Workshop report on theories relevant for biodiversity decision-making and their implications for practice. Report No D1.6 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B

BETTER DECISIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND PEOPLE Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B WORKSHOP REPORT ON THEORIES RELEVANT FOR BIODIVERSITY DECISION-MAKING AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE 1.1.5 2 PLANET4B receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101082212. This project is funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee. This work has received funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions are of those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland. The European Union, the European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland cannot be held responsible for them. iii Key deliverable information Deliverable number D1.6 Deliverable title Workshop report on theories relevant for biodiversity decision-making and their implications for practice Task leader Radboud University (RU) Corresponding author Vinícius Mendes Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description Workshop report on theories and its implication for practice also in light of Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B Work Package 2 (WP2) and Work Package 3 (WP3) results and experience. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 11/04/2024 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); David Barton (NINA); Lindy Binder (CU); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); Patricia Ofori-Amanf (CG); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Elif Tugba Simsek (CG); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU) 0.2 Draft 13/04/2024 Reviewers: Anita Thaler (IFZ); Sandra Karner (IFZ); David Barton (NINA) Project acronym PLANET4B Project title understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making Starting date 01st November 2022 Duration 36 months Website https://planet4b.eu/ Project coordination and scientific lead team Ilkhom Soliev; Alex Franklin; Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler iv 0.3 Draft 18/04/2024 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); David Barton (NINA); Lindy Binder (CU); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); Patricia Ofori-Amanf (CG); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Elif Tugba Simsek (CG); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU) 0.4 Draft 19/04/2024 Reviewers: Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Torsten Wähler (MLU), Lindy Binder (CU) 0.5 Draft 26/04/2024 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); David Barton (NINA); Lindy Binder (CU); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); Patricia Ofori-Amanf (CG); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Elif Tugba Simsek (CG); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU) 0.6 Draft 29/04/2024 Reviewers: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Lindy Binder (CU) 0.7 Draft 29/04/2024 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); David Barton (NINA); Lindy Binder (CU); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); Patricia Ofori-Amanf (CG); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Elif Tugba Simsek (CG); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU) 1.0 Final 30/04/2024 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) v Recommended citation Mendes, V., Inoue, C. Y. A., Barton, D., Binder, L., Bonetti, M., Booth, C., Bredin, Y., Brown, G., Bykova, M., Czett, K., Figari, H., Karner, S., Lipka, B., Ludhra, G., Ludhra, S., Navarro Gambín, P., OforiAmanfo, P., Pataki, G., Sabir, G., Simsek, E. T., Soliev, I., Steinwender, D., Thaler, A., & Zolyomi, A. (2024). Workshop report on theories relevant for biodiversity decision-making and their implications for practice. Report No D1.6 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15274503 Rights and license This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more. Acknowledgements The PLANET4B team would like to thank workshop participants for their time and willingness to share information, experiences and opinions at the third workshop to debate theories and its implication for practice. Special thanks go to the PLANET4B case study partners, without whose commitment the workshop would not have been possible. vi List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CGE Culture Goes Europe CM Consortium Meeting CU Coventry University DC Dadima's CIC ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FUG Forum Urban Gardening GD GoodIssue nonprofit Ltd. IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services KPI Key Performance Indicator MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research OOF Greater Oslo Council for Outdoor Recreation PLANET4B understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making RU Radboud University UNIPI University of Pisa WCMC UNEP-WCMC WP Work Package WS1 Workshop 1 WS2 Workshop 2 WS3 Workshop 3 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... v List of abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................ vi Executive summary ................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 2 Contextualising what we mean by a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework in PLANET4B .................................................................................................................. 4 3 The co-creation and composition of the third workshop .................................... 6 3.1 Meetings for co-creation and design .......................................................................... 