Explore the vast range of titles available.

In response to unexpected election results across the world, and a perceived increase of policy decisions that disregard scientific evidence, conservation scientists are reflecting on working in a ‘post-truth’ world. This phrase is useful in making scientists aware that policy-making is messy and multi-faceted, but it may be misused. By introducing three different scenarios of conservation decision-making, this perspective argues that a mythical era of ‘science or truth conservation’ has never existed. Since an ‘extended peer community’ of decision-makers (policy-makers, practitioners, stakeholders) are present in multi-layered governance structures, conservation has always been ‘post-normal’. To decrease the chances of ‘post-truth’ decision-making occurring, the perspective encourages scientists to think carefully about scientific workflows and science communication. Developing a conservation narrative which does not see values, beliefs, and interests, as key parts of modern functioning democracies risks upholding a perception of the disconnected ivory tower of science. Rather, co-productive relationships should be established with decision-makers, and we should harness the power of storytelling to engage people on a personal level. This perspective encourages scientists to take heed of research on stakeholder engagement and storytelling, and to embrace workflows suited to post-normal conservation, rather than trying to deny that a post-normal world exists.

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). Derived from these types of minds, innate biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values (BBHV) influence behaviors, often beneficially, when individuals or small groups face immediate, local, acute situations that they and their ancestors faced repeatedly in the past. BBHV, though, need to be recognized and possibly countered or used when facing new, complex issues or situations especially if they need to be managed for the benefit of a wider community, for the longer‐term and the larger‐scale. Taking BBHV into account, we explain and provide a cyclic science‐infused adaptive framework for (1) gaining knowledge of complex systems and (2) improving their management. We explore how this process and framework could improve the governance of science and policy for different types of systems and issues, providing examples in the area of natural resources, hazards, and the environment. Lastly, we suggest that an “Open Traceable Accountable Policy” initiative that followed our suggested adaptive framework could beneficially complement recent Open Data/Model science initiatives. Plain Language Summary Our review paper suggests that society can improve the management of natural resources and environments by (1) recognizing the sources of human decisions and thinking and understanding their role in the scientific progression to knowledge; (2) considering innate human needs and biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values that may need to be countered or embraced; and (3) creating science and policy governance that is inclusive, integrated, considerate of diversity, explicit, and accountable. The paper presents a science‐infused adaptive framework for such governance, and discusses the types of issues and systems that it would be best suited to address. Key Points Biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values permeate the progression from sensory inputs to data to knowledge to decisions An adaptive framework is presented for the science and policy governance of complex systems The framework is discussed in the context of different types of systems or issues of interest in the natural sciences

The view that conservation is a linear exchange of knowledge between scientists and practitioners has led to the conceptualization of a “research‐implementation gap”. However, conservation is not only about translating science into action but also includes the interplay of values, cultural norms, social interactions, and political consequences. In response, an alternative conceptualization is one where research and implementation exist in a “space”, where conservation partners interact. Here, we argue that post‐normal science (PNS) can fill this space. PNS is used when information is incomplete, values are pluralistic, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent. It relies on an extended community of practice that aims to produce knowledge fit for end‐users, without the constraints of settled scientific paradigms. We advocate for the wider use of PNS in conservation by showing how aspects of PNS have been useful in mainstreaming conservation planning in South Africa. By following an approach typical of PNS, South Africa has made considerable progress in creating an implementation space for conserving biodiversity despite its limited resources, cultural heterogeneity, and controversial history. We outline the interventions used in South Africa to facilitate PNS and, based on this, propose an operating model that can be applied elsewhere.

