Inventory of behaviour science theories for biodiversity decision-making. Report No D1.2 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 — PLANET4B

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 D1.2 Deliverable title Inventory of behaviour science theories for biodiversity decision-making Task leader Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Corresponding author Hakon Aspoy Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description The report is the result of a systematic review of published literature on disciplinary approaches including behaviour and social sciences to provide an inventory of theories potentially applicable for influencing biodiversity decision-making. A complementary review of previous EU and global projects (grey literature) that have tested behavioural and decision-making interventions for biodiversity decision-making is also included. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 16/04/2023 Authors: Håkon Aspøy (NINA); Yennie Katarina Bredin (NINA); Berit Junker-Köhler (NINA). 0.2 Draft 18/04/2023 Reviewers: Alex Franklin (CU); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Agnes Zolyomi 0.3 Draft 26/04/2023 Authors: Håkon Aspøy (NINA); Yennie Katarina Bredin (NINA); Berit JunkerKöhler (NINA); David Nicholas Barton (NINA) 0.4 Draft 27/04/2023 Reviewers: Alex Franklin (CU); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Agnes Zolyomi 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 0.5 Draft 28/04/2023 Authors: Håkon Aspøy (NINA); Yennie Katarina Bredin (NINA); Berit Junker-Köhler (NINA); David Nicholas Barton (NINA) 1.0 Final 30/04/2023 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Gianluca Brunori ( UNIPI ); Alex Franklin (CU); Roberto Gronda ( UNIPI ); Robert Home (FiBL); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Sebastien Kaye; Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Julia Leventon (CG); Blanka Louckova (CG); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Patricia Ofori-Amanfo (CG); Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Mirjam Schleiffer (FiBL); Barbara Smith (CU); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Simeon Vaňo (CG); Daniele Vergamini ( UNIPI ); Matteo Villa ( UNIPI ); Agnes Zolyomi Recommended citation Aspøy, H., Bredin, Y. K., Köhler, B. J., & Barton, D. N. (2023). Inventory of behaviour science theories for biodiversity decision-making. Report No D1.2 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14870928 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 Task 1.2 team would like to thank all members of the PLANET4B consortium for taking their time to provide this deliverable with information on and insight into their theoretical approaches to decision-making in a biodiversity context, as well as information on key publications and research projects for the scope of Task 1.2, and PLANET4B in general. This deliverable would not have been possible without your assistance. 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information .............................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iv Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 2 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 2 Methodological approach ................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Selecting theoretical inputs and information on relevant projects ......................................... 4 2.2 Research question and review process .................................................................................. 6 3 Results ............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Findings from the peer-reviewed literature and book chapter review – inventory of theoretical input ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Findings from the grey literature review – project inventory ............................................... 13 3.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Process towards developing transdisciplinary diagnostic framework(s) for biodiversity interventions ............................................................................................................................ 17 4 Conclusion and outlook ................................................................................................. 18 References ....................................................................................................................... 19 Statement on data availability ......................................................................................... 19 Statement on ethics ......................................................................................................... 19 Annex ............................................................................................................................... 20 2 Executive summary • As part of facilitating a shared starting point for engaging with behavioural and decision-making approaches to biodiversity, the aim of Task 1.2 was to develop a framework of disciplinary approaches to biodiversity relevant decisionmaking. • To date, very limited information is available about what influences decisionmaking related to biodiversity. Therefore, there is an urgent need of information to better prioritise biodiversity in policy making and enable relevant stakeholders. • The aim of Task 1.2 was to map expertise and experience of theories and relevant concepts within the consortium and make it available to all partners. • We undertook two reviews of theoretical approaches to decision-making potentially relevant for biodiversity purposes in terms of relevant theoretical considerations and their application within global and European research projects. • While the first review focuses on peer-reviewed research publications and relevant theories; the second review focuses on other relevant research projects. • The reviews used the expert knowledge in the PLANET4B consortium with references to published book chapters, peer-reviewed literature and additional analysis of research projects. • Together, the two reviews yielded 63 relevant theories, frameworks, models, and concepts, and 12 relevant research projects. • Results were classified according to an intrapersonal-interpersonal-institutional gradient. • Interpersonal and institutional perspectives were the most represented in both inventories. 1 Introduction To transform policies to prioritise biodiversity loss, we primarily need to change the paradigms of systems that shape our behaviours and mindsets (Meadows, 1999) of key enabling actors and institutions across a wide range of sectors and at different scales. To change mindsets, we need to understand better what drives biodiversity related decisions and behaviour and how these are formed by deeper socialbehavioural constraints such as values, norms and the intersectionality of social structures (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014). We also need to understand how decisionmaking of individuals is shaped by institutional arrangements, broadly understood here as the informal and formal rules that guide human action (including policies and cultural and social norms). Based on the understanding of these complex systems we can develop and test adequate methods and pathways to trigger transformative governance to prioritise biodiversity. 