Transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making assessment. D1.7

Abstract

This deliverable describes the process of developing a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making carried out in Work Package 1 (WP1) of the EU funded research project PLANET4B. The aim of the process was to help researchers and practitioners in our project become more conscious of the theoretical approaches and languages that may condition the interventions we study and the policy and additional recommendations that we make to societal actors. The starting proposition for this work was that we as PLANET4B partners come from a wide range of different disciplines and practices. Therefore, we needed a shared learning process of our different theoretical and practical lenses and languages. This is necessary to increase our potential as a project to design for transformational change in Work Packages to follow. We report on our testing of Meadows’ (1999) leverage points framework (LPF) as a potential shared conceptual language for transformational change across the places, actors and theories that situate both placebased and sectoral case studies in the project. We report on the opportunities and limitations of the LPF in connecting to (i) theories of change used by research partners in their cases, as well as (ii) bridging conceptually to other “integrating analytical approaches” where PLANET4B has partner expertise; namely “intersectionality analysis”, “discourse analysis” and “reflexivity-contextualisation of interventions”. The report recognises that these integrating approaches are but a subset of possible systems analysis tools in transformative change research. The process of understanding and applying Meadows’ (1999) leverage points framework achieved some shared language and understanding across research disciplines. It helped us to compare assumptions about transformative change across our different case studies. As such, we think we achieved the “process objective” of this initial stage of PLANET4B of using a common framework to diagnose our case studies. However, case studies and experts on other integrating analytical approaches identified several limitations of the LPF. Limitations include the LPF itself being a particular theoretical systems analysis lens which in some cases could exclude practitioners through its unfamiliar concepts. Furthermore, the LPF was identified as being ‘structuralist’ or ‘mechanistic’ in the particular way we tested it in our case studies, not addressing concepts such as agency, power and decision-making. It was critiqued for not being specific to decisions about biodiversity and the related nature values.