7 3.2 The online format of the third workshop ................................................................... 8 4 Debating theoretical frameworks and their applicability in PLANET4B ............ 9 4.1 The Reflexivity-contextualisation Matrix (RCM) ........................................................ 9 4.2 The Leverage Points Framework (LPF) .................................................................... 13 4.3 From interventions to policy recommendations ..................................................... 16 5 Four “practical” lessons about using theoretical frameworks in transdisciplinary research ...................................................................................... 19 6 Conclusion and outlook ....................................................................................... 21 References ................................................................................................................ 23 Statement on data availability ................................................................................. 24 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................. 24 Annex ........................................................................................................................ 25 List of participants attending the third workshop (WS3) of Task 1.4, Work Package 1 (March 14th, 2024) ............................................................................................................. 25 2 Executive summary • This report summarises and reflects upon a third workshop within PLANET4B T1.4 aiming to discuss theories applicable to biodiversity decision-making. Previously, in the first workshop we debated a theory inventory and identified potentially applicable theoretical inputs. In the second, we explored which theories from an updated inventory have the potential to inform the work within each of the eleven case studies in the project. In the third workshop, we complemented our previous work by discussing two theoretical frameworks and their practical implications for the research process, planning of interventions, policy recommendations, and our communication activities. • The overall goal with these three workshops was to steer project-wide dialogues to make partners more aware of each other’s epistemologies, as well as to finetune the theoretical backbone informing the work in cases and in the project. • The third workshop was held online, and we produced audio-visual records and notes during the experience; these notes and audio-visual records were analysed qualitatively. • We explored the applicability of a “Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix”, and reflected on the ups and downs of the “Leverage Points Framework,” to find that, although both frameworks have been used in the project, it is important to complement them with other approaches to improve transdisciplinarity and inclusivity. • In the process, we learned four “practical” lessons from applying theoretical frameworks in transdisciplinary research; such lessons are linked to: 1) the practice of selecting interventions, 2) the research practice itself, 3) the practice of policy change, and 4) the practice of communication within and beyond the project. • These learning outcomes can be applicable to other research projects, particularly transdisciplinary ones, either during grant proposal writing or in more advanced stages of project development. • This is particularly relevant for biodiversity research in light of recent calls to bring plural voices and multiple ways of knowing toward more effective, just and equitable solutions to global biodiversity loss. 3 1 Introduction In PLANET4B, Work Package 1 (‘Understanding theories of decision making and intersectionality for a transdisciplinary framework of analysis’) steered a diverse constellation of partners working in intensive (place-based) and extensive (sectoral) case studies towards building mutual understanding about our different disciplines, experiences and background, while co-developing a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity (more information about the project’s case studies is available in Mendes et al., 2023b). WP1 involved a series of tasks to explore how biodiversity discourses, intersectionality, and social sciences theories have been/can be applied to biodiversity. In this context, the transdisciplinary diagnostic framework in development in WP1 aims to synthesise the work of all tasks. The purpose is to build knowledge on biodiversity decision-making to help us steer biodiversity prioritisation at different levels of change (intra-personal, inter-personal, and institutional). We use the term “diverse constellation of partners” to avoid the simplistic dichotomy between academics (or “scientists”) and practice-oriented partners, to make it clear that, in PLANET4B, we carry multiple identities and knowledge. Our project includes academics working in non-research institutions (NGOs, environmental organisations, etc.), practice professionals working in research universities, academics who are also activists, and many other lived experiences. Although we avoid the research-practice dichotomy, sometimes in this report we will refer to partners working on research activities as “research partners”, and to partners working on case study/learning community implementation as “practice partners”, for the sake of clarity. In this context, WP1 helped us connect and collaborate, aware of our ontological and epistemological diversity, as well as our rich experiences, identities and backgrounds. In this direction, Task 1.4 contributed to building mutual understanding, in line with epistemic justice, through a series of 3 workshops (WS1, WS2, WS3). Previously, in WS1 and WS2 we debated theories applicable to biodiversity decisionmaking, their commonalities and conflicting mechanisms. Building on that work, in WS3 we strived for pragmatism, in the most co-developed workshop so far. This time, not only WP1 and WP2 (“Mapping and advancing transformative and creative methodologies to trigger behavioural and institutional change”) but also WP3 (“Learning communities for transformative change”) and WP4 (“Synthesising transformative pathways and ensuring policy relevance") contributed to the co-creation and design. In WS3, we aimed to discuss a selected number of frameworks and their implication for practice. 10 Figure 1. The Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM). Source: Soliev et al. (2023, p.13). The RCM is, thus, a prescriptive framework that connects intervention methods with the type of transformation they might entail. To understand how the RCM connects with the work we are conducting in PLANET4B, in WS3 we discussed the question: “What were the strengths and limitations of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix for identifying interventions in your case?” Workshop participants were curious about the potential of the RCM. Some have observed that the RCM helps to reflect on the level of change that every case study wants to address with their interventions. For example, the framework can support discussions between partners within case studies: “I think the matrix is quite useful also for reflecting within the group. (…) We were hugely discussing and came up with some additional new conclusions regarding what, for example, our living lab, where it could be placed within the matrix and what actually would be an institutional change intervention. So, for that, I think it’s quite useful.” A participant from another case study observed that the RCM is applicable to assess interventions in use: 11 “[…] The RCM is a useful means in which we can position the case study and consider potential interventions. Whilst the tool was not used to select our interventions, it has been useful as a point of reference for reflecting on the interventions we are using.” Nevertheless, most of the comments in this session of WS3 were dedicated to the points in which the RCM can be improved. For some, the RCM helps to understand nudging methods, but it is still necessary to clarify what exactly a nudging intervention is. In the framework, it is not clear why nudging was associated with institutional change. “The framework was a bit confusing. For example, for me nudging is interpersonal, so I was confused that it was placed in institutional change.” Most cases have not yet used the RCM to select or fine-tune their current intervention methods. In fact, some cases knew from previous research what kind of interventions they would be applying in their case study, as a case study researcher observed: “We decided for interventions based on knowledge of the system and the actual context. The methods were chosen based on what we were familiar with and, consequently, knowledge on how to adapt them to our specific needs in the case study, and finally according to the skills needed for the implementation.” In this case, researchers did not design the intervention according to the RCM because they were familiar with the aim of the case study from the start. Another place-based case3 researcher questioned the timing for introducing the RCM in PLANET4B, which might have hindered its applicability to inform the work in cases during the initial stages of research, as the comment below exemplifies: “[…] The whole framework was proposed at the beginning. This framework was based on initial work, some ideas are no longer applicable (…). The framework might be useful for the initial ideas, but we did not really use it.” The RCM is a product of PLANET4B and was developed within the first year of the project, therefore, it was not introduced in the beginning of PLANET4B. It was introduced in the deliverable D2.1 (Soliev et al., 2023), and a WP2 workshop was held in Berlin in January 2024 to discuss the matrix. Regardless, the issue of timing for introducing the framework appeared in other comments. While the aforementioned comments came from place-based cases, sector-based cases4 were careful about the extent to which the RCM might inform interventions. For some, the RCM was less used due to a lack of resources to implement direct interventions: 3 Please, see Mendes et al. (2023b) for more information on what the term place-based case study means in the context of PLANET4B. 4 Please, see Mendes et al. (2023b) for more information on what the term sector-based case study means in the context of PLANET4B. 12 “How we consider the knowledge we are generating in our case could be implemented as interventions later because one of the struggles we have is also the lack of time and resources to actually design an intervention, even though we are not required to as an extensive sector case. (…) I have worked more at an institutional policy instrument level, and it helped me to think more about the interface between policy instruments, intervention and the scale.” The comment above highlights the complexity of imagining interventions in extensive case studies, which are more focused on “traditional” social sciences research methods, such as interviews and literature reviews. Extensive cases are required to “engage directly” with processes and communities (e.g. in the context of the Stakeholder Board), but most of these cases do not plan interventions at the local level. Yet, it does not mean that these cases are not applying interventions. To clarify this, it is worth revisiting the specific interpretation of “intervention” in PLANET4B’s directory of intervention methods: “[…] the term “intervention method” is used in connection with the directory to refer to methods supportive of triggering a change. Classical interventions include regulatory (laws), market-based (policies with incentives, taxes), and advisory-voluntary (education, awareness raising, etc.) interventions. Interventions also include methods aimed at changing people’s perception, understanding, attitude and/or behaviour. Our focus, in compiling the directory, has been on identifying methods capable of intervening in this latter grouping.” (Soliev et al., 2023, p.3). Taking this into account, two things seem fundamental. First, interventions (broadly defined) are different from intervention methods. Interventions can be market-based, regulatory-based, advisory-voluntary, or targeting behavioural change. For each of these types, we can use specific “intervention methods.” In PLANET4B, intensive cases focus on interventions triggering behavioural change. Therefore, the directory provided by Soliev et al. (2023) targets “intervention methods” applicable to the specific intervention categories in which PLANET4B focuses on: arts & deliberative methods, nudging, framing and serious games. Although extensive cases are much more focused on market-based or regulatory-based interventions, these cases can apply other types of interventions as well. This leads us to a second observation: in PLANET4B, not only intensive cases but also extensive cases are encouraged to try out behavioural change interventions. For cases not involving place-based processes or communities, intervention methods can be used with their respective Stakeholder Boards, for example. Stakeholder Boards are diverse groups of people working together with extensive cases, ideally involving representatives from business, government, environmental NGOs, media, and academic sectors (see Mendes et al., 2023b) for more information on Stakeholder Boards). Another group of comments during this session of WS3 suggested that the RCM can lead to exclusions of colleagues with professional backgrounds that do not speak the same language as the ones traditionally used in academic research. Others, still, 13 observed that the RCM can lead to exclusions of disciplines that do not speak the same language as the disciplines from which the RCM arises. To cope with these challenges, some participants suggested that a longer explanation about how to implement the intervention methods, like the ones represented in the RCM, would be helpful. In this direction, another training session could be applied. 4.2 The Leverage Points Framework (LPF) The Leverage Points Framework (LPF) was introduced by Donnela Meadows (1997) to identify how to change or transform a social system. The LPF has been widely applied in the field of environmental sciences. “In considering how to influence the behaviour of a system, Meadows identified twelve leverage points ranging from ‘shallow’—places where interventions are relatively easy to implement yet bring about little change to the overall functioning of the system—to ‘deep’ leverage points that might be more difficult to alter but potentially result in transformational change.” (Absol et al., 2017, p.31). Figure 2. The Leverage Points framework. Source: Abson et al. (2017). This framework can be helpful in identifying where to target interventions (which levels, which parts of the system, etc.), what kinds of interventions, and what are the potential system-level outcomes of interventions. Across WP1 we have used the LPF to reflect about interventions. However, this framework has been applied in different ways in the project. So, in this part of WS3, we discussed the strengths and limits of this framework in the context of informing the work in cases and helping to craft interventions. We were guided by the following question: “What are the strengths and limitations of the Leverage Points Framework (LPF) for understanding cases’ potential interventions?” 14 Others observed that the LPF can guide reflections about the knowledge generated from the research within cases. This is illustrated in the comment below, by a workshop participant who agreed to take notes during break-out room discussions: “[…] They [workshop participants in a break-out room] realised that the initial interventions they had wanted to go with were quite shallow by looking at the leverage points. I think they were much more geared towards the shallow leverage point and so the leverage points framework helped them to think about this deeper aspect of knowledge that they seek to produce. And then target a rather much higher leverage point.” Furthermore, we discussed if the LPF could potentially be used to cluster cases, for example, by types of LPs (deeper or shallower) cases are focused on. However, commenting on the work in progress for the development of the transdisciplinary diagnostic framework, a researcher observed that this is not possible yet, at the current stage of the project: “[…] When we started to use the leverage points framework as a diagnostic tool, one hypothesis was that there would be some kind of pattern emerging between, for example, place-based and sector-based cases. (…) And honestly, there's none. Although we do not have all the (case study) dialogues in yet, there's no clear pattern emerging.” This aspect reflects a series of other challenges that were raised during this session. One example is the fact that the LPF overlooks power relations: “[…] So, community change, and changes in the community, was a limitation that was generally recognised. The framework does not include power structures and power relations.” In this direction, others suggested that the LPF can be a hindrance for colleagues that do not work with the lenses of the systems thinking approach, from which the framework emerged. The comment below summarises this well, from the perspective of another note-taker concluding discussions from break-out rooms in the plenary session: “[…] they [workshop participants in a break-out room] have different disciplinary backgrounds. They found it difficult to understand the language being used in the framework, and they realise that there would be the need for interpretation of the framework. (…) it's kind of complicated to use it at the beginning, when you don't have a background on system theory, or you are not familiarised with it, or you are working with people from outside the academia.” A researcher commented further that the LPF focuses too much on materiality, so, it lacks tools to assess subjective aspects, such as those connected to religion: “I think the LPF focuses a lot on materials, but it was very difficult to include religion. I am still struggling with it. Flows, parameters, feedbacks: 15 is all imagination. Religious beliefs do not modulate behaviour by themselves, everything is connected.” Another limitation is related to the challenge of using the LPF to help inform policy design. A workshop participant noted that: “When actually thinking about the leverage points framework, ok, now we have the diagnosis, let's start to think about how to design a policy or how to select a policy. There is nothing there. It doesn't tell you about it. It doesn't tell you what kind of policy instruments to use or what kind of actors should be mobilised.” A practice partner working on an intensive case study observed that the LPF is difficult to use in the analysis of materials produced in their case: “[…] we got hundreds of post-its in our workshops. We tried to map using the LPF and it was very hard. Mainly as a non-academic. I was not looking at policy specifically, but classifying leverage points was difficult. Sometimes we selected policy recommendations. Maybe a good idea would be to discuss it with someone, doing it alone was very difficult. For example, information flows. We can look at them within the learning communities (communication with each other, sharing updates). That is different from the information flows mentioned by Meadows. She thinks of it as a system rather than a working group.” One positive aspect about the LPF is its practical applicability for developing methodological approaches to analyse the data produced within cases. For example, code categories to analyse interview transcripts. A researcher working in an extensive case described how they have been using the LPF: “[…] we used this framework to analyse our interviews. We used it as code, and it went very well. The interviewees mentioned implicitly many leverage points. It’s “brain work” to interpret the stakeholders’ words.” Given the above mentioned, one key outcome from this session of WS3 is that the LPF is useful as a theoretical and methodological guideline for those working with, or able to adapt their work to the epistemologies of systems thinking. Yet, the LPF is limited when it comes to some aspects which are fundamental in PLANET4B. For example, (1) in the context of cases, the LPF does not provide tools to analyse how just or equitable the adopted interventions are. Moreover, (2) it is based on a human-nature dichotomy. It implies that humans are “engineers of change,” whereas the Natural system is objectified. As a consequence, the agency of the Natural system is disregarded. (3) The LPF is also very hierarchic – institutions, social structures, and the values of individuals are considered segregated or stratified levels which do not communicate with each other. Relationships of co-constitution between these different levels are neglected. Who can guarantee that interventions in a shallow LP (for example, LP 12 – parameters, at the institutional level) will not have an impact on deeper LPs (for example, LP 2 – mindsets, at the individual level)? 16 In a nutshell, the LPF needs fine-tuning and more reflection on including intersectionality and power relations in our current efforts in PLANET4B. 4.3 From interventions to policy recommendations How can theoretical frameworks, such as RCM and LPF explored in the two previous subsections, be applicable in more practical terms, in a way that is relevant for PLANET4B? In this subsection, we use the example of practical approaches to policies in case studies to begin exploring this question. We are aware that this work will be developed in much more detail and depth in WP4. Thus, this section explores only some very preliminary dimensions of how cases have been approaching policy, as well as if (and how) theoretical frameworks have been supporting such activities. We started this session of WS3 by observing that policies can be interpreted in many ways, from local interventions at the city level, affecting some neighbourhoods and social groups, to global regulations affecting entire sectors. Considering this broader conceptualisation of policy, we invited participants to an open reflection about our approaches to policy in case studies. Inspired by Nijmegen’s “stories of change” (see Mendes et al., 2023a), and also considering the case-by-case dialogues coordinated by NINA in the weeks preceding WS3, the following question animated the reflection: “What sort of approaches are you taking at the moment to identify specific policy interventions in your case?” In the open plenary, a researcher working on the extensive case “Trade and global value chains” commented on the approach to policy change in this case: “[…] we do not depart, in our case, from recommending a policy in itself, but from recommending changes in the European Deforestation-free products Regulation, a policy that is already there.” This means that, we have at least two types of policy approaches: while some cases might provide recommendations concerning the needs of new policies, others might come up with adjustments in existing policy instruments at the EU level. Following, a practice partner working on the intensive case “Opening Nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom (DC/CU)” commented on the approach to policy in the context of this case: “I just wanted to sort of give a perspective from where we are [in terms of policy interventions]. So, Geeta [scholar and practitioner working on the same case study] and I are quite fortunate in the sense that, through our contacts with Dadima’s, we already have contacts within Natural England, which is a government body, and DEFRA, which is also a government body. More locally, we have contacts with the Local Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. And even beyond some of the work we are doing directly, we've been contacted by local museums, at least two different museums who are interested in the work we're doing. Not necessarily specifically on biodiversity, but on trying to engage with minorities, and through that we feel that we will have an opportunity to influence policy and decisionmaking. So, some of the contacts we have within Natural England are 17 quite senior and they have even been on a number of our walks. They know exactly what we do, and they are also familiar with the work we are doing with the PLANET4B project. So, there already is a knock-on effect and we are already starting to get them to think about some of the work we're doing and how they can take that away to potentially shape their policy.” The example above highlights a potential strategy on how to approach policymakers. Accordingly, it is possible to work with “policy champions” to trigger change at the local level, with the potential to scale out results to EU contexts and beyond. Commenting on the quoted example, the coordinator of WP4 (“Synthesising transformative pathways and ensuring policy relevance“) observed that: “In your case, it sounds like you're very fortunate to essentially have good relations with key champions working in those government bodies. And it really so often comes down to having those key champions to drive that work forward and influence that type of policy change.” Yet, it is important that the policy champions approach share pro-biodiversity values, as mentioned by the practice partner: “So, it's not just about finding the right people or people in those positions, but it's about finding people in those positions that have similar interests and that makes it a double positive.” Subsequently, a researcher working on the place-based case “Edible City and Inclusion in Graz”, introduced another dimension to policy change, based on the experience in their case study: “[…] we have this kind of Living Lab, and it is framed as Biodiverse Edible City. The idea behind this is to better integrate existing policy strategies into something which would be a kind of joint policy strategy, tackling the planning of green spaces and the planning of food provision. So, the food landscape in the city of Graz, and also social justice issues, we are linking to quite concrete strategies which are right now under development. One is the Biodiversity Strategy for the city of Graz. The city of Graz is the first city in Austria to translate the national strategy into a municipality strategy. There's another strategy of relevance currently in discussion. It takes a bit longer than originally thought. It's the Sustainable Food and Agriculture Strategy. (…) We are doing that by carrying out interviews with the people in charge of those strategies and being involved in the implementation and activities of those strategies in order to understand how the processes are working. (…) What we would like to suggest is more integrated processes, so, attempting that different departments work closer together. On the other hand, we are analysing the policy documents to figure out potential overlapping. (…) We would like to elaborate on recommendations, how the planning of such an edible city could be organised differently in terms of tapping different knowledge sources, communities, knowledge and participatory processes.” 18 The WP4 coordinator highlighted that this case could generate crucial lessons about policy coherence, scalable to other EU contexts: “I can definitely already see, you know, one of the key outcomes here being improved policy coherence, right? And I think that's an issue right across the EU. Across the globe, in fact. And there could be some really interesting lessons from that case study that can be scaled up to other places.” In the context of the place-based case “Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway”, social groups targeted for interventions, including children with disabilities and immigrants, have already a certain level of collective organisation to access nature, as noted by a researcher involved in this case: “We know from statistics that when it comes to nature use, adults participate less in all sorts of different activities that have to do with experiences in nature. Also, access