Directory of key methods most suitable for biodiversity decision-making contexts. Report No D2.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 — PLANET4B

BETTER DECISIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND PEOPLE Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B DIRECTORY OF KEY METHODS MOST SUITABLE FOR BIODIVERSITY DECISION-MAKING CONTEXTS 1.1.5 2 PLANET4B receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101082212. This project is funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee. This work has received funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions are of those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland. The European Union, the European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland cannot be held responsible for them. iii Key deliverable information Deliverable number D2.1 Deliverable title Directory of key methods most suitable for biodiversity decision-making contexts Task leader Coventry University (CU) Corresponding author Ilkhom Soliev Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description Directory of: 1) transformative methods of experiential games for social learning, behavioural and institutional change, identifying the most suitable experiential games with specific focus on their applicability within the biodiversity domain; 2) framing and nudging experiments (e.g. various biases and heuristics and activation of social norms); 3) deliberative, creative and arts-based methods (e.g. competency groups, storytelling, deep mapping, nature-based meditation, photo exhibition); for triggering intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional change towards improved states of biodiversity. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 23/04/2023 Authors: Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Agnes Zolyomi; Barbara Smith (CU); Geraldine Brown (CU) 0.2 Draft 15/05/2023 Reviewer: Vinícius Mendes (RU) 0.3 Draft 16/05/2023 Authors: Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Agnes Zolyomi; Barbara Smith (CU); Geraldine Brown (CU) 1.0 Final 17/05/2023 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) Project acronym PLANET4B Project title understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making Starting date 01st November 2022 Duration 36 months Website https://planet4b.eu/ Project coordination and scientific lead team Ilkhom Soliev; Alex Franklin; Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler iv Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Reidun Bolsø (OOF); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Gianluca Brunori (UNIPI); Grania Cooke; Helene Figari (NINA); Andreas Flach (FUG); Vegard Gundersen (NINA); Robert Home (FiBL); Johan Hval (OOF); Cristina Aoki Inoue (RU); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Julia Mildorfova Leventon (CG); Blanka Loučková (CG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Patricia Ofori-Amanfo (CG); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Mirjam Schleiffer (FiBL); David Steinwender (IFZ); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Simeon Vaňo (CG); Daniele Vergamini (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI) Recommended citation Soliev, I., Franklin, A., Zolyomi, A., Smith, B., & Brown, G. (2023). Directory of key methods most suitable for biodiversity decision-making contexts. Report No D2.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15470806 Rights and license This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all task contributors for their time and contributions to all Task 2.1 activities associated with the completion of this report. v List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CGE Culture Goes Europe CU Coventry University DC DADIMA'S C.I.C. ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FUG Forum Urban Gardening IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture MLU Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research OOF Greater Oslo Council for Outdoor Recreation RU Radboud University UNIPI University of Pisa 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iv List of abbreviations and acronyms ......................................................................... v Executive summary ................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2 2 Targeted mapping of intervention methods ......................................................... 4 2.1 Scoping of interventions in accordance with partner expertise (stage 1) .............. 4 2.2 Multi-source targeted review of intervention methods (stage 2) ............................. 5 2.3 Identification of gaps and supplementary literature review (stage 3) ..................... 8 2.4 Key theories and (intensive) case study mapping workshops (stage 4) ................ 9 2.5 Report writing and creation of the directory (stage 5) ............................................ 10 3 Results: Compiling the directory of key intervention methods ........................ 10 3.1 Understanding the directory ..................................................................................... 10 3.2 Preliminary mapping: introducing the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix ....... 12 3.3 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 14 4 Conclusion and outlook ....................................................................................... 15 References ................................................................................................................ 17 Statement on data availability ................................................................................. 19 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................. 19 Annex ........................................................................................................................ 20 Directory of intervention methods as of April 2023 (Annex 1) ..................................... 20 References cited in the directory (Annex 2) .................................................................. 62 2 Executive summary • This report introduces a directory of key intervention methods most suitable for biodiversity decision making contexts. • We used a targeted approach to the mapping of intervention methods, combining scoping the literature, expert input, and narrative review. • The directory contains 100 intervention methods, organised across three main categories: experiential games; framing and nudging experiments; and creative, arts-based and deliberative methods. • Prioritisation has been given to methods capable of triggering change at the ‘deeper’ levels of worldviews, values, beliefs, norms and attitudes. • As an analytical accompaniment to the directory, we propose a ReflexivityContextualisation matrix. The matrix facilitates understanding of the contextualisation of interventions and how social transformations can occur in broader terms. 1 Introduction While we have broad acknowledgement that there is need for transformative social change to address the ongoing and deepening biodiversity crisis (IPBES, 2019), there is little discussion on how to achieve such a change. The question addressed in this report is to what extent we can conceptualise and create a working directory of intervention methods for triggering social change at various intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional levels towards improved states of biodiversity. There are several strands of literature that are particularly relevant for addressing this question and here we particularly focus on the scholarship around societal transformations and leverage points for interventions. Existing studies on transformative change generally focus on understanding what transformative change is and, for example, the potential of various leverage points in a (social-ecological) system to facilitate such change (Meadows, 1999; Abson et al., 2017; Angheloiu & Tennant, 2020; Davila et al., 2021; Leventon et al., 2021; Mupelele et al., 2021; Horcea-Milcu, 2022). One of the overall arguments in this literature in the last decades of research has been that change in deeper-level leverage points such as paradigms, mindsets, norms, and alike, have greater potential for transforming the system at more fundamental levels. In contrast, as the literature argues, change at more “shallow” levels, such as introducing technical measures, tax and incentive policies, without the internalisation of norms or without change in levers at deeper level, will not in the long term provide the sustainable forms of transformative change that are required. At the same time, though, the question of social change is not new per se. There is a vast literature addressing many relevant questions of social change (see e.g. North, 2005; Williamson, 2000 for debates on broader understanding of various levels of social change), but often it is very fragmented across disciplines and practice. Applicable disciplines with relevant knowledge can hardly be listed in an exhaustive manner, yet some of the social sciences, humanities, as well as newer disciplinary areas at the interface of natural and social sciences, have been dealing with the questions of social change for a very long time. This is particularly relevant, for example, for behavioural sciences and psychology at the intrapersonal level of change (see e.g. Kahnemann & Tversky, 1979; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), for anthropology, 3 sociology and human geography at the interpersonal level of change (see e.g. De Sardan, 2008; Sztompka, 1993; Cote & Nightingale, 2012), and for political sciences, economics, and law at the institutional level of change (see e.g. North, 2005 & Williamson, 2000); all of which also overlap and intersect. However, the biodiversity domain remains relatively new to these disciplines, especially at these detailed levels. This is so despite very adjacent domains such as climate change, environment, and nature, having received substantial attention in the last decades, including specifically in connection with the triggering of individual-to-institutional change. The question, then, is how to take stock of the available knowledge on interventions, particularly at the deeper-transformative levels, capable of addressing the ongoing biodiversity crisis (Nielsen et al., 2021). Within PLANET4B, this question is relevant to much of the critical review work undertaken through Work Package 1 (‘Understanding theories of decision making and intersectionality for a transdisciplinary framework of analysis’),1 as it is to the opening task of Work Package 2: Task 2.1: Map transformative, deliberative and creative intervention methods for practice. It is the latter of these which this current deliverable reports upon. Specifically, the purpose of this report is to document the creation of a directory of intervention methods (hereafter referred to as the directory) suitable for application within a biodiversity decisionmaking context, at either an intrapersonal, interpersonal, or institutional level. Notably, the term ‘intervention method’ is used in connection with the directory to refer to methods supportive of triggering a change. Classical interventions include regulatory (laws), market-based (policies with incentives, taxes), and advisory-voluntary (education, awareness raising, etc.) interventions. Interventions also include methods aimed at changing people’s perception, understanding, attitude and/or behaviour. Our focus, in compiling the directory, has been on identifying methods capable of intervening in this latter grouping. The rationale behind this focus is two-fold. Firstly, in accordance with existing literature on leverage points for intervening in a system (Meadows, 1999), it responds to the argument that interventions targeting such deeper-level leverage points have greater potential for transforming the system at more fundamental levels. Secondly, in accordance with the overall purpose of Work Package 2, the suite of methods included in the directory are intended to serve as a practical resource for (potential) direct use within Work Package 3 (‘Learning communities for transformative change’) and Work Package 4 (‘Synthesising transformative pathways and ensuring policy relevance’). As such, prioritisation has been given to identifying intervention methods which learning communities, such as those to be established in the PLANET4B consortium, have both the power and capability of operationalising. Accordingly, three main sets of methods are featured in the directory: 1. Transformative methods of experiential games for social learning, behavioural and institutional change 2. Framing and nudging experiments 3. Deliberative, creative and arts-based methods The remainder of this report is structured as follows. Firstly, we document the approach taken to compiling a database which provides the foundation for the directory. Secondly, we present the results arising from Task 2.1 – namely, the directory 1 See especially Deliverable 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. 