the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
GC Insights: Fostering transformative change for biodiversity restoration through transdisciplinary research
Bikem Ekberzade
Rita Carrasco
Adam Izdebski
Adriano Sofo
Annegret Larsen
Felicia Akinyemi
Viktor Bruckman
Noel Baker
Simon Clark
Chloe Hill
Abstract. Despite being considered one of the most pressing global issues, biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems is continuing at an alarming rate. In December 2022, COP15 saw the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, where four overarching international goals for biodiversity and 23 targets. While these targets are a positive step to address the drivers of biodiversity loss, we will not only need public and political will to reach the goals and targets outlined but also more effective methods to integrate and use scientific information. To facilitate this, scientists and research institutions need to establish new and innovative approaches to transform the way science is conducted, communicated, and integrated into the policymaking process. This will require the scientific community to become proficient at working in inter and transdisciplinary teams, establishing connectivity, and engaging in the policymaking process to ensure that the best available scientific evidence is not only comprehensible to decision makers, but also timely and relevant. Here, we detail how scientists can embrace transformative change within and outside of their own communities to increase the impact of their research and help reach global targets that benefit society.
- Preprint
(503 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Bikem Ekberzade et al.
Status: open (until 10 Oct 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1730', Dwight Owens, 09 Sep 2023
reply
General Comments
This is an interesting article about a topic that is increasingly relevant in today’s complex and multi-sectoral decision-making landscape. Transdisciplinarity is a concept of great interest to me and I am glad to see articles exploring its place and applicability.
In your article, I would like to see more clarity in your introduction of key concepts such as transdisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and connectivity. It seems, at times, that you are using these terms loosely, if not interchangeably. Please introduce these terms along with agreed (and cited) definitions from the literature, and sharpen your precision in use of them. I was also somewhat at a loss with interpreting the figure you adapted from Max-Neef 2005. For me, this flat, 2-D depiction of multidisciplinarity does not capture its richness and potential. I would love to see a different graphical approach to representing this keystone concept in your paper.
Another general concern I have with your argument relates to the sometimes huge gap between evidence and decisions. We sometimes talk about the pitfalls of “decision-based evidence making” as opposed to “evidence-based decision making.” It often seems that many policy decisions are much more strongly influenced by political concerns than by scientific and technical concerns. How could transdisciplinarity address the situation where decision makers choose to ignore timely and relevant scientific evidence? You mention stakeholder engagement, and this may offer a viable strategy, but please explain how this relates to transdisciplinarity.
Overall, I think yours is an interesting approach to a critically important issue -- I will be happy to see you develop, clarify and integrate your suggestions in a way that offers an easy-to-envision pathway to biodiversity restoration.
Specific Comments
- In the abstract, you mention use of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal framework as a foundation for the paper, but it was not clear to me how this framework shows up as a foundation for the discussion in your paper.
- Line 64: not sure what is meant by “the bottleneck” -- If you’re going to keep that quote, please explain what’s implied here about bringing environment and biodiversity through the bottleneck.
- Lines 65-66: it’s not clear to me how “establishing biodiversity benchmarks and baseline data” has a connection to transdisciplinarity and connectivity.
- Line 69: Before going into the benefits of transdisciplinarity, it will be helpful to understand what you mean by this term. Please begin this section by defining transdisciplinarity and explaining the difference between this and inter-disciplinarity. Also, you write about addressing challenges “across scientific boundaries”, but is transdisciplinarity limited to just scientific boundaries? How about science/non-science boundaries?
- Line 75: you mention the need for “both a theoretical and practical transformation” -- what does such a transformation look like? I’m having difficulty picturing these required transformations, especially the theoretical transformation.
- Line 83: the illustration does not show collaboration-connections-communication across and between all levels, it only shows this between adjacent levels.
- Line 85: related to my comment 4 above, are you using “inter and transdisciplinary” interchangeably?
- Line 87: Please elaborate a bit more about what the “challenges and benefits” are (perhaps in the preceding paragraph) before stating the need for them to be recognized and incorporated. What are these benefits and how can we be confident they will occur for all/most transdisciplinary projects? What are the challenges and how can we anticipate them and identify them when they occur?
