How to Find a Grad Project That Fulfills You. Step 1: Identify Your Critical Ingredients

By Kai Chan

This is part of a series, How to Write a Winning Proposal—in 10 Hard Steps

Many students find their graduate projects by being handed one by a supervisor. Many continue on with research from their previous degree, with small variations. After years as Graduate Advisor for our program’s 100+ PhD and Master’s students and a decade as supervisor for more than twenty of my own brilliant students, I know that—if not intentionally chosen—both strategies risk regret, resentment, and/or student-supervisor relationship breakdown.

Because grad research can set the course for your career to a degree far greater than most first jobs, your* choice of project is absolutely crucial. It has got to be your* intentional choice.

But even when students find themselves with the freedom to choose a project, with a supportive supervisor and flexible funding, it still often goes awry. I know, because I was just such a blessed but unwitting PhD student.

I went to Princeton to study conservation ecology with Simon Levin. I wanted to study something that related to global resource use by a burgeoning human population and the underpinnings of the unfolding ecological crisis. But I got sidetracked by a collaboration with my good friend Brian Moore on mathematical models for the process of species diversification.

Icing. Not a cake, despite initial intentions. Pikrepo

I didn’t appreciate at the time how doing so would strongly set the course for my career. I had weekly requests for help with the phylogenetic-tree-symmetry software I developed. I had job opportunities in evolution but had lots of trouble selling my skills to conservation NGOs, for whom the next five million years of evolution was at best a distant consideration. For me, given my fundamental objective to contribute to meaningful ecological change now, this was a rut I had to break.

As a candy and icing-loving young adult, a metaphor came to mind. I had set out to bake an amazing multi-layered cake, but in the 11th hour when the cake needed to be mixed and baked, I found myself only with chocolate ganache, butter-cream icing, marzipan, and sprinkles.

Point is: my cake/PhD lacked substance—of the kind that mattered most to me. I'm still proud of it, but it didn't fulfil me.

From my experience supervising and advising students, I know I’m far from the only one who has troubles like this. A PhD is a daunting multi-year project that requires foresight, insight, strategy and execution to dedicate oneself despite innumerable distractions. Even thinking just about academic ones, there’s the lure of ‘sexy’ but insubstantial problems, fun collaborators, high-impact and easy papers, etc. True success means steering away from those distractions sometimes, if they take you away from what really matters.

What really matters takes many forms. Some people are committed to particular fields of study, perhaps because of shared values and epistemological approaches. Some are drawn to particular communities of practice, disciplines, methods, geographies, or even specific overarching research questions. For others, most of these dimensions don’t matter, but they are wholly committed to a specific theory of change. We all have our own visions and goals for our future careers.

Step 1 to finding a fulfilling project, then, is to know thyself**.

So the task is to identify as early as possible the constituents of a fulfilling project, considering its implications for your future career. These are your critical ingredients (the bolded elements above, plus more).

To help students identify these, I developed what I call “The Critical Ingredients Document”. The first class of students in RES 602 found this challenging, but insightful. Many struggled to identify their own theories of change, mostly because these theories about how their work might contribute to real-world change were entirely implicit. Others found that their project aligned with a theory of change that they didn’t wholly believe (e.g., that providing evidence to decision-makers would improve decision-making towards more just and sustainable processes and outcomes). Yet others realized, as we proceeded through the rest of the course by referring back to their critical ingredients, that their project didn’t mesh with their visions for themselves and their scholarly identities. I hope their supervisors won’t hold it against me….

If this document sounds like it will be helpful to you, you can find it here. All I ask is that you let me know (kai.chan@ubc.ca), that you give credit, and that you ask the same of anyone with whom you share it.

The main sections are as follows, very briefly:

Vision (how you'd like to see yourself)

Goals (relevant aspirational statements of what you seek in life)

Theories of Change (your notion of how change happens and how it might happen, particularly in the context of your contribution through your project and broader career—more to come)

Strengths and Limitations (your own endowments and bits that hold you back)

Fields (that you're committed to)

Disciplines (that are central to your identity)

Methodological/Analytical Tools (that you're particularly drawn to learn and use)

Geographical Study Areas (places you feel you must study)

Professional Networks (people you're committed to connecting with)

Professional Activities/Skills (activities and skills beyond research that are core to your identity)

Overarching Research Questions (particular questions you're committed to better understand)

Do you have a story to tell of a cakeless-cake? Do you have any additional ‘critical ingredients’ that I didn’t include? I’d love to hear from you in the comments below.

