kueffer et al. (2012), noting the complexity of problems, and impartiality of
expertise and salience of knowledge which impede effective research for sustainable development, found that one solution is to conduct research in interdisciplinary
teams, forming research partnerships with actors and experts from outside academia, and framing research questions with the aim of solving specific problems. In
order to do so, Seddon et al. (2016) suggested that ecologists and conservation biologists need to engage much more strongly with, and draw on, the social sciences as
well as the humanities. It was also considered critical to establish a discussion plat8 Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces