Exploring the usefulness of scenario archetypes in science-policy processes: experience across IPBES assessments

Scenario analyses have been used in multiple science-policy assessments to better understand complex plausible futures. Scenario archetype approaches are based on the fact that many future scenarios have similar underlying storylines, assumptions, and trends in drivers of change, which allows for grouping of scenarios into typologies, or archetypes, facilitating comparisons between a large range of studies. The use of scenario archetypes in environmental assessments foregrounds important policy questions and can be used to codesign interventions tackling future sustainability issues. Recently, scenario archetypes were used in four regional assessments and one ongoing global assessment within the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The aim of these assessments was to provide decision makers with policy-relevant knowledge about the state of biodiversity, ecosystems, and the contributions they provide to people. This paper reflects on the usefulness of the scenario archetype approach within science-policy processes, drawing on the experience from the IPBES assessments. Using a thematic analysis of (a) survey data collected from experts involved in the archetype analyses across IPBES assessments, (b) notes from IPBES workshops, and (c) regional assessment chapter texts, we synthesize the benefits, challenges, and frontiers of applying the scenario archetype approach in a science-policy process. Scenario archetypes were perceived to allow syntheses of large amounts of information for scientific, practice-, and policy-related purposes, streamline key messages from multiple scenario studies, and facilitate communication of them to end users. In terms of challenges, they were perceived as subjective in their interpretation, oversimplifying information, having a limited applicability across scales, and concealing contextual information and novel narratives. Finally, our results highlight what methodologies, applications, and frontiers in archetype-based research should be explored in the future. These advances can assist the design of future large-scale sustainability-related assessment processes, aiming to better support decisions and interventions for equitable and sustainable futures.

[1]  Uta Berger,et al.  Archetypes of Climate Vulnerability: a Mixed-method Approach Applied in the Peruvian Andes , 2019 .

[2]  Till Sterzel,et al.  A new method for analysing socio-ecological patterns of vulnerability , 2015, Regional Environmental Change.

[3]  P. Vellinga,et al.  International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) on Global Environmental Change , 1999 .

[4]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[5]  Samia Islam,et al.  Modeling teleconnected urban social–ecological systems: opportunities and challenges for resilience research , 2017 .

[6]  Nicholas R. Magliocca,et al.  Archetype analysis in sustainability research: methodological portfolio and analytical frontiers , 2019, Ecology and Society.

[7]  R. Watson,et al.  The science–policy interface: the role of scientific assessments—UK National Ecosystem Assessment , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[8]  Kasper Kok,et al.  Archetyping shared socioeconomic pathways across scales: an application to central Asia and European case studies , 2019, Ecology and Society.

[9]  Taylor H. Ricketts,et al.  Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  G. A. Bradshaw,et al.  Conservation Ecology: Uncertainty as Information: Narrowing the Science-policy Gap , 2008 .

[11]  J. Syvitski,et al.  Methods and approaches to modelling the Anthropocene , 2016 .

[12]  Fred Kizito,et al.  Current and future interactions between nature and society , 2018 .

[13]  E. Ostrom.  A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems , 2009, Science.

[14]  Detlef P. van Vuuren,et al.  Scenarios in Global Environmental Assessments: Key characteristics and lessons for future use , 2012 .

[15]  C. Kull,et al.  The political ecology of ecosystem services , 2015 .

[16]  Carsten Walther,et al.  Categorisation of typical vulnerability patterns in global drylands , 2011 .

[17]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World , 2003, Conservation Biology.

[18]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios , 2016, Sustainability Science.

[19]  S. Briggs,et al.  Integrating policy and science in natural resources: Why so difficult? , 2006 .

[20]  Walter Jetz,et al.  Multiscale scenarios for nature futures , 2017, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[21]  Anne Larigauderie,et al.  Biodiversity assessments: IPBES reaches out to social scientists. , 2016, Nature.

[22]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World , 2006 .