3 In this report the project collects and classifies a range of frameworks1, theories2, models3, and concepts4 across a gradient of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional levels of intervention. PLANET4B’s wide range of interventions and choices of case studies are implicitly or explicitly built on a series of underlying discipline-specific theories of change, linking intervention design to biodiversity impact. Theoretical assumptions of behaviour and intersectionality along with leverage points (Meadows, 1999) need to be diagnosed early in the project to scope analytical commonalities and complementarities useful to move forward with the project, such as in comparing a wide range of case study findings and developing input for policy making. The process of collecting, classifying and comparing theories is also expected to promote transdisciplinary learning and understanding among the project partners. With this background, the objective of Task 1.2 was to provide an inventory of behaviouraland social science theories used by PLANET4B consortium partners in their work in the project. This can give insights about disciplinary assumptions about behaviour and decision-making that may influence biodiversity. A key element was to map these theories according to a gradient of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional approaches as one input to common working processes and a framework for promoting transdisciplinary thinking among partners. The inventory was based on a review of published literature on disciplinary approaches that was provided by the consortium members. A complementary review of grey literature was conducted to identify projects that had tested behavioural and decision-making interventions for biodiversity decision-making. Example projects were also classified according to the intrapersonal-interpersonal-institutional gradient. 1 The development and use of a general framework helps to identify the elements and relationships among these elements that one needs to consider for institutional analysis. Frameworks organise diagnostic and prescriptive inquiry. They provide the most general list of variables that should be used to analyse all types of institutional arrangements. Frameworks provide a metatheoretical language that can be used to compare theories. They attempt to identify the universal elements that any theory relevant to the same kind of phenomena would need to include. Many differences in surface reality can result from the way these variables combine or interact with one another. Thus, the elements contained in a framework help analysts generate the questions that need to be addressed when they first conduct an analysis (see Ostrom, 2019). 2 The development and use of theories enable the analyst to specify which elements of the framework are particularly relevant to certain kinds of questions and to make general working assumptions about these elements. Thus, theories focus on a framework and make specific assumptions that are necessary for an analyst to diagnose a phenomenon, explain its processes, and predict outcomes. Several theories are usually compatible with any framework. Economic theory, game theory, transaction cost theory, social choice theory, covenantal theory, and theories of public goods and common-pool resources are some examples (see Ostrom, 2019). 3 The development and use of models make precise assumptions about a limited set of parameters and variables. Logic, mathematics, game theory, experimentation and simulation, and other means are used to explore systematically the consequences of these assumptions in a limited set of outcomes. Multiple models are compatible with most theories. An effort to understand the strategic structure of the games that irrigators play in differently organised irrigation systems, for example, developed four families of models just to begin to explore the likely consequences of different institutional and physical combinations relevant to understanding how successful farmer organisations arranged for monitoring and sanctioning activities (see Ostrom, 2019). 4 "Concepts are the way that we make sense of the social world. They are essentially labels that we give to aspects of the social world that seem to have common features that strike us as significant. ... the social sciences have a strong tradition of concepts, many of which have become part of the language of everyday life. Concepts such as bureaucracy, power, social control, status, charisma, labour process, cultural capital... alienation, and so on are very much part of the theoretical edifice that generations of social scientists have constructed. Concepts are a key ingredient of theories. Indeed, it is almost impossible to imagine a theory that did not have at least one concept embedded in it” (Bryman, 2012, p.8). 4 2 Methodological approach 2.1 Selecting theoretical inputs and information on relevant projects The data material surveyed for this review consisted of published literature on behaviouraland social science theories potentially applicable for biodiversity related decision-making. Data collection was carried out in two separate processes. In the first process, peer-reviewed scientific articles, theoretically dealing with biodiversity related decision-making, were targeted. We focused this search on literature that was readily available about our target subject. Rather than doing a state-of-the-art systematic and comprehensive literature review with the aim of achieving externally valid generalisations, our aim was to map expertise and experience within the consortium and make it available to all partners. The approach taken here does in several ways correspond to what Paré et al. (2015) refer to as a narrative review (see also Davies, 2000). Our review also sought to determine certain trends or patterns within the body of literature that partners provided, in this case in the levels that theories and interventions could address for understanding or influencing biodiversity related decision-making (see Figure 1). Thereby, our approach also has elements resembling a descriptive review (King & He, 2005; Paré et al., 2015; Rumrill et al., 2010). Mapping and reviewing the expert knowledge about behaviouraland social science theoretical inputs that could influence or inform us about biodiversity related decisionmaking was done by involving the PLANET4B consortium. An invitation to the various partners was issued, asking for input on theories that they were familiar with and that could be relevant for biodiversity related decision-making. Partners were also asked to provide example publications that showcased the applicability of these theories. This was done for two primary reasons: (I) to utilise the rich expert resources available within the project, represented by its partners, and (II) to facilitate understanding among partners and set up a shared knowledge base of theoretical approaches for understanding decision-making potentially relevant for biodiversity. To complement the review of the consortium’s expertise, a second review of research projects was conducted using The Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS)5. This is the European Commission's “primary source of results from the projects funded by the [European Union’s] framework programmes for research and innovation”.6 Additional searches on Google were also carried out. Results were scanned and projects corresponding to the aim of Task 1.2 were recorded in a separate database. Results were classified according to a gradient of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional perspectives (see Figure 1 and Table 1). This gradient was developed for the proposal to enable mapping theoretical approaches at multiple levels. A multi-level approach to this subject is beneficial for two reasons. First, it can help increase a shared analytical understanding of the various conceptual levels on which project partners deal with behavioural change. Second, such an analytical understanding of the multiple levels on which behavioural change can occur is strategically important for 5 https://cordis.europa.eu/ 6 https://cordis.europa.eu/about/en 5 the output of PLANET4B and its uptake in policy (or other arenas of significance for biodiversity relevant decision-making). Figure 1. Classification of theories according to intrapersonal, interpersonal and institutional conceptual levels provides a common diagnostic framework for the project. Source: own elaboration. Moving forward in WP1 and towards Task 1.5, we will develop a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for case studies of biodiversity related decision-making. There, the classification of theories according to conceptual levels (Figure 1) will facilitate discussions with case studies about which theories of change underly their expectations about systems change, the biodiversity impact of interventions in their case, and their expectations about relevant policy recommendations. A common “leverage points” framework for PLANET4B may further help to identify assumptions about intervention design that are derived from theory or discipline specific assumptions (Figure 2). 12 motivation: behaviour) Human-nature interactions (ecopsychology) X X Normative conduct (influencing)/social norms X X Nudging X X X Prospect theory X X Psychological biases X X X Psychological theories X X Psychosocial frameworks X Salience X Theory of environmentally significant behaviour X Theory of planned behaviour X Value-action gap X X X 5E Model of Environmental Engagement (positive psychology) X Scienceand technology studies Co-production of knowledge X X Ontological politics X X Post-normal science X X Responsible research and innovation X X Social Ecology Leverage points for transformation X X 13 Sociology Community Action Research X Culturalevolutionary theory X X X Epistemologies of the South X Feminist care ethics X X Nudging X X X Social equity X Social practice frameworks X X Social solidarities and collective identities X Socio-ecological resilience theory X Theory of communicative action X X Transformative context-based social investment X Sustainability science Mode 2 knowledge production X X Leverage points for transformation X X Transdisciplinarity X X Transformative research X X 3.2 Findings from the grey literature review – project inventory The multiple grey literature searches yielded 22 potentially relevant research projects. After further scrutiny, two of the projects were omitted from classification as they are still ongoing, making it difficult to determine reported impact of change at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, or institutional levels. Another eight projects did not examine biodiversity-related behaviour and decision-making and were duly omitted from further analyses. Based on the results in brief the remaining 12 projects were classified according to their reported levels of impact along the intrapersonalinterpersonal-institutional gradient, and their theoretical input was identified. Results are highlighted in Table 2. 14 The following four observations can be made about the project inventory and our classification of reported results. First, grey literature at the intrapersonal level was the least represented. As for the review of published book chapters and peer-reviewed literature, the fewest projects reported on interventions at the intrapersonal level. From the grey literature review, only two projects, BIOMOT and BIOCORE, actively engaged with decisionmaking for biodiversity at this level. Further, the focus of these two projects were not limited to the intrapersonal level. Rather, both projects spanned all three levels of the gradient. Second, grey literature at the interpersonal level was the second most represented. In total, seven research projects were classified as dealing with biodiversity relevant decision-making at an interpersonal level. Two of these projects were exclusively attributed to this category. The remaining five overlapped with the other levels (two with the institutional level and three projects spanned all three levels). Third, grey literature at the institutional level was the most represented in our data. Nine research projects dealt with decision-making for biodiversity purposes at an institutional level. Four projects were categorised as exclusively institutional. Two of the projects related to both the institutional and the interpersonal levels, whereas three projects spanned all three levels. Fourth, 11 theoretical inputs from six disciplines were identified in the 12 projects. Ten of these were not among the theoretical inputs identified by PLANET4B partners (Table 1). Theoretical inputs identified from projects are presented in Table 2 and described in the Appendix 1. Table 2. Inventory of research projects that have engaged with biodiversity-relevant behaviour or decision-making at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, or institutional levels of intervention. Theoretical input and discipline are specified in the table. For descriptions of the theoretical input, please see Appendix 1. # Acronym with project link Name of project Theoretical input Discipline Intrapersonal Interpersonal Institutional 1 ConFooBio “Resolving conflicts between food security and biodiversity conservation under uncertainty” Game theory Economics X 2 BIOMOT “MOTivational strength of ecosystem services and alternative ways to express the Theory of committed action for nature Interdiscipli nary approaches X X X 15 value of BIOdiversity” 3 BIOSEC “Biodiversity and Security: understanding environmental crime, illegal wildlife trade and threat finance” Social justice theory Political sciences; Philosophy X 4 LITTLE TOOLS “Enacting the Good Economy: Biocapitalization and the little tools of valuation” Actornetwork theory Scienceand technology studies X 5 BESAFE “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Arguments for our future Environment” Psychologica l biases (Framing) Psychology X 6 SOILSERVI CE “Conflicting demands of land use, soil biodiversity and the sustainable delivery of ecosystem goods and services in Europe” Rational choice theory Economics X 7 SILCI “Social Influence and Disruptive Low Carbon Innovations” Social influence theory Psychology X 8 POLICYMI X “Assessing the role of economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision” Institutional analysis and development framework Economics X X 9 BIOCORE “Risks of global warming: the case of coral reef ecosystems in Rational choice theory Economics X X X 16 developing countries” 10 OPERAS “Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications” Sociocultural valuation Sustainabili ty science X X 11 MEASURIN G IMPACT “Measuring Impact. Stakeholder Engagement for Biodiversity Conservation Goals. Assessing the Status of the Evidence” Stakeholder engagement / Stakeholder theory Sustainabili ty science X X 12 NSF16586 08 “Psychosocial, Motivational, and Cooperative Effects of Communication, Enforcement, and Participatory Decision-Making in Resource Dilemmas” Humanistic rational choice theory Economics X X 3.3 Limitations In this task we have carried out two reviews of limited scope. Regarding the review of published book chapters and peer-reviewed literature we developed a methodology that allowed us to utilise the resources within the consortium in as systematic a way as possible. To this end, the project consortium functioned as our data population. Our findings are thus indicative of, and limited to, the knowledge and expertise of PLANET4B partners. An important reason to limit the inventory to review expert knowledge within the consortium was the nature of the project. Because PLANET4B is a transdisciplinary effort, its partners have different backgrounds and experiences. It was therefore a part of the planned research process to unpack the different experiences and make them accessible to everyone in the consortium at an early stage of the project. Whereas the topic driven approach taken here may not adhere to the same rigor as a systematic literature review in the classical sense, it allowed for effectively capturing and systemising behaviouraland social science theories that are relevant for studying and engaging with biodiversity related decision-making. Because the PLANET4B consortium unites scholars and practitioners with very rich expertise combining knowledge and experiences from many relevant disciplines and practices across natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities, our review provides a valuable theoretical resource bank for PLANET4B and others to build on. 17 Inevitably, this approach has resulted in an inventory that is far from exhaustive. A notable potential limitation concerns the representation of disciplines. Several disciplines from behavioural and/or social sciences which have actual or potential relevance for studying biodiversity related decision-making are possibly lacking from this inventory. The same thing can be said about how disciplines are delineated in our inventories. Our results should not be regarded as building on definitive and official disciplinary definitions, but, again, rather as a product of the knowledge and experience in the PLANET4B consortium. Under different circumstances, our current review could have been expanded to include peer-reviewed literature on theoretical approaches to biodiversity related decision-making beyond the expertise of the PLANET4B consortium. In going forward, the inventory will be kept as a living document to be further elaborated on, especially to assist the development of a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework (see also section 3.3 below). With regards to the grey literature review we took a different approach. Here we did in fact use resources beyond the consortium. However, the literature searches for the review were mostly restricted to one database, again, due to the boundaries of the task, and input from PLANET4B partners. For purposes beyond the scope of PLANET4B and Task 1.2, additional databases could be surveyed to expand on the results of the present review. 3.4 Process towards developing transdisciplinary diagnostic framework(s) for biodiversity interventions This report D1.2 is part of a process of understanding the theories applied by case studies to select and test interventions and how they form expectations about policy recommendations to come out of the empirical work (Figure 3). The first step is classifying theories proposed by partners according to their intrapersonal, interpersonal or institutional conceptual levels (Table 1), as well as their disciplinary “home ranges”. 18 Figure 3. Identifying theories of change underlying case study policy interventions and recommendations as part of a transdisciplinary process. Source: own elaboration. Following steps in WP1 (and with support of WP2) is to identify a common leverage points framework that can be used to identify the leverage points each theory assumes, and which can explain the choice of interventions and theoretical expectations about their impacts on biodiversity through system change (Figure 2). The intention of these diagnostic framework(s) is to develop transdisciplinary understanding and hence mutual respect across project partners for case studies and policy proposals that transcend widely ranging case study contexts and scales. 4 Conclusion and outlook In this task we have shed light on efforts to engage theoretically with behaviour and decision-making relevant for biodiversity. We have completed two separate review processes, one based on experts’ knowledge (who then provided published examples of theoretical applicability), and one based on project reports. By systemising the knowledge and experience of the PLANET4B project consortium we have built an inventory of potentially useful theoretical considerations for studying biodiversityrelated decision-making. We complemented this inventory with examples from applications of such theoretical considerations within the grey literature of previous EU, USAid (United States Agency for International Development), and NSF (United States National Science Foundation) projects. Through this process we sought to facilitate understanding and knowledge exchange among project partners from the various disciplinary, formal, and empirical backgrounds represented within PLANET4B. As such, our inventory provides insights about the use of different theoretical considerations from the behaviouraland social sciences for understanding biodiversity-related decision-making. Through our reviews, we have generated two databases that can be accessed for future inquiries of PLANET4B or other projects. Specifically, the inventories of theoretical inputs and projects will be used to facilitate knowledge transfer and understanding among PLANET4B partners through workshops in Task 1.4, it will feed into the development of the transdisciplinary diagnostic framework of biodiversity decision-making under Task 1.5 and contribute to the targeted review of methods under Task 2.1. The inventories will thus inform methodological applications within the case studies (WP3) and for policy-related purposes under WP4. Overall, these inventories contribute to fill the gap in the literature on most relevant theoretical foundations and research projects with direct relevance for biodiversity decisionmaking. 19 References Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies, P. (2000). The Relevance of Systematic Reviews to Educational Policy and Practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3–4), 365–378. King, W. R. & He, J. (2005). Understanding the Role and Methods of Meta-Analysis in IS Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 32. Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage Points. Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland: The Sustainability Institute. Ostrom, E. (2019). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In: Theories of the policy process, 2nd edn. P.A. Sabatier (ed.), London/New York: Routledge, pp. 21–64. Paré, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M. & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2),183–199. Rumrill, P. D., Fitzgerald, S. M. & Merchant, W. R. (2010). Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work 35(3), 399–404. Statement on data availability The databases for the reviews of this report are available in Table 1, 2, and appendix 1. Statement on ethics • These reviews were carried out in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU). • The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. 20 Annex List of Task 1.2 core group participants: • Håkon Aspøy • Yennie Katarina Bredin • Berit Junker-Köhler • David Nicholas Barton • Vinicius Mendes Appendix 1. Inventory of theoretical input including short descriptions and references. # Theoretical input Short description Literature 1 ABC (Attitude-Behaviour-Choice) framework This framework considers that consumers’ attitudes, values, and knowledge influence their behaviour. Providing information or changing attitudes thus can trigger behaviour change. Van den Berg, H. et al., 2006. The impact of affective and cognitive focus on attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, pp.373–379. 2 Actor-network theory This theory considers that all elements are defined by relationships in the social and natural worlds in human and nonhuman interactions through shifting networks. Muniesa, F., 2015. "Actor-Network Theory", in James D. Wright (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2nd Edition, Oxford, Elsevier: vol. 1, 80– 84. 3 Appreciative Inquiry (AI) By focusing on the strengths of an agent, the agent is moved towards achieving a goal. In the context of biodiversity, leading a conversation with the participants about sharing their success at promoting biodiversity, participants are likely to be motivated to act in favour of biodiversity-promotion/protection. Cram, F. (2010). Appreciative inquiry. Mai Review, 3(1), 1–13. Whitney, D. D., Trosten-Bloom, A. (2010). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 21 4 Behavioural change wheel This framework focuses on a 'behaviour system' and its three conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation (the 'COM-B system'). These are situated in a wheel form ('behaviour change wheel' (BCW)) around which nine intervention functions are positioned; around seven categories of policy instruments are placed that could enable those interventions to occur (Michie et al., 2011). Michie, S., Van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation science, 6(1), 1–12. 5 BIT’s upstream-downstream model with ‘EAST’ model (easy, attractive, social and timely) This model focuses on changing the choice environment instead of altering behaviour — e.g. making sustainable choices more available or cheaper. https://www.bi.team/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/How-tobuild-a-Net-Zero-society_Jan2023.pdf 6 COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation: behaviour) The COM-B model considers behaviour as part of a complex system. For a given behaviour, capability, opportunity and no other competing motivation for another behaviour should occur. Willmott, T.J., Pang, B. & RundleThiele, S. Capability, opportunity, and motivation: an across contexts empirical examination of the COM-B model. BMC Public Health 21, 1014 (2021). 7 Commons In economics Commons (common pool resource) are referred to as goods managed by a collective / group of individuals and characterised by rivalry and nonexcludable. The successful management of commons was researched by Elinor Ostrom who identified design principles such as set of rules defined by the users, monitoring, conflict resolution and sanctioning system besides the basics knowledge about what is the resource, who uses it and contributes to its maintenance. In political sciences commons are Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press. Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (Eds.). (2014). The wealth of the commons: A world beyond market and state. Levellers Press. 28 the concept of human-nature interactions. 21 Institutional analysis and development framework The IAD framework serves as a guideline to analyse and test hypotheses about the behaviour under diverse situations and multiple levels. The framework supports the analysis of how system rules, conditions, and attributes affect actors and their actions, as well as incentives and outcomes (Ostrom, 2011). The IAD typology of "rules-in-use" help in describing the structure of institutions for common property resource management. The typology has been extended to analyse conservation policy instruments as institutions, including payments for ecosystem services. Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy studies journal, 39(1), 7–27. Barton, D. N., Benavides, K., Chacon-Cascante, A., Le Coq, J. F., Quiros, M. M., Porras, I., ... & Ring, I. (2017). Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5), 404–421. 22 Institutional change theory (or theories) "Institutions are the rules of the game in a society" or the "humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction." These constraints can be based on formal rules (such as, laws and constitutions) and informal constraints (such as, conventions and norms). Institutional change theory aims to explain change in these institutional arrangements (rules, formal and informal) that govern human interactions (pp. 3–4). Based on North (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; and North (2005). Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 23 Integrating local and Indigenous Knowledge with the scientific knowledge base Tools to verify and validate evidence from parallel knowledge systems are necessary if knowledge from systems with different epistemological approaches are to be combined. It is important that these tools are Smith, B. M., Chakrabarti, P., Chatterjee, A., Chatterjee, S., Dey, U. K., Dicks, L. V., ... & Basu, P. (2017). Collating and validating indigenous and local knowledge to apply multiple knowledge systems to an 29 transparent, do not alienate participants and facilitate confidence among those co-creating policy that the knowledge is both valid and agreed. This research area develops approaches to address this, focussing on biodiversity. environmental challenge: A casestudy of pollinators in India. Biological conservation, 211, 20–28. 24 Intersectionality Intersectional theory suggests that people experience marginalisation and discrimination because society determines value based on a person’s attributes, such as gender, religion, class, race, etc. The intersecting of these attributes leads people to experience differing levels, types and intensity of privilege or inequality. https://denison.edu/academics/wome ns-genderstudies/feature/67969#:~:text=Inters ectionality%20is%20a%20term%20u sed,gender%20equality%20to%20be come%20inclusive. 25 Leverage Points Leverage points is a framework from systems thinking (Meadows, 1999, adapted by Abson et al., 2017) that can provide critical insight into which systems need changing, and where to intervene to change them. It is deliberately interdisciplinary, and can act as an organising framework for bridging disciplines and normative systems framings (Leventon, 2021). Deepest leverage points are those with greatest potential to transform systems and are framed as being around transcending paradigms and intent. For the sake of biodiversity, this is often framed as engaging with individual values and worldviews to prompt behaviour and decisionmaking change (e.g. Chan et al., 2020; Riechers et al., 2021), or to broader changes of governance paradigm to faciliate such change at Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage Points. Places to Intervene in a System. The Sustainability Institute 30 individual levels (Leventon et al., 2021). 26 Mode 2 knowledge production The notion of “Mode 2” goes back to Helga Nowotny and colleagues. In this literature, the basic thesis is that scientific knowledge is no longer checked along academic standards by peers solely, but also by other social actors. Nowotny calls this “social robustness”. You can think of it like this: new quality criteria of scientific knowledge are if this knowledge is accepted in society and also applied/used. These can be economic actors, policy, but also media, users, people affected, and citizens. The premise is that scientific knowledge has to be socially relevant in order to be socially robust. However, the Mode 2 proposal has also received a lot of criticism. First, this isn't as new as the authors make it out to be. Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz, for example, published the concept of “post-normal science” back in the 1990s. The other criticism of Mode 2 was that it would be too conformist, often addressing industry and economic actors and that it is not critical enough. However, Mode 2 has at least contributed to questions of academic knowledge production being widely and intensively discussed. As a result, there were several suggestions on how to make scientific knowledge more socially relevant so that it could better contribute to Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction:'Mode 2'revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty (p. 12). Cambridge: Polity. 31 solving social problems. => see transdisciplinarity => Responsible Research & Innovation The aim of all these (somehow similar) approaches is not only to bring about changes in the R&I system, but an overall change in science governance, including policy as well as legal aspects, by reframing the process and societal function of knowledge production towards more extensive citizen rights and openness; this should foster democratic empowerment of society in general, and leading to a democratic transformation in the R&I system. 27 Normative conduct (influencing)/social norms Social norms (e.g. social proof, authority, liking, reciprocity, scarcity, commitment) affect human behaviour in a systematic manner. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015. 28 Nudging / Choice architecture A nudge, (or choice architecture) is a trigger that alters behaviour in a foreseeable manner. Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press. 29 Ontological politics Explores how different realities are enacted by different social practices (e.g. the use of various tools and instruments to measure environmental effects) which clash and generate ontological friction. Mol, A. (1999). Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions. The Sociological Review Volume 47, Issue 1 30 Path dependency This theory refers to processes where past events or decisions construct later events or decisions due to resistance to change. Drechsler, M., & Wätzold, F. (2020). Biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world may lead to inefficiencies due to lock-in effects and path dependence. Ecological Economics, 173, 106652. 32 31 Policy integration "Policy integration can manifest itself in different ways, but is always characterized by the cooperation of actors from different policy domains – or policy sectors. Policy domains are defined as relatively stable actor coalitions, including the institutions they installed in the pursuit of their shared interests. Policy integration most fundamentally consists of two approaches. The first is to create interdependencies between different policy sectors and to then coordinate these. The second approach to realize policy integration is by means of specific policy instruments, mostly of a procedural rather than substantive nature." (Tosun and Lang, 2017, p.554–555). Tosun, J., & Lang, A. (2017). Policy integration: Mapping the different concepts. Policy studies, 38(6), 553– 570. 32 Political ecology "Refers to multiple and diverse critical approaches to studying the nexus between human societies and the natural environment. This tendency reflects efforts to accommodate the development of two epistemologically distinct forms of research in the field: a materialist one associated with Marxist political economy; and a poststructuralist one, focused on discourse analysis and the social construction of environmental issues." (Tetreault, 2017, p.2) Tetreault, D. (2017). Three forms of political ecology. Ethics and the Environment, 22(2), 1–23. 