Novel ways in which social innovation can tackle biodiversity loss
The term ‘social innovation’ has come to thrive in recent years. A new study is looking at the diverse use of the term in scholarship around sustainability action and tackling biodiversity loss. In this blog, Fergus Lyon is outlining some of the findings.
Blog by FERGUS LYON
Amongst the research around the ecological emergency, there are stories of novel ways in which individuals and communities are changing practices to address biodiversity loss. Our recent paper has explored the nature of these “social innovations” with civic action tackling the human-made impact on countless species. When we hear innovation, we tend to think of technological change first, much of which can be having a negative ecological effect. However, social innovation can tackle the harmful drivers of biodiversity loss while also supporting human flourishing.
As a group of social innovation researchers, we were inspired by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ (IPBES) report that identifies the drivers of biodiversity loss and suggests social innovation as a way forward. We wanted to dig deeper to understand how other studies have made use of the concept of social innovation when examining people-led initiatives for tackling biodiversity loss and the fast-moving extinction of species. Reviewing a wide range of existing published research, we explore how social innovation is reported to be tackling the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss. The use of the term social innovation also presents some challenges that are explored.
Our review shows that social innovation is often described as bottom-up initiatives and local experimentation, allowing differing citizens’ views to be heard, different ways of managing land for wildlife and creating novel alternatives to unsustainable consumption. We identify three ways in which the term social innovation is used in the context of biodiversity initiatives.
There’s a large body of research on social innovation around nature-based solutions that focuses on actions to protect, manage and restore natural ecosystems while addressing social challenges such as food security and human wellbeing. Much recent work has examined nature-based solutions in urban areas, building on a longer tradition of research in rural areas. These initiatives can potentially be powerful ways of bringing together biodiversity benefits and tackling other challenges such as poverty and wellbeing. However, these social innovations are not without their own challenges as they are explicitly prioritising biodiversity actions that support human needs. The focus on nature-based solutions is also linked to initiatives with ‘payment for ecosystem services’ where biodiversity benefits are monetised and short-term benefits rewarded. Our review, however, finds that there is a lack of research that considers impacts on future generations or the inclusion of indigenous communities.
Secondly a lot of work in the field relates social innovation to technology. This can include agroecology and regenerative agricultural practices for food production alongside nature conservation. These more radical alternatives can also include community-supported agriculture that aims to produce food while also improving community wellbeing. In contrast, the term social innovation is also found to be used in research on clean tech and ‘sustainable intensification’ of food production that reduce the area needed to be cultivated for food production, thus freeing up areas for nature conservation or rewilding. However, there is limited research exploring how these forms of innovation are contested and questioned by different parts of society.
Another, third, large body of research puts social innovation into the context of participatory governance. In nature protection areas, for example, it is found that participatory bottom-up approaches are better suited to accommodate differing interests, particularly those whose voices may have been silenced in the past. This can also ensure a more just sharing of benefits from conservation. However, more research is needed to understand how social innovation can bring benefits to some while negatively impacting on the lives of others. There cannot be an assumption of automatic consensus between differing viewpoints.
Looking forward, social innovation—as varied its conceptions seem to be—is a useful term that can support pathways to understanding sustainable prosperity, combining biodiversity action with human flourishing. We must make sure to go beyond using it as a buzz word that glosses over major challenges, and instead let it evolve into a source of structural change in power relations.
The existing research presents social innovation as simple solutions and conflict free. But social innovation isn’t a natural saviour. Conflicts may arise in new constellations, and sustainability issues often come with trade-offs to existing and deeply embedded practices. These might be conflicts between setting up national parks that exclude people and indigenous land rights, or between food production and rewilding, or between fast growing forestry and natural regeneration. Social innovation can be the leverage point for transformation, but only if those involved understand the importance of successfully addressing these conflicts and listening to all voices. In this way social innovation can successfully combine tackling the ecological emergency while supporting human flourishing.
Links
- The full paper is available in open access format until 25 Feb 2022. If you have difficulties accessing the paper, please email us via info@cusp.ac.uk.
Social innovation for biodiversity: A literature review and research challenges—by Rafael Ziegler, Josephine Balzac-Arroyo, Rick Hölsgens, Sarah Holzgreve, Fergus Lyon, Joachim H. Spangenberg, Philipp P. Thapa (2022), Ecological Economics, 193.