A paradigm shift is needed to make agriculture sustainable, and various substitutes for intensive agriculture have been proposed. However, moving from theory to practice, in the context of climate change, natural resource depletion and worldwide economic and social disorder requires a novel approach that goes beyond the confines of ‘normal’ scientific practice, to (a) consider ecological and socioeconomic processes within the agricultural socio‐ecosystem and (b) involving stakeholders in the research process. We propose an innovative experimental approach for identifying management practices that optimize multiple objectives, deliver a portfolio of ecosystem services and satisfy the social demands of key stakeholders while improving the socio‐economic welfare of farmers. Social–ecological experiments are undertaken in real‐field conditions, involving stakeholders explicitly, all along the experimental pathway, to help untangle the drivers of social–ecological dynamics under various practices of land management and farming. As an example, we describe a social–ecological experiment to reduce the intensity of weed control. These ‘social–ecological experiments’ go further, to participatory action research by not only involving stakeholders in the research process but also by manipulating simultaneously socioeconomic and ecological processes under real‐field conditions to foster agroecological transition. Such experiments are distinct from adaptive management, participatory agricultural research and scenario‐planning approaches as they highlight the interactions between ecological and social processes, manipulate the processes shaping the system and show causal links between patterns and processes. Social–ecological experiments offer great opportunities for increasing stakeholders' acceptance of environmental policies or sustainable agriculture programmes implemented through adaptive management. These experiments may help to identify management practices that deliver a portfolio of ecosystem services and satisfy key stakeholders. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Using qualitative data, we investigate the impact of the problem‐framing process on stakeholder mobilization for fish habitat restoration and its influence on transforming agricultural practices in floodplains. Problem‐framing involves defining and delineating a problem to suggest practical and measurable solutions for addressing it. We are examining how the conservation conflict changes over time in Lac Saint‐Pierre (LSP), part of the St. Lawrence River Basin in Québec, Canada. Such conflicts arise when there are differing perspectives, interests, or actions regarding conservation goals and objectives. In recent decades, the LSP floodplain has undergone significant changes, particularly the conversion of perennial crops to intensive annual crops, which are deemed incompatible with the ecological needs of yellow perch. This species has experienced a notable decline in LSP since the 1990s, prompting Québec authorities to impose a moratorium on yellow perch fishing in 2012 to safeguard stocks. This moratorium has catalyzed efforts at the policy level to restore its habitat. However, it has also engendered tensions between agricultural activities and conservation endeavors aimed at restoring yellow perch habitat, constituting the conservation conflict under investigation. To investigate this issue, we adopt a post‐normal science approach characterized by reflexivity, inclusivity, and transparency in addressing epistemological and ontological uncertainties among LSP stakeholders. Our findings offer insights into stakeholders' perspectives on the problem‐framing process and its outcomes, highlighting both supportive actions enhancing the effectiveness of certain strategies among LSP stakeholders and barriers hindering their mobilization. These results underscore the importance of incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives during the problem‐framing process to enhance the robustness of the science–policy interface. This paper investigated the social processes linked to problem‐framing that aim to foster conservation conflict resolution. More precisely, this article examined the outcomes of problem‐framing on stakeholders struggling with complex environmental problems. It also investigated the role of epistemological pluralism during reframing process.

Since the 1960s, global trade in food and feed has increased rapidly, and the number of countries at least partially reliant on this trade has sprouted into complex International Agrifood Trade Networks (IATN). IATNs have obscured the already‐labyrinthine causal webs of food‐borne diseases, and the usual methods for demonstrating causal links between IATNs and food‐borne diseases yield results that are, at best, inconclusive. At the same time, responses are being offered which will, if implemented, likely to have unintended negative consequences. In this context, risk analysis (RA) is being used in situations for which it was not designed, in which facts are uncertain, values are in dispute and assessments are embedded in contested power arrangements, with heterogeneous consequences for diverse stakeholders around the world. To characterise and manage the most serious unintended food‐borne disease consequences of globalisation, the most effective way forward will require reframing of RA as a post‐normal science.

Should scientists be advocates or activists, or both? And if both, can, or even should, activism be part of the role as a scientist or is it always a \"private\" role? Kastenhofer (2024) argues for merging the two forms of engagement in survival science. I take a different position, suggesting that in order to remain trusted knowledge providers to society, scientists must be transparent about the role they are playing at any given moment. I substantiate my point by drawing on post-normal science and the history of philosophy. Concerned scientists can, and should be, active citizens but if they confuse their different roles, they may undermine the public value of scientific knowledge.