*Here I mean students. In this series in general, students are my primary audience, although I hope that professors also will have a genuine interest in their students feeling fulfilled, and that they will find this series useful towards that end.

**This echoes Steve Schneider’s guidance about science communication.

Next up: Why Some PhD Courses Shouldn't Have Grades

And: Identifying the Problem (Step 1.1): An Impactful Interdisciplinary Research Project Is One that Fulfills You

Previous: Understand How Others Go about Research. Step 0: Let Experts Reveal Their Messy Realities

The Intro to this series (with links to the full set): How to Write a Winning Proposal—in 10 Hard Steps

CHANS Lab Views by Kai Chan's lab is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://chanslabviews.blogspot.com.

Understand How Others Go about Research. Step 0: Let Experts Reveal Their Messy Realities

Kai Chan for CHANS Lab Views

This is part of a series, How to Write a Winning Proposal—in 10 Hard Steps

Listening to established researchers is absolutely key to learning how to do research, but not via regular research talks. Those teach you very little about the messy realities you’ll have to navigate.

Imagine: you’re sitting in a lecture hall (or these days, on Zoom), listening to a researcher you truly respect. Chances are, the talk seamlessly proceeds from a compelling statement of context through to research questions that spark your inner curiosity, innovative methods, interesting findings, and impactful implications for both academia and the broader world.

Sometimes life doesn’t go as planned. Plan for it, by understanding others’ messy realities.

Star-struck in your seat, you think, “It’s so easy for them.” And then you think either, (a) “I’ll do it just like that,” or (b) “I could never do that.” Thinking (a) is hubris, because the process of research is never that tidy. Thinking (b) is your imposter syndrome: you can do great work, but tidy talks won’t tell you how to get there.

Research design and execution—particularly in early stages—is sausage-making. Anyone who suggests that it’s a simple, straightforward process is afraid to reveal their sausage factory. For most of us, it’s the equivalent of pig lips and bums, blood and gore all over. Sorry to fellow animal-lovers for the imagery, but that’s the truth, metaphorically.

So, because there’s tremendous wisdom and insight in established researchers, particularly those who both do research and guide students through it, bring in the experts for their unique insights. But do it in a way that makes it abundantly clear that you don’t want the usual research seminar. You want some of that, but interspersed with the raw, ugly truths about the sometimes-bumbling, sometimes-lucky journey that got them there.

You want this because no matter how carefully you plan it out, you will have your own messy realities. You’ll have your own bumps in the road, where you realize that you need to stop and repair before you proceed. Or where you realize you’ve gone down the wrong track, and you have to retrace your steps to achieve what you set out to do.

It helps to provide some structure for your experts, though. ‘Messy realities’ and ‘sausage-making’ can mean many different things, so you won’t necessarily get what you seek in asking for that. It may help to provide what seems like a straightforward recipe for research design, and ask them to speak to how their research process navigated those steps. If your experts are like my brilliant and genuine colleagues, that will motivate them to uncover the many ways that things don’t go as planned, but nevertheless get you somewhere good.

Hearing from experts can take the form of guest lectures in a course. If there’s no such course, you might start one, even as a student. Or you can organize a series of student-led brown-bag seminars with professors (and maybe some graduating students or alumni).

Over the span of the posts in this series, I'm going to share my own messy realities and some of my colleagues' (with permission, of course), which pertain to the various weeks of the course. For the big picture, though, students were struck by the messy realities of our paths to our present. This was true not just for me (figure above), but also for Gunilla Öberg, who spoke of her transformation from environmental chlorine chemist to interdisciplinary scholar scrutinizing contrasting beliefs and ideological blinders associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals and sustainable sewage management (or "poo and pee as resources").

It helps to unveil the messy realities of research, even if to guard against the imposter syndrome. What false starts and dead-ends have you encountered on your way? Please comment below—that is, if you don’t mind sharing with strangers in this fully public forum….

Next up: How to Find a Grad Project That Fulfills You. Step 1: Identify Your Critical Ingredients

The Intro to this series (with links to the full set)

CHANS Lab Views by Kai Chan's lab is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://chanslabviews.blogspot.com.

How to Write a Winning Proposal—in 10 Hard Steps (a new series)

Kai Chan for CHANS Lab Views

There’s no cookbook recipe for a winning proposal in three ‘easy’ steps. For a parallel, imagine this recipe for an award-winning cake:

1. Become a masterful chef

2. Assemble all the needed ingredients (you choose, but make them special and top-notch)

3. Bake a beautiful, delicious cake (in a novel and rigorous way).

Masterful chef? No.

Research proposals are similar: even once you know how to do research, writing a proposal for your own research requires innovation, higher level thinking, mastery of at least one academic field, and elegant writing in a compelling narrative arc. Moreover, it requires deep knowledge of yourself. After all, this work will define you, to some degree.

Anyone selling a quick recipe for winning PhD proposals is selling smoke and mirrors. That said, there is a method to the madness of designing and describing impactful, innovative research that will fulfil you. You just won’t find it in the usual guidance that simply breaks down how to write each section. You might find it in guidance that lays out the messy, iterative process of learning to think like a researcher—and that’s what this series of posts seeks to offer.

Because “10 Hard Steps” could be dry reading without stories and/or humour, in this blog series I’m going to work these steps into a story about teaching a course at our world-leading interdisciplinary sustainability grad program at the University of British Columbia.

For years, at RES we have had a course intended to help students learn about proposal-writing and research design. It is RES 602, “Interdisciplinary Research Design for Sustainability Impact”. For more than a decade, it has taught students how to write proposals, with the bonus of actually developing their PhD proposal, and an added benefit of learning about research design from a range of perspectives alongside their diverse peers.

I had never taught it before. But I got stuck in that role by my director, who has the wise policy that every core course should rotate to be taught by a different faculty member every few years. It was my turn.

First, I put my ear to the ground. Actually first, I buried it away for later contemplation. I needed a new course to teach like I needed another hole in my head. Then I resigned myself to it, remembering that I cherish the process of helping students puzzle through their projects. But how to teach this?

I talked to students who had taken 602 in the past, and to students who were about to take it. And I recalled the many conversations I had with students about the course over the years, including as our program’s Graduate Advisor. The biggest takeaways from these conversations were this:

1. Most students didn’t feel ready to take it. They felt like they needed to have their thinking more fully developed in order to write a proposal for their next few years of research.

2. Most students felt that the course was designed for someone else. E.g., if they were a natural science student, they felt like it was designed for social scientists. If they were on the qualitative side, they saw it as for quantitative folks. But even some students who saw the course as more quantitatively inclined saw it as more useful for the qualitative folks, because they already knew much of the material.

Interestingly, the old syllabus didn’t sell itself as primarily helping students develop their own thesis research. Its primary purpose was learning generalized research design alongside peers. Sounds good, right? But in countless conversations, students nevertheless referred to 602 as “the proposal writing course” or “the course where you write your proposal”, and never once “the research design course”. For PhD students, courses orient entirely around their project. And so they should.

You can see why I didn’t want to teach it. I had thought I would teach it the same way that my colleagues had. But hearing this feedback, I realized I needed to redesign the course and put the students—and their journeys—front and centre. This series of posts tells the story of that course, and first, how you do soul-searching for graduate research.

All the following posts in this series: 

Understand How Others Go about Research. Step 0: Let Experts Reveal Their Messy Realities

How to Find a Grad Project That Fulfills You. Step 1: Identify Your Critical Ingredients

Why Some PhD Courses Shouldn't Have Grades

Author Contributions: Epic Fail, or Relational Success? (extra)

Why You Need a Theory of Change

Identifying the Problem (Step 1.1): An Impactful Interdisciplinary Research Project Is One that Fulfills You

What Is a Horizon Scan? (Step 2) + Why and How to Do One Now

... (more to come)

CHANS Lab Views by Kai Chan's lab is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://chanslabviews.blogspot.com.

IPBES—An Inside Take (the Series)

By Kai Chan, a Coordinating Lead Author for the Global Assessment, Chapter 5.

IPBES (the UN's Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) is making waves in the arena of environmental science and policy, particularly that dealing with biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and the multiple values of nature. It is also somewhat of an enigma, especially for those who haven't participated yet in a formal role.

But if you work in environmental science and policy, you're sure to be confronted by a wide range of questions, including whether you should get involved in an assessment, task force or review process. You might also wonder how it works, how politics enters the process (or if it doesn't), what the assessments are useful for, and how to cite them.

The first IPBES Assessment was on pollination

This series of posts is based on an inside take from someone who has been involved in multiple work packages, starting with the Conceptual Framework, but also including the Global Assessment, and now also the Values Assessment and the (proposed) Transformative Change Assessment.

Let me be clear: this series of posts is not a set of advertisements for IPBES. I entered the Conceptual Framework process highly skeptical but wondering about the questions above, and how much value there is in engaging in this kind of international science-policy process. At the time (the beginning for IPBES), the only way for me to understand what IPBES was about was to get involved. I did, and I was not initially inspired to do more. In fact, I then figured it wasn't worth my while, but at least I knew why. But years later, as you'll learn in these posts, fate conspired to rope me in.

Moreover, I keep questioning deeply whether working with IPBES is the best use of my time (worth the opportunity costs), despite some important successes. Although I've been very frustrated at times (through no fault of the IPBES Secretariat—for whom I have tremendous respect—but rather due to the institutional constraints hard-wired into the organization), I'm increasingly convinced it is.

Here are the posts in chronological order:

“You’re flying across the world for a what? A conceptual framework? A diagram?” Aug 24 2013

IPBES: Intense Politics of Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services, Sep 4 2013

Can IPBES Make Ecosystem Service Assessments Useful? Yes (from Nicoya)—with A Few Key Tweaks, Dec 9 2013

Why Does the World Need IPBES? Sep 23 2017

Ecosystem Services and NCP: There’s Room for Both in a Bigger Tent, Mar 14 2018

Citing the IPBES Global Assessment—Appropriately and Fairly for Authors, Jun 18 2020

Push for Science in Policy through IPBES: Here's How to Get Started, Aug 12 2020


CHANS Lab Views by Kai Chan's lab is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://chanslabviews.blogspot.com.

Citing the IPBES Global Assessment—Appropriately and Fairly for Authors

By Kai Chan, a Coordinating Lead Author for the Global Assessment, Chapter 5.

Updated with the formatted chapters. Part of a series of posts about IPBES (the UN's Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) and an inside look at its processes. Next up is Push for Science in Policy through IPBES: Here's How to Get Started).

You want an authoritative source for the decline of nature, its implications for people, the causes of this degradation. Or a single source that reviews possible futures, pathways towards sustainable ones, or promising policy options. Chances are you want to cite the IPBES Global Assessment—but what specifically, and how? There’s the Science article, the Summary for Policymakers, the whole Assessment, and its component chapters. Your choices have important implications for which documents get read, and who gets credit.

It’s tempting just to cite the Science article based on the Global Assessment. Although I’m an author of that article, and I might have done the same five years ago, I’m going to argue that this easy strategy is both unfair and inappropriate.

Díaz et al., a great citation for the Global
Assessment—but not alone.

Díaz, S., J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. R. Chowdhury, Y.-J. Shin, I. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis and C. N. Zayas (2019). "Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change." Science 366(6471): eaax3100. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/366/6471/eaax3100

Why? The Global Assessment was some 1800 pages, based on three years of work by ~500 authors. As you can see from the above, only a small fraction of those Assessment authors are represented above (for understandable reasons). The Science article is a brief abstraction. Think of it as an ad of sorts. In most cases, it is appropriate to cite Díaz et al., but in virtually every case it's important to also cite the Assessment as a whole (or its chapters):

IPBES (2019). Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. Brondízio and H. T. Ngo. Bonn, Germany, IPBES Secretariat: 1753. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3831673 https://ipbes.net/global-assessment

For the Assessment itself as above, only four names are listed (the Co-Chairs and Hien Ngo, the essential lead staff member), but Google Scholar does credit a broader set of authors (I’m not sure whom; I do know it’s on my profile). Because of this uncertainty, but also because of the imprecision of citing a massive 1800-page Assessment for a single point, it’s often better to cite the relevant chapter. You can download the full set of citations for the IPBES Global Assessment here (in BibTeX format).

There are some points that are integrative across multiple chapters, e.g., trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services, and their causes (Chapter 2 Nature, 2 NCP, 2 Drivers); transformative change and how it might be implemented (Chapters 5 and 6). In such cases, it often makes sense to cite the whole Assessment, or the Summary for Policymakers (the “SPM”):

IPBES (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. Brondízio, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. Brauman, S. Butchart, K. Chan, L. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. R. Chowdhury, Y.-J. Shin, I. Visseren-Hamakers, K. Willis, and C. Zayas. Bonn, Germany, IPBES Secretariat. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3553579 https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-summary-policymakers-pdf

But like with the Science article, only a small number of the 500 authors of the Assessment are authors of the SPM (the Coordinating Lead Authors, Co-Chairs, and two key staff). Again, this is understandable and appropriate (writing the SPM was a huge undertaking), and my point isn't to take issue with the rules. Rather, many Lead Authors (LAs) contributed crucial insights to the chapters that formed the basis for the SPM, so let's cite the chapters also to give them credit for that.

Moreover, the SPM is not a scientific document, but rather a science-policy document. It doesn’t cite the many thousands of relevant studies in the scientific literature. These connections should be made prominent—in fairness to the thousands of authors who contributed to that large evidence base.

If you want to make a point about the evidence, cite the Assessment itself and/or its chapters. For global goals, cite Chapter 3 (below).

So, if you want to make a point about what the over-100 nations agreed to (it was 132 in May 2019), cite the SPM, but if you want to make a point about the basis of evidence, cite the Assessment itself and/or its chapters. For those interested in those finer points, below are the chapters, appropriate citation info, and what you might find most interesting and relevant within each.

A final wrinkle I just came to understand properly: Contributing Authors (CAs), who may have contributed a substantial section to the text (or just a paragraph), are not listed on official citations—even on the chapters. This is because unlike the Lead Authors, etc., Contributing Authors are not chosen for various dimensions of diversity through official processes involving the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and Bureau. There is a need for thorough and even representation of (e.g.) scholars from less-developed nations, so I'm not arguing with the rules. But if there is a peer-reviewed paper associated with a chapter, it should better reflect the intellectual contributions of the full set of authors.

...

Chapter 1 sets the stage for the Assessment, and introduces an important historical narrative about economic development, and how some nations and regions have developed more rapidly somewhat at the expense of others, by externalizing impacts on nature.

Brondízio, E. S., S. Díaz, J. Settele, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, X. Bai, A. Geschke, Z. Molnár, A. Niamir, U. Pascual, A. Simcock and J. Jaureguiberry (2019). Chapter 1: Introduction to and rationale of the global assessment. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. T. Ngo: xxx-yyy. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3831852

Chapter 2 has three parts, each essentially forming its own chapter. These review the trends since 1970 in (a) nature, including biodiversity; (b) nature’s contributions to people, including ecosystem services; and (c) the drivers of change in nature and its contributions to people:

Purvis, A., Z. Molnar, D. Obura, K. Ichii, K. Willis, N. Chettri, E. Dulloo, A. Hendry, B. Gabrielyan, J. Gutt, U. Jacob, E. Keskin, A. Niamir, B. Öztürk and P. Jaureguiberry (2019). Status and trends - nature. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. Ngo. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3832005

Brauman, K. A., L. A. Garibaldi, S. Polasky, C. Zayas, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Brancalion, F. DeClerck, M. Mastrangelo, N. Nkongolo, H. Palang, L. Shannon, U. B. Shrestha and M. Verma (2019). Status and trends - nature’s contributions to people (NCP). Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. Ngo. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3832035

Balvanera, P., A. Pfaff, A. Viña, E. García Frapolli, L. Merino, P. A. Minang, N. Nagabata, S. Hussein and A. Sidorovich (2019). Status and trends - drivers of change. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. Ngo. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3831881

Chapter 3 assess the progress toward international goals for nature (e.g., the Aichi Targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity) and for sustainability (the UN Sustainable Development Goals):

Butchart, S. H. M., P. Miloslavich, B. Reyers, S. M. Subramanian, C. Adams, E. Bennett, B. Czúcz, L. Galetto, K. Galvin, V. Reyes-García, G. L. R., T. Bekele, W. Jetz, I. B. M. Kosamu, M. G. Palomo, M. Panahi, E. R. Selig, G. S. Singh, D. Tarkhnishvili, H. Xu, A. J. Lynch, M. T. H. and A. Samakov (2019). Assessing progress towards meeting major international objectives related to nature and nature’s contributions to people. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. Ngo. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3832052

Chapter 4 assesses a wide range of scenarios and models projecting (mostly non-transformative) changes into the future:

Shin, Y. J., A. Arneth, R. Roy Chowdhury, G. F. Midgley, P. Leadley, Y. Agyeman Boafo, Z. Basher, E. Bukvareva, A. Heinimann, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, P. Kindlmann, M. Kolb, Z. Krenova, T. Oberdorff, P. Osano, I. Palomo, R. Pichs Madruga, P. Pliscoff, C. Rondinini, O. Saito, J. Sathyapalan and T. Yue (2019). Plausible futures of nature, its contributions to people and their good quality of life. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. Ngo. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3832073

Chapter 5 assesses the pathways toward sustainable futures, reviewing a broad range of optimistic scenarios, and identifying the levers and leverage points for transformative changes towards sustainability:

Chan, K. M. A., J. Agard, J. Liu, A. P. D. d. Aguiar, D. Armenteras, A. K. Boedhihartono, W. W. L. Cheung, S. Hashimoto, G. C. H. Pedraza, T. Hickler, J. Jetzkowitz, M. Kok, M. Murray-Hudson, P. O'Farrell, T. Satterfield, A. K. Saysel, R. Seppelt, B. Strassburg, D. Xue, O. Selomane, L. Balint, A. Mohamed (2019). Pathways towards a Sustainable Future. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. Ngo. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3832099

Chapter 5 has also sparked peer-reviewed articles, including one in People and Nature. That paper, about the levers and leverage points, includes a critical reflection of what is novel, as well as a clearer and more scholarly representation of the rigorous expert deliberation process that yielded those insights. (And there, finally, contributing authors will finally get credit.)

Chan, K. M. A., D. R. Boyd, R. K. Gould, J. Jetzkowitz, J. Liu, B. Muraca, R. Naidoo, P. Olmsted, T. Satterfield, O. Selomane, G. G. Singh, R. Sumaila, H. T. Ngo, A. K. Boedhihartono, J. Agard, A. P. D. d. Aguiar, D. Armenteras, L. Balint, C. Barrington-Leigh, W. W. L. Cheung, S. Díaz, J. Driscoll, K. Esler, H. Eyster, E. J. Gregr, S. Hashimoto, G. C. H. Pedraza, T. Hickler, M. Kok, T. Lazarova, A. A. A. Mohamed, M. Murray-Hudson, P. O'Farrell, I. Palomo, A. K. Saysel, R. Seppelt, J. Settele, B. Strassburg, D. Xue and E. S. Brondízio (2020). "Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability." People and Nature. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10124

 

Chapter 6 assesses options, obstacles and opportunities for transformative change, focusing more narrowly than 5 on particular policy and governance tools:

Razzaque, J., I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, P. McElwee, G. M. Rusch, E. Kelemen, E. Turnhout, M. Williams, A. P. Gautam, A. Fernandez-Llamazares, I. Chan, L. Gerber, M. Islar, S. Karim, M. Lim, L. J., L. G., A. Mohammed, E. Mungatana and R. Muradian (2019). Options for Decision-makers. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondízio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. Ngo. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3832107

CHANS Lab Views by Kai Chan's lab is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://chanslabviews.blogspot.com.