Report on training for case study facilitators on deploying methods. Report No D2.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B

BETTER DECISIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND PEOPLE Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B REPORT ON TRAINING FOR CASE STUDY FACILITATORS ON DEPLOYING METHODS 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 D2.3 Deliverable title Report on training for case study facilitators on deploying methods Task leader Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU) Corresponding author Ilkhom Soliev Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description The report on the training for handing over the fine-tuned intervention methods to the case-study partners, as well as preparing a catalogue of transformative intervention methods and synthesis of lessons. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 29/01/2024 Authors: Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler (MLU) 1.0 Final 31/01/2024 Reviewer: Lindy Binder (CU) 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 Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Vladislav Artiukhov (CGE); Zoltán Balla (GD); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Geraldine Brown (CU); Rafal P. Chudy (NINA); Ben Cook (CU); Maria Csikai (GD); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Sam Gray (Rare), Sandra Karner (IFZ); Nargiza Khudaynazarova (CGE); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Viktória Monhor (GD); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); Patricia Ofori-Amanfo (CG), Michał Pająk (WUEB), Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL ); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Anna Schellroth (MLU); Barbara Smith (CU); David Steinwender (IFZ) Recommended citation Soliev, I., Franklin A., Zolyomi, A., & Wähler, T (2024). Report on training for case study facilitators on deploying methods. Report No D2.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15471751 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 all training participants for their time and willingness to share information, experiences and opinions. Special thanks go to the PLANET4B case study partners, without whose commitment the training would not have been possible. v List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition BCD Behavioural Centred Design BCF Ben Cook Filmmaker CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CGE Culture Goes Europe CU Coventry University DC Dadima's CIC. ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FUG Forum Urban Gardening GD Good Issue Ltd. IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research PLANET4B understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making Rare Center for Behavior and the Environment RU Radboud University UNEP-WCMC UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNIPI University of Pisa Work Package WP WUEB Wroclaw University of Economics and Business 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iv List of abbreviations and acronyms ......................................................................... v Executive summary ................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction to the training .................................................................................... 2 2 Three sets of intervention methods at the training ............................................. 3 2.1 Creative, arts-based, deliberative intervention methods ......................................... 4 2.2 Attention, framing, and nudging experiments ......................................................... 10 2.3 Interventions based on experiential games and debriefing ................................... 11 3 Key takeaways from the training and outlook .................................................... 14 References ................................................................................................................ 15 Statement on data availability ................................................................................. 16 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................. 16 Annex ........................................................................................................................ 17 2 Executive summary • Halting or reversing biodiversity loss requires intervention methods that go beyond conventional (laws and regulations, markets and incentives, information) intervention methods. • Creative, arts-based, deliberative methods promote conscious, intentional, reflexive change; attention, framing, and nudging experiments are particularly useful for shaping default choices and habitual change. • Three intervention methods sets were explored, experienced, and analysed at the PLANET4B training for case study facilitators: creative, arts-based, deliberative; attention, framing, nudging experiments; experiential learning games and debriefing. • The specific intervention methods included creative and participatory filmmaking, a collective and experimental shopping and cooking challenge, a behaviour-centred-design approach for achieving behaviour change, a newly developed biodiversity-food-governance game and debriefing. • Thirty representatives from 18 organisations, including three additional experts specialised in one of the featured methods sets, participated in the training. • Experiential learning games and debriefing tend to combine these two emphases of social change but are more resource intensive to implement. • Overall, the case study facilitators found all three sets of the intervention methods useful, and the discussions generated further reflections confirming the suitability of the tested methods for biodiversity prioritisation. 1 Introduction to the training One of PLANET4B's working hypotheses is that societies at all levels – individual, community, institutional – need transformative change in order to halt or reverse the alarming rates of biodiversity loss in equitable ways (D2.1). To address this need, PLANET4B has been working on intervention methods that go beyond traditional approaches (laws and regulations, markets and incentives, information) and can be piloted and implemented with the resources and capacities of the involved case study Learning Communities and their Stakeholder Boards (D3.1). This document reports on the training for case study facilitators for deploying the three sets of intervention methods: creative, arts-based, deliberative; attention, framing, nudging experiments; and experiential learning games and debriefing. The training that took place 17–19 January 2024 in Berlin, Germany, was attended by 27 representatives of the PLANET4B consortium from the organisations CG, CGE, CU, DC, ESSRG, FiBL, FUG, GD, IFZ, MLU, NINA, RU, UNEP-WCMC, UNIPI, as well as three additional experts (Rare, WUEB and BCF, respectively specialists in each of the methods sets selected for the training). We continue by providing the project-related background to the training before reporting on the implementation of the three sets of intervention methods. We then highlight the key findings of the event and conclude with an outlook. 3 2 Three sets of intervention methods at the training Over the course of the project, the PLANET4B consortium, particularly Task 2.1 of the project, has been conducting three different types of review: (1) review of the theories of behavioural and institutional change that could particularly be helpful to explain change or lack of it in the biodiversity domain (Task 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4); (2) review of the context and needs in the case studies that focused on placeor sector-specific intersectionality dimensions, biodiversity problems, various intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional barriers and opportunities for prioritising biodiversity in decision-making (D3.1); and (3) review of intervention methods: creative, arts-based, deliberative; attention, framing, nudging experiments; and experiential learning games and debriefing (conceptualised in Fig. 1, adapted from D2.1). Based on the iterative process where respective Task Leads learned from partners and continuously refined their review results, a training event was planned for month 15 of the project aimed at developing the capacities of case study facilitators for deploying the methods in their case study. The key objectives of the training were to gain hands-on experience with the key methods sets, have space for critical reflection about them, discuss their suitability/application in the case studies, and develop specific facilitation knowledge and skills. These key objectives have shaped the co-developed agenda of the training (see Annex) and the structure of this report. The following subsections explain briefly the idea of the methods sets in focus, the key activities carried out at the training, and conclusions specific to these methods sets. We then provide our key takeaways from this workshop and outlook. 4 Figure 1. Reflexivity-Contextualisation-Matrix (RCM). Source: Soliev et al. (2023). 2.1 Creative, arts-based, deliberative intervention methods Methods from the social sciences and humanities, which encompass deliberative, creative, and arts-based approaches, present a promising avenue for fostering deeper public dialogue and individual as well as collective reflexivity. These methods offer a means to challenge assumptions that both individuals and societies all too often accept unquestioningly. Embracing socially inclusive research practices and acknowledging the value of diverse forms of knowledge, while remaining mindful of power dynamics and the intersections of social structures that perpetuate inequalities (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014), such methods aim to facilitate the co-creation of new interpretations and insights into social-ecological relationships and vulnerabilities. This in turn has the potential to engender novel approaches to problem-solving and behaviour (Franklin, 2022). Individual examples of such creative, deliberative and arts-based methods include storytelling, guided poetry walks, immersive role-playing experiences and citizen juries, all of which encourage alternative and critically reflexive perspectives on 11 observable; publicly broadcast who has not engaged in the target behaviour; provide a way for people to show they are displaying the desired behaviour; encourage public commitments (e.g. public signing of agreements). Figure 5. Training participants during the workshop delivered by Rare on Day 2. Source: Authors' own work. Sam invited participants to take part in an upcoming meeting in February with the Center for Behavior and the Environment at Rare to pose any specific questions they may have regarding experiments in their own cases and directed them to browse more materials and cases on Rare’s website (behavior.rare.org). 