Social-ecological systems (SES) research has gained substantial momentum, as witnessed by the growth in SES publications, theories, and frameworks, and the traction these concepts have gained in development and policy arenas. However, the growth and development of the SES field has only been partially examined, which limits our ability to make sense of and support the future development of the field and its ability to inform pressing sustainability challenges. The aim of this study is to understand how SES research has grown and changed over time as a field of study using bibliometric methods, co-authorship and co-citation network analysis. Our study is informed by broader bodies of work that have sought to understand the development of scientific fields, concepts, and research agendas. We highlight key trends that have influenced the organization of the field as well as how key thematic areas of SES research have evolved over time. Our results indicate that the research on SES is (i) mainly carried out by authors located in North America and Europe, (ii) characterized by changes in the terminology employed, as identified through our search terms, (iii) linked to the emergence of major conferences and centers dedicated to SES research, as well as its growth over time, (iv) characterized by a highly interconnected structure, with almost 80% of scholars being connected to each other, and (v) characterized by a shift in citation patterns, with newcomers in the network carving out their niche and replacing the founding figures as the central focus. We discuss the implications of these findings, including the nature of SES research as an “epistemic network,” the highly collaborative nature of SES research, and the role played by open-access journals in the growth of SES research in the digital era. We further suggest that the SES research field is at a critical transition point, with contending visions of its future following a more disciplinary path or remaining as a more open interdisciplinary space. We conclude with the questions this raises for future SES research regarding the implications of this duality on the nature, production, and validation of knowledge and its evolution.

This paper summarizes the main findings of the GLAMUR project which starts with an apparently simple question: is “local” more sustainable than “global”? Sustainability assessment is framed within a post-normal science perspective, advocating the integration of public deliberation and scientific research. The assessment spans 39 local, intermediate and global supply chain case studies across different commodities and countries. Assessment criteria cover environmental, economic, social, health and ethical sustainability dimensions. A closer view of the food system demonstrates a highly dynamic local–global continuum where actors, while adapting to a changing environment, establish multiple relations and animate several chain configurations. The evidence suggests caution when comparing “local” and “global” chains, especially when using the outcomes of the comparison in decision-making. Supply chains are analytical constructs that necessarily—and arbitrarily—are confined by system boundaries, isolating a set of elements from an interconnected whole. Even consolidated approaches, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), assess only a part of sustainability attributes, and the interpretation may be controversial. Many sustainability attributes are not yet measurable and “hard” methodologies need to be complemented by “soft” methodologies which are at least able to identify critical issues and trade-offs. Aware of these limitations, our research shows that comparing local and global chains, with the necessary caution, can help overcome a priori positions that so far have characterized the debate between “localists” and “globalists”. At firm level, comparison between “local” and “global” chains could be useful to identify best practices, benchmarks, critical points, and errors to avoid. As sustainability is not a status to achieve, but a never-ending process, comparison and deliberation can be the basis of a “reflexive governance” of food chains.

The Life Framework of Values links the richness of ways we experience and think of nature with the diverse ways nature matters. In this paper, we further develop and clarify the Life Framework in response to comments by Neuteleers et al. (Sustain Sci 14(1):4, 2020, 10.1007/s11625-020-00825-7). They supported its application to move beyond the instrumentalism and anthropocentrism associated with ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to people, but were critical of our addition of the living as nature frame to O’Neill et al.’s (Environmental values. Routledge, London, 2008) original three (living from, in and with the natural world), and of the way we defined intrinsic and relational values. We argue that the original presentation of the frames was as distinct sources of concern for nature. The living as frame, characterised by oneness between nature and people, presents a unique source of concern not adequately represented by the original three frames. Whilst the Life Framework is open to diverse definitions of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values, we present straightforward interpretations that are compatible with multiple ethical systems and can effectively serve deliberative processes. We demonstrate that intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values do not map onto the life frames one-to-one, as each frame layers multiple value justifications. Whilst a key purpose of the Life Framework is to facilitate recognition of a more inclusive set of values in valuation and policy, it can also enable more effective organisation, communication, assessment, bridging and deliberation of values. It also provides multiple levers for sustainability transformation, particularly by fully recognising holistic and relational understandings of people and nature.