164
knowledge integration, such as database and semantic web technologies, enable
ecosystem managers to easily access expert knowledge (Blythe and Dadi 2012).
8.3.2.6 SPI Outcome
We can draw some important findings from the above analysis of the outcomes from
each of the four SPI features in terms of how they can contribute to enhancing the
credibility, relevance, or legitimacy in SPI. Sarkki et al. (2013) highlighted the
potential trade-offs between credibility, relevance, and legitimacy in SPIs. The
trade-offs, however, are highly context dependent. Our analysis identified generic
approaches and tools to reconcile the trade-offs and enhance synergies between
credibility, relevance, and legitimacy in SPI. Under SPI goals, scientists’ and
policymakers’ joint efforts with their appropriate power balance can merit the synergies. As for SPI structure, transboundary institutions that ensure a good representation of policymakers, scientists, and other stakeholders in relevant and diverse
sectors and disciplines can contribute to enhancing the synergies. The synergies can
also be improved through an SPI process with clear protocols for higher transparency and with a mechanism to enhance the enthusiasm of various participants which
will also contribute to building synergies.
8.4 Conclusion
In terms of the geographic scale and locations of the SPIs studied, we found that
most were global (mainly IPBES) or regional or national SPIs in Europe or North
America. Relatively few studies investigated regional or national SPIs in Asia,
Africa, or South America, despite the importance of these regions in terms of biodiversity conservation. Studies focusing on the numerous SPIs related to local biodiversity conservation plans and policies are particularly scarce.
The main challenges and solutions facing SPIs are related to participation,
although different terms are used to refer to it in different studies (such as ‘joint’,
‘collaborative’, ‘participative’, and ‘involve’). Although participation is classified
as a sub-feature of SPI structure in Table 8.1, it is a critical component of the other
SPI features as well. For example, the joint formulation of research and/or policies
was found to be a possible solution to overcome key challenges related to the SPI
goals, such as a lack of clarity regarding the goals and objectives or missing identification of relevant research topics. In the context of the SPI structure, participation
was found to be a particularly relevant sub-feature. To overcome the existing challenges such as a lack of sound scientific basis, high complexity of decision-making
processes, and fragmentation of interests, a key solution proposed in many studies
focuses on improving participation by establishing collaborative interdisciplinary
and multi-stakeholder structures, such as committees, teams, or partnerships involving scientists, policymakers, legal experts, and practitioners. To be sustainable,
I. Matsumoto et al.
knowledge integration, such as database and semantic web technologies, enable
ecosystem managers to easily access expert knowledge (Blythe and Dadi 2012).
8.3.2.6 SPI Outcome
We can draw some important findings from the above analysis of the outcomes from
each of the four SPI features in terms of how they can contribute to enhancing the
credibility, relevance, or legitimacy in SPI. Sarkki et al. (2013) highlighted the
potential trade-offs between credibility, relevance, and legitimacy in SPIs. The
trade-offs, however, are highly context dependent. Our analysis identified generic
approaches and tools to reconcile the trade-offs and enhance synergies between
credibility, relevance, and legitimacy in SPI. Under SPI goals, scientists’ and
policymakers’ joint efforts with their appropriate power balance can merit the synergies. As for SPI structure, transboundary institutions that ensure a good representation of policymakers, scientists, and other stakeholders in relevant and diverse
sectors and disciplines can contribute to enhancing the synergies. The synergies can
also be improved through an SPI process with clear protocols for higher transparency and with a mechanism to enhance the enthusiasm of various participants which
will also contribute to building synergies.
8.4 Conclusion
In terms of the geographic scale and locations of the SPIs studied, we found that
most were global (mainly IPBES) or regional or national SPIs in Europe or North
America. Relatively few studies investigated regional or national SPIs in Asia,
Africa, or South America, despite the importance of these regions in terms of biodiversity conservation. Studies focusing on the numerous SPIs related to local biodiversity conservation plans and policies are particularly scarce.
The main challenges and solutions facing SPIs are related to participation,
although different terms are used to refer to it in different studies (such as ‘joint’,
‘collaborative’, ‘participative’, and ‘involve’). Although participation is classified
as a sub-feature of SPI structure in Table 8.1, it is a critical component of the other
SPI features as well. For example, the joint formulation of research and/or policies
was found to be a possible solution to overcome key challenges related to the SPI
goals, such as a lack of clarity regarding the goals and objectives or missing identification of relevant research topics. In the context of the SPI structure, participation
was found to be a particularly relevant sub-feature. To overcome the existing challenges such as a lack of sound scientific basis, high complexity of decision-making
processes, and fragmentation of interests, a key solution proposed in many studies
focuses on improving participation by establishing collaborative interdisciplinary
and multi-stakeholder structures, such as committees, teams, or partnerships involving scientists, policymakers, legal experts, and practitioners. To be sustainable,
I. Matsumoto et al.