4 (included as Annex 1), together also with an accompanying summary descriptive and preliminary analysis, addressing the nature of the entries contained within the directory and their potential purpose for use within the context of the PLANET4B project. Thirdly, we reflect on the limitations of the directory as it currently stands. Fourthly, we conclude and outline the next steps in relation to the directory. 2 Targeted mapping of intervention methods The directory (and accompanying database) has been compiled using a targeted approach to the mapping of intervention methods both inductively and deductively, combining scoping the literature, expert input, and narrative review where the focus was on targeted review and mapping of the variation of interventions from both theoretical and practical perspectives (Bryman, 2016; James et al., 2021). In the case of expert input, we drew upon the rich transdisciplinary knowledge and expertise of consortium partners, including those with previous experience of directly applying individual intervention methods in relevant research contexts (i.e. orientated towards addressing issues of biodiversity, intersectionality, behaviour and/or transformative change). For the review of existing literature (and also, the subsequent provision of example references within the directory), we have included both peer reviewed work and grey literature. The overall task has, though, been restricted to mapping of intervention methods which fall within the above stated three main method sets of PLANET4B (i.e. (experiential) games; behavioural framing/nudging experiments; deliberative, creative and arts-based intervention methods). The remainder of this section provides further methodological detail on the five main stages of this task: (1) Scoping review in accordance with consortium partner expertise; (2) multi-source targeted review; (3) supplementary literature review; (4) mapping workshops; (5) creation of directory. 2.1 Scoping of interventions in accordance with partner expertise (stage 1) The objective for the first stage was to identify and record basic information on intervention methods with which one or more members of the consortium had existing experience of using. Although, as part of this stage, partners were asked to indicate the applicability of each proposed method to biodiversity decision-making contexts, they were also directed not to restrict themselves in this way. Building on an introductory session for Work Package 2 held during the opening consortium meeting (December 2022), the Task 2.1 programme of work was initiated in January 2023, with all participating partners invited to attend an opening workshop at the beginning of February. During this workshop the various envisaged stages of work were first presented (by the task leads) and discussed in outline, with workshop attendees’ more detailed attention then being directed towards the first stage of targeted review. In support of the latter, task partners were introduced to and asked to review an excel sheet (‘Intervention method’) which had been pre-formatted by the task leads (see Figure 1 below). Following minor revision (namely, the addition of a column identifying the partner contributing each method entry) the excel file was agreed upon by all task partners. The partners were then given a two-week period (in immediate follow-on from the 11 indeed fail to be accounted for within) biodiversity decision making. This includes better understanding the extent to which such variations can be mapped on to the intersectional characteristics and identities of individuals or whole groups in combination with the socio-political and environmental settings in which they live out their everyday lives; and, ii) bringing about a (positive) change in the way in which biodiversity is perceived, understood, valued and behaved towards by individuals, groups and institutions. It is in this sense that they are also understood as generative and transformative. Notably, however, throughout this results section we make repeated reference to the ‘potential’ utility of individual methods (and indeed whole method sets). What became clear from the targeted mapping process is that their ultimate effectiveness and suitability (i.e. the extent to which it is able to both advance scientific understanding and render a transformative change amongst participating individuals) will vary in accordance with the specific characteristics and context of each individual research setting. This includes the relational dynamics of study participants (in the case of group activities) and alongside the relational dynamics between study participants and research team. Other relevant factors capable of influencing their usability include, for example, time availability (on the part of research participants as well as researchers), demographic of targeted participants, size and socio-cultural composition of the group, availability of supporting resources, the skills and facilitation capabilities of the researchers, and even – in the case of outdoor interventions – the weather! Nevertheless, the targeted mapping of intervention methods has still resulted in the identification of a considerable number and range of individual methods (also techniques and approaches) with the potential for contributing to transformative change at either an intra-personal, inter-personal or institutional level. This is particularly so for the deliberative, creative and arts-based methods set. The current collection featured in the directory (see Annex 1) includes altogether 100 methods which can be classified as: • 29 experiential games methods; • 11 nudging, framing, social norms, emotions relevant methods; • 60 deliberative, creative and arts-based methods. As noted earlier, in compiling the directory (and accompanying database), we have been especially interested in identifying intervention methods capable of triggering change at the deeper levels of the "lever" – worldviews, values, beliefs, norms, attitudes, etc. Furthermore, in accordance with the need for better understanding (and, in turn, acting upon) the relationship between biodiversity loss, intersectionality, plurality and behaviour change (IPBES, 2019), we have also sought to identify methods which give space and recognition to plural values and to the needs and voices of under-represented subjects. Such methods feature within the first (experiential games) and third (deliberative, creative and arts-based) of the three method sets. To our knowledge this is the first directory of intervention methods specifically addressing the above-mentioned methods sets in the context of identifying methods suitable for application within a biodiversity decision-making context. Notably, however, as per the living nature of this resource, and also the likelihood that new 12 methods will surface during the lifetime of PLANET4B, it is unlikely that the current version of the directory will prove to be definitive. 3.2 Preliminary mapping: introducing the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix As an accompaniment to the directory, we also take the opportunity to present some preliminary analysis of the range of methods featured in the directory. Whilst this analysis has primarily been undertaken for the purpose of supporting the internal transition to the next task of work package 2 (Task 2.2: Align methods to intersectional and biodiversity challenges of individual case studies), it is thought to also have wider (public and theoretical) value. Building on own expertise of the authors (Falk et al., 2023; Franklin, 2022; Soliev et al., 2021; Zolyomi, 2022; Zolyomi et al., 2023) and literature on interventions and social change (e.g. Meadows, 1999; Williamson, 2000; North, 2005; Thaler et al., 2013; Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; van Valkengoed et al., 2022; Janssen et al., 2023) we argue that understanding of transformative interventions most suitable for biodiversity decision-making contexts requires an understanding of 1) contextualisation of interventions and 2) how social transformations can occur in broader terms. We propose a Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix for facilitating such understanding. Figure 3 illustrates a continuum of interventions that range from interventions in abstract contexts or contexts that emphasise relationships in a society in general to interventions highly contextualised for biodiversity explicitly emphasising relationships around biodiversity, nature, environment on the ground. The assumption here (and of PLANET4B) is that most challenges related to the prioritisation of biodiversity in society (such as those rooted in intersectionality) in some ways stem from deeper and often non-biodiversity related social issues. This includes, for example, what values, traditions, customs prevail in a society, how these values shape how we govern ourselves and various issues as a society, and what the resulting power structures are, all of which can have defining implications on to what extent biodiversity is high on the societal agenda as an issue (see also Cikara et al. (2022) for debate on the need to integrate richer context in social psychological research). As such, abstract interventions, such as continuous discussions, deliberations, events that are meant to make us re-think the prevailing and more fundamental discourses in a society at a given time (gender, religion, ethnicity, race, age, culture, disability), can be relevant for all representatives in a society and outcomes are more intangible. Highly contextualised interventions on the other hand aim to facilitate change with a very specific or close focus on biodiversity, nature, environment, with specific groups of stakeholders as participants in the decision-making processes, and often in specific locations. Here the interventions such as stakeholder workshops, joint scenario building activities, actions involving co-creation or co-transformation of space, citizen deliberations and alike, take place on the ground within the contexts where transformations are desired, and the outcomes are more tangible. 13 Figure 3. Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix for conceptualising transformative interventions focusing on games (blue), nudging and framing (green), and arts-based, creative, deliberative methods (red). Source: Authors’ own work. Finally, a further valuable aspect of thinking about transformative interventions using the contextualisation spectrum is that it provides signals in terms of the resources required for the interventions. Highly contextualised interventions tend to require more engagement on the ground at a specific location to ensure involvement of specific stakeholders and development of details that accurately represent the reality (e.g. if interventions take place in Halle about social transformations related to biodiversity prioritisation in or through urban gardens, contextualised interventions will mean names, places, circumstances reflect the situation on the ground). We further argue that transformations in a society can occur in a continuum between 1) change at deeper levels of social change where change is conscious and intentional and the focus is on mental processes and higher-order thinking, such as rethinking assumptions that are often taken for granted, engaging with the challenges, critical thinking, and problem solving; and 2) change at levels where change can occur without conscious awareness or intention – for example, in response to new default processes, such as a new regulation (or how it is presented) that might expand, restrict, reorganise 14 available choices. Transformations through more reflexive, conscious, intentional change thus occur from the bottom up, in the sense that where individuals, groups or a society, develop deeper beliefs about what is valuable, they then begin to shape their behaviour and devise their institutional arrangements accordingly. Whilst transformations through choice architecture occur rather from the top down, in the sense that continuous external stimuli and carefully crafted default choices largely define the availability of choices and more importantly the likely choices integrating them into every-day life and on a mass scale. This categorisation of transformative interventions helps us to make further sense of different groups of interventions in terms of their prevailing focus: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional change. Highly abstract interventions with the purpose to trigger deeper reflections about issues at hand (not about specific people, places, or issues in particular) primarily focus on intrapersonal change. The more contextualised the interventions become (about certain people, certain places, certain issues) the more they centre around interpersonal change, where specific relationships between individuals, groups, communities take the prevalent focus. Interventions that focus on achieving transformations through changes in choice architecture, whether they are about certain people, places, issues or not, often focus on institutionalising the desired change, that is making certain actions a default choice formally or informally. We suggest this analytical approach for facilitating our understanding of transformative interventions conceptually and not as precise and exclusive categories. All these categories often overlap and intersect, and while distinction is useful for understanding and analysis, any selection of transformative interventions should consider various combinations of interventions. 