33 Post-normal science It is a problem-solving strategy appropriate when "facts [are] uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent", conditions often present in policyrelevant research. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755. 33 34 Pragmatism/Pragmatic theory of inquiry This approach acknowledges the instrumental nature of concepts as its starting point: concepts are used to solve a specific problem. Concepts are therefore forged within the inquiry to lead to a satisfactory solution to the problem. The solution must be satisfactory to the participants in the inquiry. As the composition of the community of inquirers changes, the definition of the criteria of success of the inquiry changes accordingly. If citizens are members of the community of inquirers, the conceptual framework in whose terms the problem is set and, then, addressed must embody their values, interests, and points of view. Barrotta, P., Gronda, R. 2020. What is the meaning of biodiversity? A pragmatist approach to an intrinsically interdisciplinary concept. 35 Prospect Theory Prospect theory describes that we tend to focus on avoiding loss and putting greater value on low probability outcomes than high probability outcomes. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99–127). 36 Psychological biases: 1. Confirmation bias, 2. Endowment effect, 3. Familiarity, 4. Feelings, 5. Framing, 6. Status quo bias, 7. Zero risk 1. Confirmation bias describes our tendency that we tend to notice, focus on, and give greater significance to evidence that aligns with our existing beliefs. 2. Endowment effect describes how we tend to value items that we own more highly than we would if they did not belong to them. 3. Familiarity bias describes the tendency to stay within our comfort zone and overvalue the choice that we already know. 1. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/10892680.2.2.175 2. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348. https://doi.org/10.1086/261737. 3.1. Lundberg, P., Vainio, A., Macmillan, D. C., Smith, R. J., 34 4. Feelings of responsibility, guilt, anger, pride, etc. trigger various responses in terms of intention and behaviour for environmental actions. 5. Framing describes how people decide on options based on whether the options are presented with positive or negative connotations. 6. Status quo bias describes our preference for the current state of affairs; resulting in resistance to change. 7. Zero-risk bias is a tendency to prefer the complete elimination of risk over alternatives with greater overall risk reduction. Veríssimo, D., & Arponen, A. (2019). The effect of knowledge, species aesthetic appeal, familiarity and conservation need on willingness to donate. Animal Conservation, 22, 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12477 3.2. Reder, L. M., & Ritter, F. E. (1992). What determines initial feeling of knowing? Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 18(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/02787393.18.3.435. 4. Harth, N.S., Leach, C.W. and Kessler, T., (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, pp.18–26. 5.1. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. science, 211(4481), pp.453–458. 5.2. Kusmanoff, A. M., Hardy, M. J., Fidler, F., Maffey, G., Raymond, C., Reed, M. S., & Bekessy, S. A. (2016). Framing the private land conservation conversation: Strategic framing of the benefits of conservation participation could increase landholder engagement. Environmental Science 35 & Policy, 61, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016. 03.016 5.3. Niemiec, R. M., Sekar, S., Gonzalez, M. & Mertens, A. The influence of message framing on public beliefs and behaviors related to species reintroduction. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108522 (2020); Liu, J. et al. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 18, 26 (2013). 6. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564 7. Raue, M., & Schneider, E. (2019). Psychological perspectives on perceived safety: Zero-risk bias, feelings and learned carelessness. In M. Raue, B. Streicher, E. Lermer (Eds.), Perceived safety. Risk engineering. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03011456-5_5. 37 Psychological theories Psychological theories aim to explain behaviour through psychological variables that enable or constrain certain (environmental) behaviour, such as perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, norms and emotions. Based on van Valkengoed et al. (2022). To select effective interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to consider determinants of behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour 6: 1482– 1492; and the cited references. 38 Psychosocial frameworks These frameworks consider the emotional relevance of the discomforting reality and complex Büchs, M., Hinton, E. and Smith, G., 2015. 'It helped me sort of face the end of the world': The role of 36 impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss, etc. and how it can result in rejection, anxiety and inaction at the individual level. emotions for third sector climate change engagement initiatives. Environmental Values, 24(5), pp.621–640. 39 Rational choice theory People make choices based on a logical and linear consideration of costs and benefits, which will define their action (only do things if benefits outweigh costs). Toke, D. (2000). Rational Choice Theory and Environmental Policy. In: Green Politics and Neo-Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/97802305141 57_3 40 Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) The aim of “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) is is the attempt to include a normative objective in the production of scientific knowledge, i.e. already in the research process. These objectives are often linked to the SDGs: if research activities want to strive for these goals, they have to be considered in the research process right from the start and also engage those actors who will be important for the implementation. RRI is characterised by an open, responsive and participative process of continuous reflection and coproduction of knowledge. However, it also implies a certain extent of vagueness. On the one hand, it is used in and by two different contexts: the scientific literature and research, and the policy arena. On the other hand, its vital components (e.g. inclusion, reflexivity, ethics) leave room for various (often conflicting) interpretations. R&I processes too often fail to consider how they are imbued with politics, which makes them politically weak and vulnerable. RRI suggests Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and public policy, 39(6), 751–760. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. 