2.3 Interventions based on experiential games and debriefing In the biodiversity domain where actions of individual actors are not easily linked to the consequences of these actions, it is a particular challenge to prioritise biodiversity, especially in the face of tangible and short-term individual benefits. Complexity of the resource system, where causal processes have difficulty of attribution and are lengthy, makes monitoring and control of any external measures very costly. Hence, internalisation of norms that improve prioritisation of biodiversity in decision making, despite the uncertainty inherent to complex systems, are particularly important for sustaining biodiversity. Experiential behavioural games have been increasingly discussed in the literature as a promising intervention method to facilitate internalisation of such norms through changes in mental models and social learning. Yet developing a game is both a theoretical and practical challenge on its own as decisions must be made on myriad features of a game that can influence its outcomes both within and beyond the game, ranging from those on game narrative and experience to those on game rules and importance of player attributes 12 (see Falk et al., 2023). As part of the training, we have tested a game designed to trigger change in mental models and norms in relation to biodiversity and agriculture, integrating dilemmas that occur between an individual and group, between various groups, and between the society as a whole and important issues such as biodiversity loss. Importantly the session also included a debriefing session to allow participants to review, process, debate their experiences in the game and therewith have an opportunity to transform these experiences into learning relevant for real-life action. Figure 6. Training participants during the games session on Day 2. Source: Authors' own work. Further, building on the example from the games session, we had a separate session dedicated to understanding the importance of debriefing. Here the focus was on why debriefing is important: its elements, and practicalities not to be underestimated. The session was largely motivated by the experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984; Kolb and Kolb, 2008) that stresses how knowledge is created through the transformation of experience (Figure2). It is in fact argued that debriefing is the most important point of learning from the use of games and simulations (Thatcher, 1990) although surprisingly underapplied and underreported (Crookall, 2011). 13 Figure 7. The Experiential Learning Cycle. Source: Kolb and Kolb (2008). Important elements of debriefing include guiding participants through an experience and looking at the impact through recollections and reporting in a given time (Lederman, 1992). Participants experience, express, examine and explore going through different phases of the debriefing: 1) Systematic reflection and analysis 2) Intensification and personalisation 3) Generalisation and application Beyond the theory, facilitators of games need to keep in mind practicalities for conducting a good debriefing. This can include the fact that debriefings can include informal discussions, while often the main questions need to be structured in advance. One could also conduct debriefing in the form of written reports and commentary on the experience, as well as in a form that mixes a written individual reflection with group discussion. It is recommended to have a logical but flexible order of topics with a focus on research questions; use comprehensible and relevant language, avoid leading questions, record “facesheet” information (name, age, gender, position, etc.); make yourself familiar with the participants, make sure you have a compelling answer for potential questions; get a reliable tape recorder and microphone (tested). It is also important to have a quiet setting and learn how to be a successful facilitator – be knowledgeable, structuring, clear, gentle, sensitive, open, steering, critical, remembering, interpreting (adapted from Bryman, 2016). Facilitators should also think of types of questions (e.g. tell us about, what do you mean by that, what happened next, etc.). When beginning and finishing it is important to have an introduction: thank people, outline format, ethical issues, demographic information and with closing remarks, thank people again, explain what happens to the data and if there are any follow up events. Perhaps most importantly, after thinking about both the theory and practicalities, the facilitators should reflect on the level of their involvement. This may differ but generally some balance is recommended – ask a small number of general questions allowing a free rein to participants, intervene when discussion is going off track, respond to potentially interesting points. A discussion is followed among the 14 participants about experiences and recommendations including the consideration of intercultural aspects, intersectionality, biases and managing emotions and conflicts. In addition to the original case study where the games were planned to be implemented (Urban Youth, intersectionality and nature – Germany), several other participants expressed interest in using this intervention method for their case studies or as part of their courses offered at the universities (e.g. Italy to support discussions about fashion and biodiversity, Austria to support discussions about food and biodiversity). The importance of debriefing as a method to transform experience into knowledge has been supported virtually by all participants. 