[23]  F. Boschetti,et al.  Myths of the future and scenario archetypes , 2016 .

[24]  James R.A. Butler,et al.  Scenarios for Knowledge Integration: Exploring Ecotourism Futures in Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea , 2011 .

[25]  Andrew Curry,et al.  Roads Less Travelled: Different Methods, Different Futures , 2009 .

[26]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Mapping global land system archetypes , 2013 .

[27]  J. Kropp,et al.  Construction of archetypes as a formal method to analyze social-ecological systems , 2006 .

[28]  Daniel J. Lang,et al.  Many pathways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives , 2017, Sustainability Science.

[29]  Peter H. Janssen,et al.  Nested archetypes of vulnerability in African drylands: where lies potential for sustainable agricultural intensification? , 2017 .

[30]  H. J. Schellnhuber,et al.  Smallholder agriculture in Northeast Brazil: assessing heterogeneous human-environmental dynamics , 2006 .

[31]  Erin Bohensky,et al.  Young Scholars Dialogue, part of a Special Feature on Scenarios of global ecosystem services Linking Futures across Scales: a Dialog on Multiscale Scenarios , 2007 .

[32]  David Manuel-Navarrete,et al.  Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making , 2019, Ecology and Society.

[33]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  A. H. Zakri,et al.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report , 2005 .

[35]  Patricia Gober,et al.  Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers' assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater , 2010 .

[36]  H. Mooney,et al.  The Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity , 2010 .

[37]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines , 2010, Science.

[38]  L. Pereira,et al.  Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: Imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes , 2019, Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.

[39]  P. Mollinga.  Boundary Work and the Complexity of Natural Resources Management , 2010 .

[40]  Thomas Henrichs,et al.  Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments , 2007 .

[41]  H. D. Cooper,et al.  Scenarios for Global Biodiversity in the 21st Century , 2010, Science.

[42]  Thomas Koetz,et al.  Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services , 2012, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

[43]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  K. Riahi,et al.  The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century , 2017 .

[45]  Simo Sarkki,et al.  Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[46]  Peter Messerli,et al.  Sustainable livelihoods in the global land rush? Archetypes of livelihood vulnerability and sustainability potentials. Keynote presentation. , 2016 .

[47]  Juliette Young,et al.  Expectations and Experiences of Diverse Forms of Knowledge Use: The Case of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment , 2014 .

[48]  Kasper Kok,et al.  Combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenario development: Experiences from the SCENES project , 2011 .

[49]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Synthesizing plausible futures for biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia using scenario archetypes , 2019, Ecology and Society.

[50]  Tariq Banuri,et al.  Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead , 2002 .

[51]  Kasper Kok,et al.  Methods for Developing Multiscale Participatory Scenarios: Insights from Southern Africa and Europe , 2007 .

[52]  J. Fereday,et al.  Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development , 2006 .

[53]  David Manuel-Navarrete,et al.  Design and quality criteria for archetype analysis , 2019, Ecology and Society.

[54]  Yaakov Garb,et al.  Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific analysis of storyline-driven environmental modeling , 2008 .

[55]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Scenarios for Ecosystem Services: An Overview , 2006 .

[56]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies , 2015 .

[57]  S. Louvel,et al.  Assessing Nature? The Genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) , 2013 .

[58]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[59]  G. Finnveden,et al.  Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide , 2006 .

[60]  Carsten Nesshöver,et al.  Biodiversity knowledge synthesis at the European scale: actors and steps , 2016, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[61]  Ian P. Holman,et al.  New European socio-economic scenarios for climate change research: operationalising concepts to extend the shared socio-economic pathways , 2018, Regional Environmental Change.

[62]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Chapter 5: Current and future interactions between nature and society , 2018 .

[63]  R. DeFries,et al.  Framing Sustainability in a Telecoupled World , 2013, Ecology and Society.

[64]  Lorraine Maltby,et al.  Awareness of greater numbers of ecosystem services affects preferences for floodplain management , 2017 .