- Figure 1: This is an interesting diagram, but I think you could reconceptualize it, creating something more integrated than the Max-Neef diagram. As mentioned above the lines only connect neighboring levels, which gives the impression there is no direct connection between the values level and the empirical or purpose level, for example. Also, there are no lines between boxes in a given level, but are they really so independent? People may also quibble with specific lines as well -- for example, one might ask why “Law” has no connection to Agriculture, Engineering or Architecture. Finally, I’m not convinced the values-normative-purpose-empirical levels are actually a hierarchy -- could they be zones or enclosed rings in a circular diagram? Perhaps you could generalize the boxes, rather than having specific fields identified? Also, “Values” does not seem to be a field or discipline. Suggestion: search the literature for some commentaries or critiques of the Max-Neef diagram to see if some other alternate diagram could be found to illustrate your point.
- Lines 96-97: Are you advocating for the statistician’s point of view here? I don’t understand the Modeller vs. Statistician comment. What about the rest of us?
- Line 105: “engaging stakeholders” is rather vague, what do you (or Diaz) mean when you say this? What does this kind of engagement look like?
- Line 110: You write “Evidence shows” -- which evidence?
- Line 136: You suggest scientists and their teams “understand the information needs of policymakers and the policy landscape.” It seems to be a big ask to expect scientists to do this, but here’s a situation when including policy experts within transdisciplinary teams can help meet this need. Maybe you could spell out this kind of scenario.
- Line 144: I would like to know what formats you recommend, which are accessible and useful for policymakers
Technical CorrectionsThe following wording changes are suggested.
- Lines 33-34: suggest deleting the 1st sentence
- Line 35: end of sentence after “23 targets” is missing
- Lines 37-38: delete “research and”
- Line 50: delete “are”
- Line 67: change “engaging” to “engage”
- Line 97: change “Bayesian perspective, involving…” to “Bayesian perspective, which involves…”
- Line 99: change “nature should operate” to “nature operates”
- Line 114: change “Furthermore” to “Conversely”
- Line 145: the word “engage” doubled in this sentence; not sure what “both” refers to
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1730-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1730', Matthias Girod, 17 Sep 2023
reply
General comments
Transdisciplinarity in science is an important concept that, in my opinion, is crucial to tackle many of today's challenges of humankind and I am happy to see that this publication advocates for it in on the concrete and very important issue of the loss of biodiversity.
However, it would be useful to provide a clear definition of transdisciplinarity, connectivity and the relation between the two concepts. Especially a clarification if the authors apply the concept of transdisciplinarity specifically to the research practice (connecting several disciplinary fields to allow a more complete description/analysis of complex issues such as biodiversity) or if they extend the concept even to non-scientific sectors such as politics or macroeconomics.
Furthermore, it is not completely clear from the text, how exactly transdisciplinary research can help to bridge the gap between scientific results and policy making or help overcome issues in cross-border collaborations. Most of the issues the authors describe apply to any form of scientific research and are not specific to transdisciplinary research.
Nevertheless, I think the publication is very relevant and addresses important issues. I look forward to seeing how the concept will evolve in the future.
Specific comments
- Line 54: It would be good to explain the goals and targets and why their pursuit needs transformative change
- Line 66: You mention benchmarks and baseline data, which are never mentioned again in the publication. Could you explain if and how benchmarks and baseline data relate to the topic of the publication?
- Line 69: See my general comment. A definition of transdisciplinarity is needed
- Line 74: Can you outline what elements need to be transformed?
- Line 84: Only to non-academic sectors or also to non-scientific sectors?
- Line 87: What are the challenges and benefits of transdisciplinary research?
- Figure 1: The connections drawn in the figure are only happening between the levels and only between adjacent levels. What about the connections between the disciplines or the influences from the values level and normative level on the empirical level?
- Line 96/97: You describe two points of view for connectivity, the one of modellers and the one of statisticians. Which one is yours? A third one? In that case, why mention the two points of view in the first place?
- Line 103: What does “further stimulated by transdisciplinarity” mean? In my understanding of what was written before, connectivity is the core of transdisciplinarity. No transdisciplinarity without connectivity
- Line 110: Which evidence? Citation missing.
- Line 125-128: What is said there is all true but for me the connection to transdisciplinarity and connectivity is missing.
- Line 133: Isn't it true for all science advice? What is special about transdisciplinary science?
- Line 144: Do you have any suggestions for the mentioned formats?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1730-RC2
Bikem Ekberzade et al.
Bikem Ekberzade et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 250 | 47 | 12 | 309 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 250
- PDF: 47
- XML: 12
- Total: 309
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1