Caring policy-relevant knowledge? The case of the Brazilian Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

IF 5.2 2区环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2025-07-28 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104170

Adriana Ressiore C. , Giulia De Fusco , David Ludwig , Charbel N. El-Hani , Esther Turnhout

{"title":"Caring policy-relevant knowledge? The case of the Brazilian Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services","authors":"Adriana Ressiore C. , Giulia De Fusco , David Ludwig , Charbel N. El-Hani , Esther Turnhout","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Science-policy interfaces like the Brazilian Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BPBES) aim to provide policy-relevant knowledge that guides decision-makers in addressing the current biodiversity crisis. At the same time, dominant approaches to policy-relevant knowledge have been widely challenged for relying on a misguided linear model that treats science and policy as separate domains, presenting the former through depoliticized ideals of neutrality and objectivity while prioritizing efficiency, standardization, and measurable outputs over transdisciplinary collaboration, inclusivity, and plurality of knowledge systems. This article focuses on “care” as an embodied, situated, and relational practice that could open pathways to policy-relevant knowledge that is inclusive and responsive to diverse human and non-human needs. Through semi-structured interviews and analysis of Summaries for Decision-Makers (SDMs) in BPBES, we investigate how different forms of care shape the content, creation process, and impact of SDMs. Our findings reveal that care is present across all of these dimensions but also that systemic barriers limit its practices. In particular, we argue that the legacy of the linear model often creates tensions with care perspectives as they can often be seen as too subjective and as threatening the credibility of BPBES. We, therefore, conclude that there remain substantial challenges to articulating a vision and practice of “caring policy-relevant knowledge” that embraces care as central to shaping relations between science and policy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104170"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125001868","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Science-policy interfaces like the Brazilian Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BPBES) aim to provide policy-relevant knowledge that guides decision-makers in addressing the current biodiversity crisis. At the same time, dominant approaches to policy-relevant knowledge have been widely challenged for relying on a misguided linear model that treats science and policy as separate domains, presenting the former through depoliticized ideals of neutrality and objectivity while prioritizing efficiency, standardization, and measurable outputs over transdisciplinary collaboration, inclusivity, and plurality of knowledge systems. This article focuses on “care” as an embodied, situated, and relational practice that could open pathways to policy-relevant knowledge that is inclusive and responsive to diverse human and non-human needs. Through semi-structured interviews and analysis of Summaries for Decision-Makers (SDMs) in BPBES, we investigate how different forms of care shape the content, creation process, and impact of SDMs. Our findings reveal that care is present across all of these dimensions but also that systemic barriers limit its practices. In particular, we argue that the legacy of the linear model often creates tensions with care perspectives as they can often be seen as too subjective and as threatening the credibility of BPBES. We, therefore, conclude that there remain substantial challenges to articulating a vision and practice of “caring policy-relevant knowledge” that embraces care as central to shaping relations between science and policy.

查看原文本刊更多论文

关心政策相关知识？巴西生物多样性和生态系统服务平台的案例

像巴西生物多样性和生态系统服务平台（BPBES）这样的科学政策接口旨在提供与政策相关的知识，指导决策者解决当前的生物多样性危机。与此同时，政策相关知识的主流方法受到了广泛的挑战，因为它依赖于一种被误导的线性模型，这种模型将科学和政策视为独立的领域，通过中立和客观的非政治化理想来呈现前者，同时优先考虑效率、标准化和可衡量的产出，而不是跨学科合作、包容性和知识系统的多样性。本文重点关注“关怀”作为一种具体的、定位的和关系的实践，它可以为包容和响应各种人类和非人类需求的政策相关知识开辟途径。通过对BPBES中决策者摘要（SDMs）的半结构化访谈和分析，我们研究了不同形式的护理如何塑造SDMs的内容、创建过程和影响。我们的研究结果表明，护理存在于所有这些方面，但系统性障碍也限制了其实践。特别是，我们认为，线性模型的遗产经常与谨慎的观点产生紧张关系，因为它们经常被视为过于主观，并威胁到BPBES的可信度。因此，我们得出的结论是，在阐明“关怀政策相关知识”的愿景和实践方面，仍然存在重大挑战，该愿景和实践将关怀作为塑造科学与政策之间关系的核心。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学

CiteScore

10.90

自引率

8.30%

发文量

332

审稿时长

68 days

期刊介绍： Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.