is of course more difficult for children or youth with disability. (…) [Our case is working on] integrating both immigrants and people with disabilities, different groups in society, and they are already quite organised.” Moreover, access to policy stakeholders has been a challenge, as noted by a researcher working on the case “Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EUNorway”: “I must say the one thing we struggle with, which is more general, is that NINA, as a biodiversity Research Institute, has never before worked with the finance sector, and it's very hard for us to find policy entry points.” This might be a hindrance for devising policy recommendations and implementing interventions. Finishing this part of WS3, the WP4 lead observed that it is crucial to focus on the enabling factors (facilitating policy change), even in cases when access to certain actors/stakeholders is difficult. Additionally, the institutional context is another important factor (how strong institutions are, in the context of each case?) while reflecting upon strategies to trigger pro-biodiversity policy change. “We look at the experiences of the case studies, and we're taking lessons out of that. It is important to really focus on what some of the enabling factors were in ensuring that these interventions were more successful than, I think, this sort of issue around who you're engaging with. And also, how invested they are, and how strong that institution already is.” Based on the above, we identify some key points to consider in the policy activities in WP4. During this session, intensive cases were much more eager to share their experiences than extensive cases, possibly because they are endowed with more capabilities and resources due to the place-based nature of their cases. The issue of access seems fundamental here, because extensive cases are working with sectoral policies at the national, EU and/or international level, which often makes it challenging 19 to have direct contact with policymakers. As regards intensive cases, it looks like the challenge is different: there is much variation in the types of approaches (e.g. some cases are focusing on policy coherence and integration, others on policy champions; others, still, on bottom-up political mobilisations and social-organisation targeting specific intersectional identities – e.g. associations of people with migrant background, or associations of parents of children with disabilities). This will be addressed in WP4, where tailor-made policy advice will be provided, in order to support cases and formulate policy-relevant messages. 5 Four “practical” lessons about using theoretical frameworks in transdisciplinary research In this part, we introduce and discuss four key lessons from WS3. We term them “practical” lessons because they are related to the applicability of theoretical frameworks on everyday activities in the context transdisciplinary projects. These “practical” lessons can help us select and apply theoretical frameworks in transdisciplinary research. For each lesson, we also point risks that can emerge with the use of such frameworks, potentially jeopardising their usefulness. We ground the discussion on the empirical results from the previous section, in the context of the case studies and PLANET4B more broadly. Based on what we have learned in WS3, as well as in previous workshops, how can transdisciplinary case studies make use of theoretical frameworks in their daily work? What can we learn from the experiences in PLANET4B thus far about the practicality of using theoretical frameworks in transdisciplinary research? Lesson 1: Theoretical frameworks can be useful in the practice of selecting and reflecting about interventions, but such frameworks might be introduced time-wisely, and explained clearly. In PLANET4B, to a certain extent, cases have used the LPF and the RCM frameworks to select, or at least to reflect about, interventions. Some cases are using the RCM to inspire conversations and fine-tune current activities, involving both “research partners” and “practice partners” in the decision-making process about next steps in the implementation of interventions. With the use of the LPF, some cases became more aware of “where” to target their interventions (individual, community, or institutional level), as the framework helps to connect “places to intervene” with expected impact. Nevertheless, some factors might hinder the usefulness of theoretical frameworks in the process of selecting or fine-tuning interventions. One such factor is the timing of introduction of a given framework in the project. If too late, when cases have already selected some interventions, frameworks such as the RCM face the risk of being used only for reflexivity purposes. If too early, such as the LPF (which was proposed in the grant application), the framework might be considered a straitjacket that hinders more creative alternatives. Another factor is how well are such frameworks explained, and understood, project-wide. Difficulties in explaining or understanding theoretical frameworks might reduce their perceived value in intervention practices. Lesson 2: Theoretical frameworks can be applicable to the practice of transdisciplinary research (processes and methods), yet it is important to have flexibility on how to apply such frameworks, to avoid using them as straitjackets. In PLANET4B, some cases have used the LPF to create code categories to analyse interview transcripts. Moreover, through a series of activities, such as storytelling exercises (see Mendes et al., 2023a), cases engaged with the LPF to identify and better understand which