3.3 Limitations Certain limitations regarding this task should be considered. Our primary classification of methods (creative methods, serious games and nudges, framing, etc.) was applied as we considered these methods to be more suitable to induce changes in behaviour with a higher leverage factor, especially when used in mix with each other. Accordingly, in our directory certain, especially institutional level-relevant methods (e.g. policyregulatory, market-based instruments) are not noted, as our scope was on the suitability to Work Package 3, which will mostly operates in a local/sector specific context. Our methodology was developed to capitalise on the expertise of the PLANET4B consortium in a systematic way. Further, the broader set of interventions (not only those listed in this directory) can be analysed through the introduced Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix. Both dimensions of the matrix, as well as the levels of change, can be applied to analysis of any interventions. Hence, although our list of methods is primarily indicative to the knowledge of the partners and cannot be considered exhaustive, there is an important added value derived through iterative inductive process. Further, we chose this approach to enable and utilise entirely the diverse and transdisciplinary background and knowledge of the different organisations and their experts participating in the project. To counteract the potential biases of the consortium nevertheless, we did carry out additional searches ensuring that our database is as thorough as possible. We also want to reflect on the fact that we need further alignment of the other, simultaneously processed, deliverables (esp. D1.2 and D1.4 on theories) to ensure that methods of relevant theories are built into the directory. Concerning the richness of various methods and their multiple versions, probably 15 thousands exist in various formats, which are not currently included in our directory. Nevertheless, we still consider our 100 methods as an ideal starting point to be further explored with the other Work Packages, and to additionally be honed and extended throughout the project. 4 Conclusion and outlook With the contribution of over 50 experts, through a series of steps and reviews, we built a directory of 100 methods varying from horticulture workshop through serious games on global warming to campaigns to build local pride on biodiversity. This directory will serve as a basis for further discussion with PLANET4B case study leads, where partners can evaluate the suitability of the featured methods or method-mixes concerning the case studies’ context. To ensure their usability and attractiveness, the directory will be further developed to be used in Work Package 5 and its educational materials. Upon completion of Work Package 2 (month 36) an extended version of the directory and the accompanying database will be shared as an Open Access resource within the PLANET4B repository. Whereas our primary aim was to work with the case study partners on further tailoring the methods to their needs and context, we consider the directory as a general resource for external users also. Further, through the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix introduced here we aim to initiate a discussion on how we understand and select transformative interventions, both in theoretical and practical terms, beyond PLANET4B. Our aim, going forwards, is to further optimise the coverage and utility of the directory. In so doing, it will be treated as a living resource to which we are able to add additional intervention methods where required. Initially, we will be guided in doing so by the further articulation of the eleven PLANET4B case studies. Over the course of the next six months each case will become more established. Within the support framework of Work Package 3 they will further clarify their aims and objectives, their associated individual programmes of work, their impact pathways, and the composition of their learning communities (intensive case studies) / advisory boards (extensive case studies). This activity will, in turn, make it possible (and likely necessary) for us to further calibrate and evolve the content of the directory towards the respective characteristics, needs and intervention opportunities of each case. For this reason, it is important that the directory remains under active review. Keeping the directory under review is also important in accordance with our longer-term aim of maximising its wider scientific and practical value for use by a range of different stakeholders out-with and beyond the lifetime of this project. In terms of practical steps to be taken in support of the above: • Our immediate next step will be to circulate the directory to all consortium partners for review. • In parallel to circulating the directory consortium partners will be invited to attend an expert group workshop. The purpose of the workshop will be to discuss – via both small group and plenary sessions – the relevance, utility and practicality of the intervention methods across the individual cases. This discussion will be further stimulated by the use of a series of simple mapping matrices (including that presented in section 3.2 above). The workshop will help us to establish such as: types of method for which there is greater or lesser demand within the 16 cases; methods which may need to be adapted in accordance with the specificities of individual cases (e.g. biodiversity focus; intersectionality characteristics); and also any methodological intervention needs which are, as yet, unmet by the directory. • In follow on from the workshop consortium partners will be updated on any revisions to the directory. This will be achieved both through targeted communications within individual case study leads, and also more broadly by Work Package 2 leads working closely with Work Package 3 leads (and all associated task leads). The continued close collaboration between these work packages will, in turn, ensure that the directory continues to act as a key supporting resource aligned to the (evolving) needs of the individual case studies. • Over the course of the remainder of PLANET4B we will also endeavour to keep abreast of any intervention methods which emerge during the period. This will be achieved via targeted review of both peer reviewed and grey literature (including using keyword search terms and through snowballing reference review). It will also continue to be informed by the expert knowledge of the consortium partners. 17 References Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., ... & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y Angheloiu, C. & Tennant, M. (2020). Urban futures: Systemic or system changing interventions? A literature review using Meadows' leverage points as analytical framework. Cities, 104. 102808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102808 Balmford, A., Bradbury, R. B., Bauer, J. M., Broad, S., Burgess, G., Burgman, M., ... & Nielsen, K. S. (2021). Making more effective use of human behavioural science in conservation interventions. Biological Conservation, 261, 109256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109256 Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cialdini, R. B. & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate changerelated behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.01.005 Cikara, M., Martinez, J. E. & Lewis Jr, N. A. (2022). Moving beyond social categories by incorporating context in social psychological theory. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(9), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00079-3 Cote, M. & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography, 36(4), 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708 Davila, F., Plant, R. & Jacobs, B. (2021). Biodiversity revisited through systems thinking. Environmental Conservation, 48(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892920000508 De-Sardan, J. P. O. (2008). Anthropology and Development: Understanding Contemporary Social Change. Bloomsbury Publishing. Falk, T., Zhang, W., Meinzen-Dick, R., Bartels, L., Sanil, R., Priyadarshini, P. & Soliev, I. (2023). Games for experiential learning: triggering collective changes in commons management. Ecology and Society, 28(1): 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13862-280130 Franklin, A. (2022). Co-creativity and Engaged Scholarship: Transformative Methods in Social Sustainability Research (p. 559). Springer Nature. Horcea-Milcu, A. I. (2022). Values as leverage points for sustainability transformation: Two pathways for transformation research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 57, 101205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101205 IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 1148 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 James, K. L., Randall, N. P. & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6 Janssen, M. A., Falk, T., Meinzen-Dick, R. & Vollan, B. (2023). Using games for social learning to promote self-governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 62, 101289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101289 18 Kahneman, D. & Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(29), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 Leventon, J., Abson, D. J. & Lang, D. J. (2021). Leverage points for sustainability transformations: nine guiding questions for sustainability science and practice. Sustainability Science, 16, 721–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-02100961-8 Meadows, D.H. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland VT: The Sustainability Institute. Mupepele, Anne-Christine, Helge Bruelheide, Carsten Brühl, Jens Dauber, Michaela Fenske, Annette Freibauer, Bärbel Gerowitt et al. (2021). Biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes: Transformative societal changes needed. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36(12), 1067–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.08.014 North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Soliev, I., Janssen, M. A., Theesfeld, I., Pritchard, C., Pirscher, F. & Lee, A. (2021). Channeling environmentalism into climate policy: An experimental study of Fridays for Future participants from Germany. Environmental Research Letters, 16(11), 114035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac30f7 Sztompka, P. (1993). The Sociology of Social Change. Wiley-Blackwell. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale: Yale University Press. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R. & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture. In: The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy. E. Shafir (ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, chapter 25, pp. 428–439. van Valkengoed, A. M., Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. (2022). To select effective interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to consider determinants of behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 1482–1492. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01473-w Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic literature, 38(3), 595–613. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2565421 Wnuk, K. & Garrepalli, T. (2018). Knowledge management in software testing: a systematic snowball literature review. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, 12(1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.5277/e-Inf180103 Zolyomi, A. (2022). How to Make Policy-Makers Care about “Wicked Problems” such as Biodiversity Loss?—The Case of a Policy Campaign. In: Co-Creativity and Engaged Scholarship. A. Franklin (ed.). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 527. Zolyomi, A., Franklin, A., Smith, B. & Soliev, I. (2023). Ecosystem services as the silver bullet? A systematic review of how ecosystem services assessments impact biodiversity prioritisation in policy. Earth System Governance, 16, 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2023.100178 19 Statement on data availability The directory of methods is available in Annex 1 and the references cited in the directory in Annex 2. Statement on ethics This work used published material available on the Internet. No personal data were collected, so no ethical issues are apparent. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. 20 Annex Directory of intervention methods as of April 2023 (Annex 1) Directory of interventions suitable for application within a biodiversity decision making context. Source: Authors’ own work. Note: categories and evaluative notes are based on subjective assessment of the authors derived from the expert inputs, relevant literature, and relative to other interventions, see the full report for details. Category Name of method Short description Potential suitability for biodiversity decisionmaking contexts Reference Potential for transformative change (High=H Medium=M Low=L) Practicality (High=H Medium=M Low=L) Creative and arts-based methods Modelling and mapping Deep mapping Deep mapping is a form of critical cartography which uses a collaborative and reflexive cycle of research, dialogue as well as visual and written analysis, to co-creatively capture alternative forms of sensing, relating to and representing space. Deep mapping can take a variety of forms, but commonly involves artful layering of multiple different dimensions and versions of a mapped space. Deep maps capture the relational complexity of space, often with a purpose of increasing public awareness of what and whom are commonly excluded from more standard forms of mapping and in so doing, supporting social empowerment and/or increasing awareness of the role of nature and biodiversity in the making of place. Humphris et al. (2022) L M Mental maps (place based) Participants are asked to draw maps of a specified location as a way of identifying subjective interpretations of space. When used as part of a workshop or other group setting mental maps can support increased understanding on different meaning and uses of space by different social groupings (e.g. youth, elderly, ethnic Götz and Holmen (2018) L H 27 virtual in arrangement, and the issue/challenge with which it is engaging. Social movements Transition Towns Long term place-based citizen led transition movement addressing multiple dimensions of sustainable production & consumption/behaviour and practice at a local level (e.g. food, energy, housing, transport, biodiversity, education, health & wellbeing), including via the establishment of a wide range of transformative and inclusive community initiatives. Transition Towns movements promote citizen empowerment, education, awareness raising and grass roots led collaborative action for change . Feola and Nunes (2014) H L Action research and action learning Systemic Action Research Systemic action research offers a research and learning architecture for engaging large (and dynamic fluctuating) numbers of participants 'in multiple parallel and interlocking inquiry processes, across a system where issues are interconnected' (Burns 2014). Aims at identifying and acting upon the systemic properties of complex real-world issues Burns (2014) M M Reflective Learning Methodology A participatory actionlearning methodology which incorporates, through a series of dynamic and interactive stages: i) reflection workshops to both coidentify research questions and participatory methods to be used during associated field research, and to review and monitoring the results of the fieldwork, and ii) The method is aimed at encouraging continuous collective reflection between a range of stakeholders, and also at intentionally producing results which are of value for policy, practice and science. Moschitz and Home (2014) M M 28 corresponding field based co-production of knowledge between researchers / research participants. Art and craft based visual communiation Zines Involves the Do-ItYourself creation (either by an individual or by a group) of a handmade publication to convey information about a specific issue and/or study results with emphasis on use of visual image and story telling; can incorporate hand writing, calligraphic writing, drawings, photos, collage (etc). Supports wider engagement with issues and enhanced accessibility of research results Velasco et al. (2020) L H Drawing / thematic drawing As with draw and write / draw, write and tell, drawing is a very inclusive method suitable for use with a wide range of participants and often especially popular for use with children, where there may be a risk of illiteracy amongst participants and/or where participants have limited ability to converse in the language of the researcher. Drawings help to convey how something (e.g. an issue, place, environment, object or subject(s)) is perceived by an individual and the process of inviting (especially vulnerable) individuals to participate through the mode of drawing can both empower and encourage self reflection. Notably though, where drawings are analysed without any accompanying written/oral narrative by the participant, considerable care must be taken in how they are interpreted. Young and Barrett (2001) L H Seasonal mapping / calendars Calendars are constructed either by the participants themselves during a facilitated session, or by professional artists. Seasonal calendars can used to capture, display, educate and generally communicate about biodiversity knowledge and associated humanMcKemey et al. (2020) L H 29 Where professional artists are involved, they can be asked to use information separately gained from participants by researchers and/or create visual representations whilst directly in accompaniment with research participants (e.g. during a creative workshop). nature relations in an evocative and accessible manner. Visceral, imersive, experiential and mobile methods Earth walking (outdoor education) The earth walking method can be undertaken in a wide range of outdoor settings (including some outdoor urban settings), and for a duration of either a single day, or up to three days together with night camping. In order to achieve a transformative impact amongst participants there needs to be a strong group dynamic, expert facilitation, and also ideally a dedicated ‘debriefing’ session in follow on from the ‘earth walk’. Outdoor Education methods such as ‘earth walking’ are characterised by a strong connection with the natural environment. This is achieved by: teaching about environment, through the environment (e.g. by using its elements as educational tools) and in the environment (by being outdoors rather than indoors). In the specific case of Earth Walking the method is used to stimulate active learning about Human Evolution and Human Impact, especially in terms of the impact of humans (and human decision making) on the environment and how to protect biodiversity. Outdoor Academy (2018) L M Nature immersion Nature immersion activities are centred around facilitating small groups of participants spending time outdoors, experiencing nature. This can take the form of Aimed at stimulating a greater awareness as well as a more caring and appreciative relationship with nature, whilst also promoting human health & wellbeing; Lim et al. (2020) M M 30 facilitated day sessions and/or longer facilitated residentials and retreats. Workshops in nature Workshops held outdoors in natural settings/sites of green space (e.g. gardens) to discover biodiversity relevant habitat elements and learn about their maintenance by a local/resident and/or scientific expert, with opportunity for peer-topeer consulting by providing the space for participants (e.g. gardeners) to meet and exchange. Workshops in nature help to increase participants' awareness, knowledge and appreciation of local flora and fauna as well as the multiple roles and values of biodiversity more broadly Priebe et al. (2022) M H A night hike (experiential learning) Incorporating the use of an expert guide and facilitator the night hike method is used to teach participants about the environment, through environment (by using its elements as educational tools) and in the environment (by emphasising outdoor activities over indoor ones). The method requires preparation (including route planning) and establishment of a collaborative group dynamic. Often used with young people (18-30), a perfect place for a night hike is a forest, but equally night hikes can also been undertaken in urban settings. Often used as a form of outdoor education, emphasis is given through this method to promoting experiential learning and greater appreciation of the roles of nature. Outdoor Academy (2018) L M Walk and talk / mobile interviews A mobile semior unstructured interview method which can be of Mobile interviews are often used for the purpose of better Bardsley et al. (2019) L H 31 varying length and either digitally recorded, or written up subsequently in field notes. The interview may undertaken with a single individual or small group of participants. In arranging the interview attention needs to be given to any mobility needs of either the participant or researcher and also the location (e.g. safety, background noise, accessibility) and length of the planned route. understanding complex relationships between people and outdoor spaces/places in either urban or rural settings, including stakeholder know-how and lived experiences within such settings. They can also be used to engage respondents in discussion of sensitive issues in a less confrontational manner than may be associated with a more static face-toface interview arrangement Excursions / Field trips Excursions / field trips offer a different approach to learning about something than teaching theories. They are based on the premise that the subject of study/interest (e.g. nature) needs to be experienced directly. The excursion can be a half or full day or involve a residential stay. Commonly they are organised for small or large groups and include a facilitator and/or expert guide. Seeing and learning about examples, initiatives, and content firsthand can contribute to deeper understanding, broaden horizons, foster teamwork, and contribute to personal development. In addition, they can increase one's own motivation for dealing with the content of one's own projects; Rickinson et al. (2004) L M Stigmergic gardening People (known or anonymous) are invited by signals (e.g. signs with pictograms or placed tools) to perform tasks within a garden, e.g. planting, watering but also harvesting. Gardening can also refer to the care of green public spaces. Stigmergic gardening can be used to promote engagement with nature, the development of new skills, reflection and also increased selfconfidence Heylighen (2015) L H 32 Mindfulness and mediation based intervention Guided individual and/or group based sessions facilitating participants' deep, embodied and open-minded awareness of the present-moment. Mindfulness and mediation encourage curiosity, reflexivity, openness, calmness and relational connectivity; increases capacity to cope with stressful and challenging situations and environments Schuman-Oliver et al. (2020) L H Yoga as research method Yoga classes are provided to small groups of research participants in either an indoor or outdoor settings. Care must be taken to ensure that the yoga exercises are suitable (and prior risk assessed) in accordance with the characteristics of research participants. As an intervention method yoga classes are ideally accompanied by other complimentary forms of research method supportive of encouraging reflection and dialogue with (and amongst) research participants. Can be used to explore and raise consciousness around the role of the body, haptic senses, and also sense of self in connection with how meanings and understandings are constructed and experienced. Can also be used as a method for building trust between researchers and research participants. Buckingham and Degen (2012) L H Poetry walk Poetry can be used as a medium for bringing together and stimulating 'sensations, emotions, insights, reflections, imaginations, descriptions, and affects' (Paiva, 2020). Typically a poetry walk will follow a pre-planned route, with intervals of poetry reading in set locations. The poetry may either be provided by the facilitating researcher, or Poetry walks can be used to encourage multisensory engagement with a diverse range of issues, environments and subjects/objects. They can also be used stimulate a greater awareness, appreciation or sense of connection with the point of focus and in turn encourage a change of mindset. Paiva (2020) L H 33 by participants themselves. Whilst moving along a walk between poetry readings participants can either be encouraged to reflect individually in silence, or through dialogue with other walk participants. A poetry walk is sometimes also accompanied by a final summative reflection session, facilitated by the researcher. Soundwalk Soundwalks are guided walks which take place outdoors and during which attention is directly towards observation of multiple different sounds. The sounds can either be naturally occurring or they can be pre-recorded and played back to participants at set points along a route. Often the route to be taken is preplanned by the organiser, and so too the time of day for the activity to take place. In some cases participants may be asked to repeat a route at different times of the day (or even, during different weathers and seasons) for the purpose of exploring variations in soundscapes. Soundwalks are limited to either small groups or individual participants, with accompanying researchers also assisting in noting the In directing our attention towards soundscapes, soundwalks attend to the embodied and multisensory ways in which humans experience and perceive environments. Findings from soundwalk studies provide further evidence for the potential variation in how environments are perceived and experienced by individuals in accordance with their individual life histories and intersectional characteristics. The results are sometimes shared in the form of a sensory map. Young Jeon et al. (2013) L H 34 locations of observed sounds. Story telling and visual narrative Vignettes Vignettes can include short stories, scenarios or case examples. They can be presented to individual participants or to small groups, with the participants given time to first read (or listen to) and reflect on the vignette before responding. In the case of small groups they can also be used to encouraged group discussion and reflection. They can be employed at various stages in a research process, and are often used in combination with other research methods (e.g. interviews, focus group, participatory workshops). Vignettes can be used in support of eliciting a range of responses, including (e.g.) opinions, beliefs, attitudes, wider commentary, and/or selfreflection on what a participant may themselves have done in a similar circumstance. They also serve as a supportive means of addressing sensitive issues with research participants. Barter and Renold (1999) L H Story telling As a research method storytelling can take multiple forms, including oral, written, visual (e.g. story boarding), role play and theatrical enactment; artefacts can also be enlisted to support and enrich storytelling both on the part of the participant story teller and also how it is received by a target audience. The story teller can be either a professional facilitator / story teller, or a volunteer from within the group of participants. Story telling sessions often include a number of different stories (and potentially Story telling can be highly effective and evocative as a way of encouraging participants to gain new knowledge, awareness, appreciation and/or interest in a wide range of issues. Story telling can also be a very inclusive and accessible method for communicating information, suitable for use with a diverse range of participants. Wright et al. (2012) L H 35 also, a number of different story tellers). Story boarding This method can either be used as a stand alone form of story telling by one or more participants, or it can be used as an integral part of participatory video and film making. A series of picture scenes are used to tell the story, commonly with hand drawn images and where required brief accompanying annotations. Story boarding supports the visualisation of a narrative, including for the purposes of developing a film. It is an accessible method which can be used with a diverse range of both participants and audiences. It can be used to convey a story or key message in a more engaging manner. The process of creating a story board also supports group based collaboration and planning. Claverie et al. (2016) L H Comics Comics can be used to engage people of all ages and backgrounds. Reading them or making them tends to entertain everyone involved in the process. They can be created in either a single or a series of sessions and do not require any specific prior skills on the part of participants. Because comics are familiar to most people from childhood onwards, with basic facilitation participants will usually be able to easily understand what they have been tasked with completing and how to proceed. The use of a narrative form such as a comic can foster participant’s interest, promote discussion in connection with issues which participants may not have previously engaged, and help them to retain learning. Readily shared between peers and accessible to a very wide range of audiences regardless of age, language, education level (etc), they can also be a valuable educational resource. Friesen et al. (2018) L H Photo voice Photovoice commonly involves research participants being tasked firstly with taking a series Photo voice encourages critical reflection and can prove empowering for participants. It provides Wang and Burris (1997) L H 36 of photos, of their own choosing, in connection with a particular brief, issue and/or place; and then secondly, providing a short description of what an image depicts for them, together with an explanation of why it matters to them and thus why they were minded to take the photograph. The latter can either be secured by way of asking the participants to provide accompanying written descriptions for each of their photographs, or through oral discussion of the photographs with them during a follow-on research interview. The outputs from photovoice exercises are sometimes also publicly displayed in the form of an exhibition. enhanced understanding on individual perceptions and/or relationships within particular objects, landscapes, events or issues. It can also be an effective means of directing attention towards those whose voices, experiences and viewpoints are otherwise seldom heard and appreciated in connection with a particular issue (e.g. youth, minority ethnic). Creative voice Creative voice has been developed as an adaption and extension of photovoice. In addition to using photography as a medium for representing spaces, items, objects, subjects and associated issues of meaning to individuals, participants are also able to draw on other mediums of artistic expression at their own discretion Creative voice (alike photovoice) aims to encourage critical reflection and can prove empowering for participants, giving recognition to their viewpoints and knowledge. It provides enhanced understanding on individual perceptions and/or relationships within particular objects, landscapes, events or issues. It can also be an effective means of directing attention towards those whose voices, experiences, Rivera Lopez et al. (2018) L H 43 an argument; expert presentations are regularly interspersed with small group and also plenary discussion by participants; the final stage involves collaborative writing and/or agreement on a report setting out participant view points, recommendations and key findings; citizen assemblies can accommodate a large number of participants (e.g. c.100). wide ranging sociodemographic representation as a means of bringing into play both a depth and breadth of knowledges and world views. Citizen deliberations / Deliberative workshops Deliberative workshops can be organised in a format similar to a focus group. To aid a sufficient depth of discussion and promote input from all participants, groups are usually limited to c.8-15 members and the may take place in either a single or series of sessions. During the session a semistructured approach to facilitation is commonly used, with participants being asked to share their views, experience and knowledge in connection with a specific issue or sets of questions. Invitations to attend can also be extended to relevant 'expert' guest speakers. Deliberative workshops usually include a commitment, on the part of the organisers, to convey the results to a target stakeholder group (e.g. policy makers) with the aim that such evidence will trigger action or change. In facilitating deliberation and knowledge exchange between groups of citizens they also serve the purpose of prompting awareness and appreciation of a range of different viewpoints, experiences and sources of (citizen) knowledge. Myant and Urquhart (2009) M M Most Significant Change technique Most significant change is a dialogical storybased technique which aims at achieving a Most significant change technique can aid the identification of key policy/programme/interve McDonald et al. (2009a) M H 44 summative participatory evaluation of the outcomes of a particular policy, programme or other form of real world intervention. ntion outcomes and support open deliberation as to their value and significance. Design Thinking / Participatory Design A problem solving approach which commonly begins with (facilitated) identification of key questions/challenges, followed by a mix of individual and collective analysis (potentially incorporating a range of story telling, visualisation, discussion and team work formats). Participatory design thinking is aimed at supporting both the process and mindset required to collaboratively identify solutions to 'wicked' problems (i.e. complex problems evoking multiple interpretations and for which there exists no quick fix or single solution). It promotes increased awareness, creativity, innovation and reflexivity amongst participating stakeholders. de Mendonca et al. (2019) M M Citizen juries Based on the model of a criminal jury, citizen juries requires the recruitment of a small group of participants (where possible with representation from a range of different sociocultural groups) who, across a number of sessions, are tasked with hearing and collectively reflecting upon evidence given by a series of invited expert speakers in connection with a focal issue, before reaching their own independent verdict. Citizen juries raise awareness of the value and importance of citizen participation in public decision making. They provide an insight into how citizen viewpoints on a particular issue, as well as how public opinion is formed and informed in connection with a range of different evidence sources. Aldred and Jacobs (2000) M M Consensus conference A consensus conference follows a structured conference style format, Consensus conferences are used to promote citizen deliberation McDonald et al. (2009b) M M 45 through which c. 12-15 individually selected participants are invited to present their viewpoint, listen to the presentations of all other attendees, and engage in (facilitated) small group discussion. Conferences commonly take-place over one or more full days conducive of reaching consensus on solutions, points of action, pathways to change and (where applicable) associated policy levers, in connection with a controversial of topical issue. Competency groups An inclusive group-based method for co-producing knowledge between multiple expert stakeholders (including those in a professional capacity and those with non-certified expertise). Individual sessions take the form of focus group style group discussions, with or without external input from guest speakers. Requires multiple sessions of discussion over a medium time period (e.g. 6-12 months) Can be used to foster collaborative action to overcome societal and environmental challenges; intended to achieve change rather than be merely a 'talking shop'. Landström et al. (2011) M M T-Labs (Transformation Labs) Informed by a systems modelling approach, TLabs are comprised of stakeholders ('innovators') with an declared interest in bringing about change in connection with a particular issue and also some degree of power or capacity to deliver the change in practice (or through policy). As part of the T-Lab process, activities are undertaken by the group aimed at building their capacity to T-Labs are intended to produce social innovations and in so doing 'guide transformations in socialecological systems towards sustainability' (Pathways network 2018:7). Supported by the development of a 'change strategy' T-Labs are used to co-creatively identify change interventions and to build momentum for action. Although they require a willingness on the part of Network (2018) M M 46 bring about change. This includes the collaborative development of a 'change strategy' and an associated review a of range of different potential solutions to the challenge being addressed. T-labs require expert facilitation, background research, intentional selection of (a limited number of) participants, and iterative cycles of reflection and reporting of results/progress against an original challenge, between individual workshops. They commonly last from one to three days. participating stakeholders for bringing about change, they can be used to address and resolve disagreements on what type of changes should be introduced and how to do so. T-labs 'create a space to think about transformation in a new way' (Pathways network 2018:9). Experiential games Lab and artefactual experiments Public goods game The Public Goods Game is an experimental economic game that examines cooperative behaviour and the provision of public goods. In this game, participants are given a sum of money and must decide how much to contribute to a common pool. The contributed amount is multiplied by a factor and then evenly distributed among all participants, regardless of their individual contributions. The game tests individuals' willingness to cooperate and contribute to a collective benefit versus maximising their own personal gains. A public goods game can be contextualised as a biodiversity game or a debriefing session after the abstract public goods game can focus on parallels with biodiversity. Games for Sustainability (2017a) L H 47 Common pool resource game The Common Pool Resource Game is an experimental game that simulates the management of shared resources, such as forests or fisheries. Participants are given the opportunity to extract resources from a common pool, with each extraction depleting the resource to some extent. However, there is a risk of resource collapse if participants collectively extract beyond the sustainable level, highlighting the challenges of balancing individual self-interest with the long-term preservation of shared resources. A common pool resource game can be contextualised as a biodiversity game or debriefing session after the abstract common pool resources game can focus on parallels with biodiversity. Games for Sustainability (2017b) L H Games of cooperation, coordination, and conflict In this set of games twoplayer games on cooperation and coordination are framed in a natural resource management context. This set of games demonstrate how small changes in payoff structure affect the social dilemma and expected outcomes. Games of cooperation, coordination, and conflict can be contextualised for biodiversity (but exact payoff matrix might be difficult to develop) or debriefing session after the abstract game can focus on parallels with biodiversity. Games for Sustainability (2017c) L H Trust game The Trust Game is an experimental game that explores trust and cooperation between individuals. In this game, one participant, known as the "trustor," is given an initial endowment and has the option to send some or all of it to another The game can be framed in a biodiversity context (for example, for agricultural production) and debriefing can be used for parallels after an abstract game. Games for Sustainability (2017d) L H 48 participant, known as the "trustee." The amount sent is multiplied by a factor, and the trustee can then decide how much to return to the trustor. The game examines the trustor's willingness to take a risk by sending money and the trustee's trustworthiness in returning a portion of the received amount, thus reflecting dynamics of trust and reciprocity in social interactions. Coase bargaining (negotiations game) The Coase Bargaining game is an economic game that simulates a bargaining situation to analyse the allocation of resources between two parties. In this game, participants negotiate over the distribution of a fixed amount of resources, with each player having a different initial claim. They can make offers and counteroffers to reach an agreement, but if no agreement is reached, the resources are lost. The game allows researchers to study the bargaining process, strategic decisionmaking, and the factors that influence the final outcome of resource allocation. The game can be framed in a biodiversity context (for example, for agricultural production) and debriefing can be used for parallels after an abstract game. Games for Sustainability (2017e) L H Artefactual and framed field experiments Dam maintenance game This game is based on a public goods game, where players jointly The dam maintenance game could be ICRISAT et al. (2022a) M M 49 contribute to a water harvesting infrastructure from which everyone receives benefits. contextualised for biodiversity. Channel irrigation game In this game players decide on water use while facing water scarcity. They chose to grow water efficient or water consumptive crops while available water is only sufficient if every player grows the water efficient crop. The game can be either re-framed for biodiversity or debriefing sessions can focus on parallels with biodiversity. ICRISAT et al. (2022b) M M Surface water game This game is based on a common pool resource game where players can decide on contributing to a water harvesting structure. Water harvesting structure makes water available for the group. Water appropriation decisions are framed as the choice of crops with different water efficiencies. This game combines decisions on harvesting from a resource and investing in infrastructure. A similar set of mechanics could be explored for biodiversity, and whether that is possible at all. ICRISAT et al. (2022c) M M Pastoralism game In this game participants have to decide how much livestock to put in different locations. The game can be either re-framed for biodiversity or debriefing sessions can focus on parallels with biodiversity. Games for Sustainability (2017f) M M Fisheries game In this game participants have to decide where to fish and how much to fish. The game can be applicable to the biodiversity domain for facilitating the cognitive, normative, relational learning in relation to an environmental common pool resource dilemma – revealing, experiencing, and overcoming potential conflicts between individual decisions and interests of the broader group. Debriefing Games for Sustainability (2017g) Castillo et al. (2011) M M 50 sessions will be key for reflecting on lessons and parallels to relevant reallife situations. Forests game In this game participants harvest from a renewable resource representing trees in a forest. The game can be applicable to the biodiversity domain for facilitating the cognitive, normative, relational learning in relation to an environmental common pool resource dilemma – revealing, experiencing, and overcoming potential conflicts between individual decisions and interests of the broader group. Debriefing sessions will be key for reflecting on lessons and parallels to relevant reallife situations. Games for Sustainability (2017h) Janssen et al. (2013) M M Groundwater game In this game participants make decisions about which crop to plant where crops require different amounts of water. The game can be applicable to the biodiversity domain for facilitating the cognitive, normative, relational learning in relation to an environmental common pool resource dilemma – revealing, experiencing, and overcoming potential conflicts between individual decisions and interests of the broader group. Debriefing sessions will be key for reflecting on lessons and parallels to relevant reallife situations. IFPRI et al. (2022) Meinzen-Dick et al. (2018) M M Irrigation game In this game participants make decisions to invest in the irrigation system maintenance and to extract water for irrigating their individual plots. The game can be applicable to the biodiversity domain for facilitating the cognitive, normative, relational learning in relation to an Games for Sustainability (2017i) Janssen et al. (2012) M M 51 environmental common pool resource dilemma – revealing, experiencing, and overcoming potential conflicts between individual decisions and interests of the broader group. Debriefing sessions will be key for reflecting on lessons and parallels to relevant reallife situations. Role playing games Coastal Flooding in Shoreham "Coastal Flooding in Shoreham" is a roleplaying simulation game developed by the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. The game aims to help participants understand the complexities and challenges associated with coastal flooding and climate change risks. Players take on the roles of various stakeholders, such as local residents, government officials, and environmental activists, and must collaborate to address the impacts of coastal flooding, make decisions, and negotiate strategies for adaptation and risk management. The game encourages participants to explore different perspectives, engage in problemsolving discussions, and develop skills in negotiation, collaboration, and decision-making in the context of climate change The game can be applicable to the biodiversity domain for facilitating the understanding and negotiation skills in the context of responding to an uncertainty as a community comprised of heterogenous actors. The games focuses on developing agreements in a community to adapt to potential climate change risks – such as flooding. In this sense, debriefing could focus on 1) the links between the climate risk and biodiversity loss, 2) biodiversity loss and potential consequences thereof could be integrated as part of the problem to be tackled in the game by amplifying the conservation narrative already in the game. Harvard Law School (n.d.a) H M 52 and its effects on coastal communities. DirtyStuff II Six-person, multi-issue facilitated negotiation among industry, environmental, consumer/community, labour, and government representatives to develop single-text regulation of toxic industrial by-product. The game can be applicable to the biodiversity domain directly as DirtyStuff is depicted also as a potential environmental hazard and an environmental representative participates in the game to make sure more stringent regulations are agreed in the final document. The game is also useful for facilitating the understanding of unwritten nuances in negotiations, but also for developing skills of constructive techniques in a multi-issue multiparty negotiation. Debriefing can include reflections on measuring impact on biodiversity, negotiating while dealing with uncertainty, social processes between parties with diverse interests. Harvard Law School (n.d.b) H M Offshore Wind Farm Negotiation Eight-party nonscorable negotiation among commercial, environmental, and governmental stakeholders over a controversial proposal to develop offshore wind farms. The game is centred around techniques for creating value in spite of differences; joint factfinding in the face of The game can be applicable to the biodiversity domain directly as one of the key concerns in the game is the impact of the Offshore Wind Farm on marine life and environment. The game is a negotiation of a development project in a society that reveals different values, needs, interests, and practices rule making. Debriefing Harvard Law School (n.d.c) H M 59 Choice experiments Choice experiments, also known as discrete choice experiments or stated preference methods, are a research technique used to understand individuals' preferences and decision-making processes. In choice experiments, participants are presented with a series of hypothetical scenarios or choice sets, each consisting of different alternatives with varying attributes. Choice experiments are widely used in various fields such as marketing, transportation, environmental economics, and healthcare. They provide valuable insights into consumer