3 Key takeaways from the training and outlook The objectives of the training were to gain hands-on experience with the key methods sets, have space for critical reflection about them, discuss their suitability/application in the case studies, and develop specific facilitation knowledge and skills. The feedback has been very positive in terms of achieving these objectives. Most participants had positive feeling about the training using the words “great”, “happy” and “inspired”. Some comments reflecting the intensity of the training and expressed that they were “tired” or “challenged”. Further comments indicated that participants were “more equipped”, “ready to take action” or “invigorated”. A key point raised at the end of the training was that at least some of the partners needed to think and talk more about the details of implementation in the case studies. Relevant questions associated with how best to implement one or more of the method sets in their respective case studies (e.g. how to integrate surveys and interviews into the interventions) were discussed and where possible clarified on the spot. It was agreed that the decisions must be made within the next weeks, while further details will be continuously discussed within the next workshops of the project (e.g. systems mapping planned within intensive case studies in the next months, etc.), and/or bilaterally between the partners and coordination team. Overall, to the best knowledge of the authors of this report, this was the first training focused on non-conventional social interventions in the biodiversity domain, inclusive of an intersectional lens. Both the organisers and the participants found it very informative, while continuously critically reflecting on each method, their fit for the individual case studies, potential risks and other limitations. The event reinforced the confidence of the project team that the lessons from the upcoming implementation of the interventions will be of high relevance for increasing knowledge, as well as practical “know-how”, on how biodiversity can be better prioritised in decision-making at multiple – from individual to institutional – levels. 15 References Balmford, A., Bradbury, R. B., Bauer, J. M., Broad, S., Burgess, G., Burgman, M., ... & Nielsen, K. S. (2021). Making more effective use of human behavioural science in conservation interventions. Biological Conservation, 261, 109256. DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109256. Crookall, D. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 898–920. DOI 10.1177/1046878110390784. Deutsch, S., Keller, R., Krug, C. B. & Michel, A. H. (2023). Transdisciplinary transformative change: an analysis of some best practices and barriers, and the potential of critical social science in getting us there. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(11), 1–26. DOI 10.1007/s10531-023-02576-0. Falk, T., Zhang, W., Meinzen-Dick, R., Bartels, L., Sanil, R., Priyadarshini, P., & Soliev, I. (2023). Games for experiential learning: triggering collective changes in commons management. Ecology and Society, 28(1), 1–30. DOI 10.5751/ES-13862-280130. Franklin, A. (2022) Co-Creativity and Engaged Scholarship: Transformative Methods in Social Sustainability Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kaijser, A., & Kronsell, A. (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environmental Politics, 23(3), 417–433. DOI 10.1080/09644016.2013.835203. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Sadle River: Prentice Hall. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297–327. DOI 10.1177/1046878108325713. Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 145–160. DOI 10.1177/1046878192232003. Mannay, D. (2015). Visual, narrative and creative research methods: Application, reflection and ethics. London, New York: Routledge. Soliev, I., Franklin, A., Zolyomi, A., Smith, B., & Brown, G. (2023). Directory of key methods most suitable for biodiversity decision-making contexts. Report No D2.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15470806 Thatcher, D. C. (1990). Promoting learning through games and simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 21(3), 262–273. DOI 10.1177/1046878190213005. Wiles, R., Coffey, A., Robinson, J., & Heath, S. (2012). Anonymisation and visual images: issues of respect,‘voice’and protection. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(1), 41–53. DOI 10.1080/13645579.2011.564423. 16 Statement on data availability Data used to produce this report include documents sent by cases and shared with all project members via SharePoint. None of these data sources is publicly available since they include personal data from participants. Statement on ethics This report does include pictures from the workshop’s participants of many of the case studies. According to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU), names of individuals are personal data. The necessary consent forms have been sent to all participants upon them agreeing to participate in the PLANET4B project, requesting them to sign an authorisation for their pictures to be included in this report. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. 17 Annex List of participants # Participants Institution 1 Vladislav Artiukhov CGE 2 Zoltán Balla GD 3 Marta Bonetti UNIPI 4 Céire Booth UNEP-WCMC 5 Geraldine Brown CU 6 Rafal P. Chudy NINA 7 Ben Cook BCF 8 Maria Csikai GD 9 Kármen Czett ESSRG 10 Alex Franklin CU 11 Sam Gray Rare 12 Sandra Karner IFZ 13 Nargiza Khudaynazarova CGE 14 Geeta Ludhra DC 15 Subash Ludhra DC 16 Vinícius Mendes RU 17 Viktória Monhor GD 18 Andreas Motschiunig FUG 19 Pedro Navarro Gambín UNIPI 20 Patricia Ofori-Amanfo CG 21 Michał Pająk WUEB 22 Ammalia Podlaszewska CGE 23 Ghezal Sabir FiBL 24 Zafar Saydaliev CGE 25 Anna Schellroth MLU 26 Barbara Smith CU 27 Ilkhom Soliev MLU 28 David Steinwender IFZ 29 Torsten Wähler MLU 30 Agnes Zolyomi UNEP-WCMC