160
form among different stakeholders (Sommerwerk et al. 2010b; Cil and JonesWalters 2011; Thomas et al. 2012; Mace et al. 2013; Spranger et al. 2014; Schewenius
et al. 2014; Garibaldi et al. 2017). Putting in place structures and incentive schemes
that support long-term interactive dialogue, such as new network opportunities, recognition in an academic society, access to funding and others (Granjou and Mauz
2012; Young et al. 2014; Hauck et al. 2014; Carmen et al. 2015; Santos and Pierce
2015; Sarkki et al. 2015; Nesshöver et al. 2016) was another possible solution to
address these challenges.
In order to address these challenges and secure sound participation among different stakeholders in long term, trust building in the SPI process is important to facilitate engagement with social scientists, multiple sectors of governments, practitioners,
private sectors, and others. To ensure participation from local and indigenous
communities, capacity building and different communicative forms are vital at the
same time. Kim et al. (2016) stated that increased participation, per se, does not
guarantee the achievement of ethical-moral imperatives (people should have a say
in decisions affecting them) or instrumental outcomes such as improving people’s
ownership and acceptance. To address structural challenges of SPIs, they also
pointed to the question of how the process was conducted as also being important.
And it is affected by institutional culture, transparency, flexibility, and capability for
implementation. Mielke et al. (2017) evaluated stakeholder involvement practices in
science and concluded that ‘more conceptual exchange between practitioners, as
well as more qualitative research on the concepts behind practices, is needed to better understand the stakeholder–scientist nexus’. Active engagement of stakeholders
with a range of relevant expertise and interest will help an SPI to better handle the
socio-ecological complexity and political dimensions of biodiversity-related policymaking. Further, improvement of SPI processes including trust building, continuity,
capacity building, and adaptability will also lead to more robust SPI structure (e.g.,
resulting in more active participation within the SPI). This demonstrates the dynamic
relationship between ‘structure’ and ‘process’ of SPIs. So, to promote more meaningful and continuous participation in biodiversity SPIs and better SPI structure, it
is not enough to invite experts and stakeholders from different sectors to participate
in SPIs, but also to secure continuous, trusted, and adaptable SPI processes.
In terms of how the structure of SPIs can contribute to specific outcomes, most
studies focused on their social learning impacts (8 out of 17) and policy impacts (5
out of 17). As for social learning, participatory assessment, e.g., biodiversity assessment that involves various stakeholders including scientists and policymakers, can
be used to generate comprehensive evidence and underpin shared understanding
among stakeholders (Garibaldi et al. 2017). Sarkki et al. (2013) reported that the
participation of governments in the IPCC decision-making process increased their
likelihood of referencing the IPCC assessments in their policies. Regarding policy
impacts, Kovács and Pataki (2016), drawing on their observation of the early-stage
development of IPBES, highlighted the need for diverse and balanced participation
of experts across regions and countries to ensure the representation of place-specific
knowledge in global- and regional-level assessments. Balanced participation was
also found to enhance legitimacy in priority setting (Kim et al. 2016). Diverse parI. Matsumoto et al.
form among different stakeholders (Sommerwerk et al. 2010b; Cil and JonesWalters 2011; Thomas et al. 2012; Mace et al. 2013; Spranger et al. 2014; Schewenius
et al. 2014; Garibaldi et al. 2017). Putting in place structures and incentive schemes
that support long-term interactive dialogue, such as new network opportunities, recognition in an academic society, access to funding and others (Granjou and Mauz
2012; Young et al. 2014; Hauck et al. 2014; Carmen et al. 2015; Santos and Pierce
2015; Sarkki et al. 2015; Nesshöver et al. 2016) was another possible solution to
address these challenges.
In order to address these challenges and secure sound participation among different stakeholders in long term, trust building in the SPI process is important to facilitate engagement with social scientists, multiple sectors of governments, practitioners,
private sectors, and others. To ensure participation from local and indigenous
communities, capacity building and different communicative forms are vital at the
same time. Kim et al. (2016) stated that increased participation, per se, does not
guarantee the achievement of ethical-moral imperatives (people should have a say
in decisions affecting them) or instrumental outcomes such as improving people’s
ownership and acceptance. To address structural challenges of SPIs, they also
pointed to the question of how the process was conducted as also being important.
And it is affected by institutional culture, transparency, flexibility, and capability for
implementation. Mielke et al. (2017) evaluated stakeholder involvement practices in
science and concluded that ‘more conceptual exchange between practitioners, as
well as more qualitative research on the concepts behind practices, is needed to better understand the stakeholder–scientist nexus’. Active engagement of stakeholders
with a range of relevant expertise and interest will help an SPI to better handle the
socio-ecological complexity and political dimensions of biodiversity-related policymaking. Further, improvement of SPI processes including trust building, continuity,
capacity building, and adaptability will also lead to more robust SPI structure (e.g.,
resulting in more active participation within the SPI). This demonstrates the dynamic
relationship between ‘structure’ and ‘process’ of SPIs. So, to promote more meaningful and continuous participation in biodiversity SPIs and better SPI structure, it
is not enough to invite experts and stakeholders from different sectors to participate
in SPIs, but also to secure continuous, trusted, and adaptable SPI processes.
In terms of how the structure of SPIs can contribute to specific outcomes, most
studies focused on their social learning impacts (8 out of 17) and policy impacts (5
out of 17). As for social learning, participatory assessment, e.g., biodiversity assessment that involves various stakeholders including scientists and policymakers, can
be used to generate comprehensive evidence and underpin shared understanding
among stakeholders (Garibaldi et al. 2017). Sarkki et al. (2013) reported that the
participation of governments in the IPCC decision-making process increased their
likelihood of referencing the IPCC assessments in their policies. Regarding policy
impacts, Kovács and Pataki (2016), drawing on their observation of the early-stage
development of IPBES, highlighted the need for diverse and balanced participation
of experts across regions and countries to ensure the representation of place-specific
knowledge in global- and regional-level assessments. Balanced participation was
also found to enhance legitimacy in priority setting (Kim et al. 2016). Diverse parI. Matsumoto et al.