behaviour, policy evaluation, product design, and market demand. The results of choice experiments can inform decision-making, resource allocation, and the development of tailored strategies to meet consumer preferences. Mariel et al. (2021) M H Behavioural experiments Behavioural experiments allow researchers to explore and test hypotheses about human behaviour in different situations, both theoretical and literal. Participants are randomly assigned to different groups (called treatments), which only differ with regard to the specific condition the experimenter would like to test. This ‘control’ over the different situations allows the researcher to establish a causal relationship between the observed behaviour and the specific condition (D. Friedman, S. Sunder, 1994). In the context of sustainability research, controlled behavioural experiments have been mostly used to identify factors associated with effective collective action around critical natural resources (T. Lindahl et al., 2021). These types of experiments can help establish specifically which factor resulted in more pro-environmental behaviour. Chaigneau and Schill (2022) H M Buidling capacity and motivation Training/providing information and behavioural support Information provision can help accumulate knowledge and can build capacities as well as Information could be about raising awareness (e.g. about biodiversity loss), details of current Balmford et al. (2021) L H 60 motivation to nurture new types of behaviour. undesired behaviour impacts (e.g. impacts of car use on air pollution) or instructions about performing a new behaviour (e.g. how to build a biodiversityfriendly garden). Information provision can also take many forms ranging from awareness campaigns through physical training in nature. Pledging (Communicating social norms and commitment) Social norms define what we normally do (or we think we do) and are the foundation of our society, culture and social interactions. When pledging to act on a proenvironmental way, we will want to be consistent with our choices and we are more likely act on it. This behaviour is further enabled by peers and an environment that supports the given behaviour (e.g. if our friends are vegetarian, user bikes instead of cars, etc.) Enabling pledging, making a private or public commitment (e.g. using bikes instead of cars, or no-meat Mondays) will help us be consistent with our belief system if we want to act on a proenvironmental ways. According to literature, with sufficient background information, we are more likely to pledge to proenvironmental behaviour. Balmford et al. (2021) M H Increasing local pride of biodiversity Social norms define what we normally do (or we think we do) and are the foundation of our society, culture and social interactions. When local pride of a given area or species is supported and shared by the relevant community, behaviour change is more likely to be triggered also thanks Increasing local pride by highlighting the ecological values and importance of nearby sites and species followed by related awareness raising campaigns are important tool to increase support and result in proenvironmental behaviour. Balmford et al. (2021) M M 61 to various positive emotions. Providing feedback on performance Outcome efficacy is how we consider our behaviour contributing to a certain target/behaviour. Providing information about concrete measurable results of behaviour can induce behaviour change (e.g. comparing monthly spending on meat, energy use) if we consider it important for our personal norms to perform better. Setting a system to measure proenvironmental behaviour and enable people to track their contribution/performance even in a competing scheme (e.g. games on who can save more energy) can nudge people for proenvironmental behaviour. Displaying e.g. the community performance can also help enable certain behaviours (e.g. showing the average energy consumption). van Valkengoed et al. (2022) M H Goal setting Built on personal efficacy and performance, we can set specific goals to achieve (e.g. no. of kms to bike/walk per month instead of car use) triggering proenvironmental behaviour. Setting goals to enable public and private commitments (e.g. planting x no. of trees by 2025) will set a framework of our behaviour to perform better for a specific environmental goal. van Valkengoed et al. (2022) M H Rewards Concrete (financial) benefits (e.g. you have discounts at the local cafe if you bring your own container for take-away) can trigger behaviour change. Certain rewards or reward system can be introduced e.g. for those using the public transports or participating in certain activities (e.g. garbage collection). van Valkengoed et al. (2022) L H Penalties Concrete (financial) disadvantages (e.g. the price of plastic bags instead of free bags) can trigger behaviour change. Certain penalties can be introduced to impact proenvironmental behaviour (e.g. increased taxes on harmful subsidies) van Valkengoed et al. (2022) H L 62 References cited in the directory (Annex 2) Aiello, L. M., Schifanella, R., Quercia, D., & Aletta, F. (2016). Chatty maps: constructing sound maps of urban areas from social media data. Royal Society Open Science, 3(3), 150690. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.150690 Aldred, J., & Jacobs, M. (2000). Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens’ jury. Ecological Economics, 34(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09218009(00)00159-2 Aldren, J.D., (n.d.). Landopoly: A decision-making game. http://jareddahlaldern.net/lessons/Landopoly.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). Angell, C., Alexander, J., & Hunt, J. A. (2015). ‘Draw, write and tell’: A literature review and methodological development on the ‘draw and write’research method. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X14538592 Balmford, A., Bradbury, R. B., Bauer, J. M., Broad, S., Burgess, G., Burgman, M., ... & Nielsen, K. S. (2021). Making more effective use of human behavioural science in conservation interventions. Biological Conservation, 261, 109256. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109256 Bardsley, D. K., Palazzo, E., & Stringer, R. (2019). What should we conserve? Farmer narratives on biodiversity values in the McLaren Vale, South Australia. Land Use Policy, 83, 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.036 Barter, C. & Renold, E. (1999). The Use of Vignettes in Qualitative Research. URL: https://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU25.html (accessed date 25 April 2023). BBC (n.D.). Tweet of the Day. URL: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b01s6xyk Bos, E., Brown, G., Parsons, J., Brady, G., & Halliday, J. (2016). Supporting rehabilitation: A pilot study exploring the role of community and land based models. Key findings report, Coventry University, Coventry. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308415082_Supporting_Rehabilitati on_a_pilot_study_exploring_the_role_of_community_and_land_based_mode ls#fullTextFileContent (accessed date 25 April 2023). Brown, G., & Brady, G. (2020). Collaborative research: Working together to deliver land-based prison initiatives. Methodological Innovations, 13(2), 2059799120927333. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2059799120927333 Bucak, S. D. (2011). Global WarmIng. Mücke Spiele. Board game. Buckingham, S., & Degen, M. (2012). Sensing our way: Using yoga as a research method. The Senses and Society, 7(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.2752/174589312X13394219653644 Burns, D. (2014). Systemic action research: Changing system dynamics to support sustainable change. Action Research, 12(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750313513910 Butler-Kisber, L., & Poldma, T. (2010). The power of visual approaches in qualitative inquiry: The use of collage making and concept mapping in experiential 63 research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(2), M18–M18. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/197/196 Castillo, D., Bousquet, F., Janssen, M. A., Worrapimphong, K., & Cardenas, J. C. (2011). Context matters to explain field experiments: results from Colombian and Thai fishing villages. Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1609–1620. Centre for Systems Solutions (CRS) (2018). Lords of the Valley. A professional roleplay simulation game. URL: https://lordsofthevalley.socialsimulations.org/ (accessed date 25 April 2023). Chaigneau, T., & Schill, C. (2022). Environmental behaviours within ecological and social limits: integrating well-being with behavioural research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 57, 101201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101201 Chen, J. C., & Martin, A. R. (2015). Role-play simulations as a transformative methodology in environmental education. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614560196 Cherdymova, E. I., Vorobyeva, K. I., Romashkova, O. V., Mashkin, N. A., Grigoriev, S. M., Romanchenko, L. N., ... & Bayanova, A. R. (2018). Photo exhibition influence on student environmental consciousness formation. Ekoloji, 27(106), 1271–1278. http://www.ekolojidergisi.com/article/photo-exhibition-influenceon-student-environmental-consciousness-formation-5412 Claverie, T., Heard, R., O’Connor, J., & Sabatino, J. (2016). Animating biodiversity (Doctoral dissertation, Worcester Polytechnic Institute). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/212984778.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). Crapuchettes, D. (2014). EvolutIon. North Star Games. Board game. https://boardgamegeek.com/board-game/155703/evolution (accessed date 25 April 2023). Crapuchettes, D. (2016). EvolutIon: ClImate. North Star Games. Board game. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/182134/evolution-climate (accessed date 25 April 2023). de Mendonça, M. C., Trauer, E., de Sousa, R. P. L., & Costa, E. (2019). Interdisciplinarity, design thinking, and innovation in public spaces: A teaching experience in Florianpolis. Journal on Innovation and Sustainability RISUS, 10(2), 86–97. https://revistas.pucsp.br/risus/article/view/39953 De Waegemaeker, J., Franklin, A., Bandakova, T. (2021).Spaces of Possibility! Exhibition Catalogue. 7–11 June 2021, Brussels (Belgium). https://recoms.eu/sites/default/files/exhibition-catalogue-link.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). Dryzek, J. S., Nicol, D., Niemeyer, S., Pemberton, S., Curato, N., Bächtiger, A., ... & Vergne, A. (2020). Global citizen deliberation on genome editing. Science, 369(6510), 1435–1437. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5931 Eisenack, K., & petschel-Held, G. (2004). KeeP Cool. Spieltrieb. Board game. Esa Climate Office (2021). Education Group Game. Habitat Puzzle Game. Biodiversity habitat and climate change. https://climate.esa.int/media/documents/Biodiversity_and_Habitat_Game.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). 64 Feola, G., & Nunes, R. (2014). Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: The case of the Transition Movement. Global Environmental Change, 24, 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.011 Fitzgerald, A., & Lowe, M. (2020). Acknowledging documentary filmmaking as not only an output but a research process: A case for quality research practice. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920957462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920957462 Fjællingsdal, K. S., & Klöckner, C. A. (2020). Green across the board: Board games as tools for dialogue and simplified environmental communication. Simulation & Gaming, 51(5), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120925133 Friesen, J., Van Stan, J. T., & Elleuche, S. (2018). Communicating science through comics: a method. Publications, 6(3), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6030038 Games for Sustainability (2017a). Public Goods Game Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date April 25 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/PublicGood.