Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science

摘要: Abstract This study identifies and analyses the underlying assumptions of experts involved in first author meeting (FAM) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’s Values Assessment, how they shape understandings multiple values nature. We draw from survey data collected 94 attending FAM. Respondents self-report tendencies aims bring to assessment (i.e. motivation), type amount evidence require for knowledge be valid confirmation) their epistemic worldviews objectivity). Four clusters emerged that correspond Pragmatist, Post-Positivist, Constructivist Transformative worldviews. result clarifies different claims are represented science-policy processes. Despite proportionately higher number social scientists compared with previous IPBES assessments, we still found fewer have or than Pragmatist Post-Positivist outlooks, an imbalance may influence types valuation perspectives emphasised assessment. also detected a tension regarding what constitutes between Post-Positivists, who high levels agreement, Pragmatists Constructivists, did not necessarily consider agreement crucial. Conversely, Post-Positivists align relational were more diverse views definitions nature other clusters. emphasized values, while Constructivists tended all value (including values) as important. discuss implications our findings future design delivery processes interdisciplinary research.