37 making the political issues that are at stake explicit because it must not be denied that science and knowledge creation has a political dimension and implications; and that the political economy is shaping research. While RRI cannot be decoupled from its political context and will itself always embed a strongly political dimension, at the same time, it is sometimes blamed for being politically instrumentalised in supporting policies that are motived by goals of economic growth, jobs and strengthened economic governance. RRI builds on the criticism that the hidden politics of research are too often neglected, and the limitations and inherent political content of expert knowledge with regard to sustainability confront with the reluctance of researchers (in practice) to implement highly inclusive approaches that allocate (more) decision power to other/nonformal actors. Consequently, reflection on, and integration of the inherent political content and dimensions of R&I is a crucial step to developing new forms of governance in line with the normativity of RRI. As RRI is a highly normative concept that has strong ideological trajectories and is integrated in a complex science-policy-society interface, RRI can be seen as a deliberative process. Furthermore, as political empowerment is central to deliberative governance, deliberative 44 necessary to adopt an intent-oriented definition that focuses on people’s beliefs, motives, and so forth in order to understand and change the target behaviors. 55 Theory of planned behaviour This theory considers that behaviours are affected by intentions determined by three aspects: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50, 179–211. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press. Home, R., Balmer, O., Jahrl, I., Stolze, M., & Pfiffner, L. (2014). Motivations for implementation of ecological compensation areas on Swiss lowland farms. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 26–36. 56 Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinary research bridges the traditional boundaries between disciplines and between academia and practice. It is increasingly common, motivated by the intellectual demands of dealing with complex interrelated issues at the food, water, energy, and environment nexus. There are also demands from funders and society at large for relevant research which will have an impact on society. Transdisciplinary teams can generate new knowledge to address complex problems while integrating multiple disciplines and stakeholders. Harris, F., & Lyon, F. (2014). Transdisciplinary environmental research: a review of approaches to knowledge co-production. Nexus network think piece series, paper, 2, 28. 57 Transformative context-based social investment Proposes a kind of interpretation of the "social investment welfare state" (a political view and practice, widely discussed in social policy analysis, of welfare and social policies as an investment on the future aimed at Villa, M. (2016). The transformative role of the social investment welfare state towards sustainability: criticisms and potentialities in fragile areas:. The transformative role of the social investment welfare state towards 45 individuals' well-being). Specifically, the hypothesis holds that by promoting context-based policies and not just targeting individuals or categories, social investment could play an important and transformative role toward greater economic, social, and environmental sustainability of local systems. sustainability: criticisms and potentialities in fragile areas:., 29–49. 58 Transformative research Entails a shift in research priorities towards currently marginalised approaches in social sciences, humanities and participatory research, to generate a muchneeded understanding of obstacles to action and just and equitable strategies for overcoming them with due consideration of issues of justice and equity Turnhout, E., & Lahsen, M. (2022). Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy. Climate and Development, 14(9), 834–838. 59 Transformative social innovation This theoretical perspective conceptualises social innovation as changing social relations (changes in framing, knowing, doing, and orgaising). It is transformative in the sense of altering or replacing dominant institutions in specific sociomaterial contexts. Villa M. (2016), The transformative role of the social investment welfare state towards sustainability. Criticisms and potentialities in fragile areas, Sociologia e Politiche Sociali N. 3/2016. DOI: 10.3280/SP2016003003 60 Transformative sustainability governance "Sustainability transformations are fundamental changes in structural, functional, relational, and cognitive aspects of socio-technical-ecological systems that lead to new patterns of interactions and outcomes. For some, transformation arises endogenously from incremental, carefully planned interventions made by (often policy) actors, whilst for others, transformation is an emergent property of large-scale politicalScoones, I. et al. (2020). Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 65–75. 46 economic forces and social mobilization. In other cases, transformation is not human generated, but triggered by exogenous biophysical forces such as climate change." (Scoones et al., 2020, pp.65–66) 61 Value-action gap The value-action gap is the difference between what people say they value and what people actually do. Robb J, Haggar J, Lamboll R, and Castellanos E (2019). Exploring the Value–Action Gap through Shared Values, Capabilities and Deforestation Behaviours in Guatemala. Environmental Conservation 46: 226–233 62 Worlding environmental governance "Many socioenvironmental struggles around the globe involve trying to protect the disappearance of other “worlds.” Along with biological diversity, human languages, traditions, understandings, and the intimate relationships between peoples and their lands are under attack through various forms of colonization, capital expansion, or simply the globalization of lifeways. “Worlding” encompasses processes of making the world intelligible and determining the “we” in relation to “others” as well as the extent to which such processes of sense making constitute the worlds we live in. As such, worlding environmental governance has to do with the essential practices for understanding the struggle of maintaining many worlds on a single Earth." (Inoue, 2018, p.25–27) Inoue, C. Y. A. (2018). Worlding the study of global environmental politics in the Anthropocene: Indigenous voices from the Amazon. Global Environmental Politics, 18(4), 25–42. 63 5E Model of Environmental Engagement (positive psychology) This model of positive psychology describes how goal orientation Macharis, C. and Kerret, D., 2019. The 5E model of environmental 47 (promoting goal-oriented hope: setting a goal; believing that one canachieve the goal; viewing the potential paths; and trusting other members of society to follow the same desired goal (social trust) can aid behaviour change engagement: bringing sustainability change to higher education through positive psychology. Sustainability, 11(1), p.241.