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). Games for Sustainability (2017b). Common Pool Resource Game Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date April 25 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/CommonPoolResources.pdf Games for Sustainability (2017c). Games of Cooperation, Coordination and Conflict, Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date April 25 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/CooperationCoordinationConflict.pdf Games for Sustainability (2017d). Trust Game, Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date April 25 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/TrustGame.pdf Games for Sustainability (2017e). Negotiation Game, Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date April 25 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CoaseBargaining.pdf Games for Sustainability (2017f). Pastoralism Game Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date 25 April 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/Pastoralism_Game_Manual.pdf Games for Sustainability (2017g). Fishery Game Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date 25 April 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/Fishery_Game_Manual.pdf Games for Sustainability (2017h). Forestry Game Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date 25 April 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/Forestry_Game_Manual.pdf Games for Sustainability (2017i). Irrigation Game Practitioner’s Manual, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date 25 April 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/Irrigation_Game_Manual.pdf 65 Garcia, C., & Speelman, E. N. (2017). Landscape approaches, wicked problems and role playing games. ForDev Working Paper 01. Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ClaudeGarcia/publication/320170969_Landscape_Approaches_Wicked_Problems_ and_Role_Playing_Games/links/59d26d02aca2721f4369ac08/LandscapeApproaches-Wicked-Problems-and-Role-Playing-Games.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). Garcia, C. A., Savilaakso, S., Verburg, R. W., Stoudmann, N., Fernbach, P., Sloman, S. A., ... & Waeber, P. O. (2022). Strategy games to improve environmental policymaking. Nature Sustainability, 5(6), 464–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00881-0 Götz, N., & Holmén, J. (2018). Introduction to the theme issue:“Mental maps: geographical and historical perspectives”. Journal of Cultural Geography, 35(2), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2018.1426953 Hansen, P. G., Schilling, M., & Malthesen, M. S. (2021). Nudging healthy and sustainable food choices: three randomized controlled field experiments using a vegetarian lunch-default as a normative signal. Journal of Public Health, 43(2), 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdz154 Harms, P., Muller, S., Killinger, A., & Artmann, M. (2022). Moving from crisis to resonance: A summer cinema Urbnance Blog https://urbnance.ioer.info/en/blog/blog-essay10/ (accessed date 25 April 2023). Harms, P. (2022) Lending nature our voice – role play in search of partnerships with nature Urbnance Blog https://urbnance.ioer.info/en/blog/blog-essay11/ (accessed date 25 April 2023). Harvard Law School (n.D.a). Coastal Flooding in Shoreham Responding to Climate Change Risks. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/coastal-flooding-inshoreham-responding-to-climate-change-risks/ (accessed date 25 April 2023). Harvard Law School (n.D.b). DirtyStuff II. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/dirtystuffii/ (accessed date 25 April 2023). Harvard Law School (n.D.c). Offshore Wind Farm Negotiation. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/offshore-wind-farm-negotiation/ (accessed date 25 April 2023). Harvard Law school (n.D.d). Federal Lands Management I Matching the Process to the Situation. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/federal-lands-managementi-matching-the-process-to-the-situation/ Heylighen, F. (2015). Stigmergy as a Universal Coordination Mechanism: components, varieties and applications. Human Stigmergy: Theoretical Developments and New Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4479.5044 Homar, A. R., & Cvelbar, L. K. (2021). The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review. Ecological Economics, 183, 106950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106950 Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257 66 Humphris, I., Horlings, L. G., & Biggs, I. (2022). ‘Getting Deep into Things’: Deep Mapping in a ‘Vacant’Landscape. Co-Creativity and Engaged Scholarship: Transformative Methods in Social Sustainability Research, 357–390. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-84248-2_12 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2022a). Dam Maintenance Game Manual. ICRISAT and FES, India; IFPRI, USA, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date 25 April 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Dam_Maintenance_Game_Manual_08042022.pdf ICRISAT, FES, & IFPRI (2022b). Channel Irrigation Game Manual. ICRISAT and FES, India; IFPRI, USA, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date 25 April 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Channel_irrigation_Game_Manual_08042022.pdf ICRISAT, FES, & IFPRI (2022c). Surface Water Game Manual. ICRISAT and FES, India, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date 25 April 2023). https://gamesforsustainability.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Surface_Water_Game_Manual_08042022.pdf IFPRI, FES, ICRISAT, & Arizona State University (ASU) (2022). Groundwater Game Practitioner’s Manual, version 2. IFPRI and ASU, USA; ICRISAT and FES, India, www.gamesforsustainability.org (accessed date 25 April 2023). Janssen, M. A., Bousquet, F., Cardenas, J. C., Castillo, D., & Worrapimphong, K. (2013). Breaking the elected rules in a field experiment on forestry resources. Ecological Economics, 90, 132–139. Janssen, M. A., Bousquet, F., Cardenas, J. C., Castillo, D., & Worrapimphong, K. (2012). Field experiments on irrigation dilemmas. Agricultural Systems, 109, 65–75. Janssen, M. A., Gharavi, L., & Yichao, M. (2020). Keeping up shared infrastructure on a Port of Mars: An experimental study. International Journal of the Commons, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1017 Landström, C., Whatmore, S. J., Lane, S. N., Odoni, N. A., Ward, N., & Bradley, S. (2011). Coproducing flood risk knowledge: redistributing expertise in critical ‘participatory modelling’. Environment and Planning A, 43(7), 1617–1633. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/a43482?journalCode=epna Lim, P. Y., Dillon, D., & Chew, P. K. (2020). A guide to nature immersion: Psychological and physiological benefits. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165989 Lopes, R., & Videira, N. (2017). Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: The role of participatory systems mapping. Ecosystem Services, 28, 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.012 Mannay, D., Staples, E., & Edwards, V. (2017). Visual methodologies, sand and psychoanalysis: employing creative participatory techniques to explore the educational experiences of mature students and children in care. Visual Studies, 32(4), 345–358. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1472586X.2017.1363636 67 Mariel, P., Hoyos, D., Meyerhoff, J., Czajkowski, M., Dekker, T., Glenk, K., ... & Thiene, M. (2021). Environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments: Guidance on design, implementation and data analysis (p. 129). Springer Nature. McDonald, D., Bammer, G., & Deane, P. (2009a). Chapter 2. Using the dialogue methods in this book. In: Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods. ANU Press. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt24hb0t.6.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A4aeb 75472ff1b7c06743189a605d711f&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&accept TC=1 (accessed date 25 April 2023). McDonald, D., Bammer, G., & Deane, P. (2009b). Chapter 3. Dialogue methods for understanding a problem broadly: integrating judgments. In: Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods. ANU Press. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24hb0t.7 (accessed date 25 April 2023). McKemey, M., Ens, E., Rangers, Y. M., Costello, O., & Reid, N. (2020). Indigenous knowledge and seasonal calendar inform adaptive savanna burning in northern Australia. Sustainability, 12(3), 995. DOI: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/995 McKenna, J. (2014). Creating community theatre for social change. Studies in Theatre and Performance, 34(1), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682761.2013.875721 Meinzen-Dick, R., Janssen, M. A., Kandikuppa, S., Chaturvedi, R., Rao, K., & Theis, S. (2018). Playing games to save water: Collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India. World Development, 107, 40–53. Moschitz, H., & Home, R. (2014). The challenges of innovation for sustainable agriculture and rural development: Integrating local actions into European policies with the Reflective Learning Methodology. Action Research, 12(4), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750314539356 Myant, K. & Urquhart, G. (2009). Scottisch Government social research group social science methods series. Guide 1: Deliberative Methods. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice -and-guidance/2009/12/social-research-methodsguides/documents/deliberative-methods/deliberativemethods/govscot%3Adocument/Deliberative%2BMethods.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). Network, P. (2018). T-Labs: A Practical Guide—Using Transformation Labs (T-Labs) for Innovation in Social-Ecological Systems. STEPS Centre: Brighton, UK. https://steps-centre.org/publication/t-labs-practical-guide/ (accessed date 25 April 2023). Outdoor Academy (2018). Outdoor Education: from theory to practice. https://issuu.com/iairs/docs/outdooreducation_from_theory_to_pra (accessed date 25 April 2023). Paiva, D. (2020). Poetry as a resonant method for multi-sensory research. Emotion, Space and Society, 34, 100655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2020.100655 68 Panke, S. (2019). Design thinking in education: Perspectives, opportunities and challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 281–306. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/edu-2019-0022/html (accessed date 25 April 2023). Priebe, J., Reimerson, E., Hallberg-Sramek, I., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., & Mårald, E. (2022). Transformative change in context—stakeholders’ understandings of leverage at the forest–climate nexus. Sustainability Science, 17(5), 1921– 1938. DOI: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-022-01090-6 Rambaldi, G. (2010). Participatory Three-dimensional Modelling: Guiding Principles and Applications, 2010 edition. CTA, Wageningen, the Netherlands. https://www.weadapt.org/sites/weadapt.org/files/2017/november/p3dm_engli sh_web.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D. & Benefield, P. (2004) A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning, Preston Montford, Shropshire: Field Studies Council. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/44220526/a-review-of-researchon-outdoor-learning-field-studies-council (accessed date 25 April 2023). Rivera Lopez, F., Wickson, F., & Hausner, V. H. (2018). Finding CreativeVoice: applying arts-based research in the context of biodiversity conservation. Sustainability, 10(6), 1778. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1778 Roos, J., & Victor, B. (2018). How it all began: the origins of LEGO® Serious Play®. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 5(4), 326-343. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/JohanRoos/publication/330773459_How_It_All_Began_The_Origins_Of_LEGOR_ Serious_PlayR/links/5c7c1d5392851c695052038b/How-It-All-Began-TheOrigins-Of-LEGOR-Serious-PlayR.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). Sage (n.d.). Research and Academic Podcasting. https://www.methodspace.com/blog/research-and-academic-podcasting Schuman-Olivier, Z., Trombka, M., Lovas, D. A., Brewer, J. A., Vago, D. R., Gawande, R., ... & Fulwiler, C. (2020). Mindfulness and behavior change. Harvard Review of Psychiatry https://journals.lww.com/hrpjournal/fulltext/2020/11000/mindfulness_and_beh avior_change.3.aspx Simpson, M. (2019). Ecosystem. Card-drafting game. Genius Games. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/271519/ecosystem/credits (accessed date 25 April 2023). Simpson, M. (2022). Ecosystem: Coral Reefs. Card-drafting game. Genius Games. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/359406/ecosystem-coral-reef/credits (accessed date 25 April 2023). Slocum, N. (2003). Participatory Methods Toolkit. A practitioner’s manual. https://archive.unu.edu/hq/library/Collection/PDF_files/CRIS/PMT.pdf (accessed date 25 April 2023). SOLINSA Project (2012). SOLINSA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT_XQcjuH8c (accessed date 25 April 2023).