Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability
TL;DR: A variety of conceptual approaches have been developed to understand and analyse societal transition or transformation processes, including: socio-technical transitions, social-ecological systems, sustainability pathways, and transformative adaptation as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The notion of ‘transformations towards sustainability’ takes an increasingly central position in global sustainability research and policy discourse in recent years. Governance and politics are central to understanding and analysing transformations towards sustainability. However, despite receiving growing attention in recent years, the governance and politics aspects of transformations remain arguably under-developed in the global sustainability literature. A variety of conceptual approaches have been developed to understand and analyse societal transition or transformation processes, including: socio-technical transitions, social-ecological systems, sustainability pathways, and transformative adaptation. This paper critically surveys these four approaches, and reflects on them through the lens of the Earth System Governance framework (Biermann et al., 2009). This contributes to appreciating existing insights on transformations, and to identifying key research challenges and opportunities. Overall, the paper brings together diverse perspectives, that have so far remained largely fragmented, in order to strengthen the foundation for future research on transformations towards sustainability.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The field of sustainability transitions research has emerged in the past two decades in the context of a growing scientific and public interest in large-scale societal transformation toward sustainability as discussed by the authors, which has led three different types of approaches to dealing with agency in transitions: analytical, evaluative, and experimental.
Abstract: The article describes the field of sustainability transitions research, which emerged in the past two decades in the context of a growing scientific and public interest in large-scale societal transformation toward sustainability. We describe how different scientific approaches and methodological positions explore diverse types of transitions and provide the basis for multiple theories and models for governance of sustainability transitions. We distinguish three perspectives in studying transitions: socio-technical, socio-institutional, and socio-ecological. Although the field as a whole is very heterogeneous, commonalities can be characterized in notions such as path dependencies, regimes, niches, experiments, and governance. These more generic concepts have been adopted within the analytical perspective of transitions, which has led three different types of approaches to dealing with agency in transitions: analytical, evaluative, and experimental. The field has by now produced a broad theoretical and em...
667 citations
Cites background from "Exploring the governance and politi..."
...(104) summarize, “a variety of conceptual approaches have been developed to understand and analyze societal transition or transformation processes, including: socio-technical transitions, social-ecological systems, sustainability pathways, and transformative adaptation....
[...]
University of California, Santa Barbara1, Shanghai Jiao Tong University2, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile3, Harvard University4, Iwate University5, University of Washington6, University of Cape Town7, Stanford University8, Norwegian School of Economics9, University of Vigo10, National Scientific and Technical Research Council11, WorldFish12, Oregon State University13
TL;DR: Modelled supply curves show that, with policy reform and technological innovation, the production of food from the sea may increase sustainably, perhaps supplying 25% of the increase in demand for meat products by 2050.
Abstract: Global food demand is rising, and serious questions remain about whether supply can increase sustainably1 Land-based expansion is possible but may exacerbate climate change and biodiversity loss, and compromise the delivery of other ecosystem services2–6 As food from the sea represents only 17% of the current production of edible meat, we ask how much food we can expect the ocean to sustainably produce by 2050 Here we examine the main food-producing sectors in the ocean—wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture—to estimate ‘sustainable supply curves’ that account for ecological, economic, regulatory and technological constraints We overlay these supply curves with demand scenarios to estimate future seafood production We find that under our estimated demand shifts and supply scenarios (which account for policy reform and technology improvements), edible food from the sea could increase by 21–44 million tonnes by 2050, a 36–74% increase compared to current yields This represents 12–25% of the estimated increase in all meat needed to feed 98 billion people by 2050 Increases in all three sectors are likely, but are most pronounced for mariculture Whether these production potentials are realized sustainably will depend on factors such as policy reforms, technological innovation and the extent of future shifts in demand Modelled supply curves show that, with policy reform and technological innovation, the production of food from the sea may increase sustainably, perhaps supplying 25% of the increase in demand for meat products by 2050
346 citations
Additional excerpts
...2019) and administrators is critical (Patterson et al. 2017)....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors identify five latent risks associated with discourse that frames transformation as apolitical and/or inevitable and refer to these risks as the dark side of transformation, and suggest that scientists, policymakers, and practitioners need to consider such change in more inherently plural and political ways.
Abstract: The notion of transformation is gaining traction in contemporary sustainability debates. New ways of theorising and supporting transformations are emerging and, so the argument goes, opening exciting spaces to (re)imagine and (re)structure radically different futures. Yet, questions remain about how the term is being translated from an academic concept into an assemblage of normative policies and practices, and how this process might shape social, political, and environmental change. Motivated by these questions, we identify five latent risks associated with discourse that frames transformation as apolitical and/or inevitable. We refer to these risks as the dark side of transformation. While we cannot predict the future of radical transformations towards sustainability, we suggest that scientists, policymakers, and practitioners need to consider such change in more inherently plural and political ways.
310 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the socio-technical transition literature, particularly the Multi-Level Perspective, which investigates the fundamental changes in (energy, transport, housing, agro-food) systems that are needed to address persistent sustainability problems.
293 citations
TL;DR: A brief overview of different conceptualisations of transformation, and a set of practical principles for effective research and action towards sustainability are outlined in this paper. But these approaches are not mutually exclusive.
238 citations
References
More filters
Book•
28 Mar 2001
TL;DR: In this paper, the key to the institutional system of the 19 century lay in the laws governing market economy, which was the fount and matrix of the system was the self-regulating market, and it was this innovation which gave rise to a specific civilization.
Abstract: But the fount and matrix of the system was the self-regulating market. It was this innovation which gave rise to a specific civilization. The gold standard was merely an attempt to extend the domestic market system to the international field; the balance of power system was a superstructure erected upon and, partly, worked through the gold standard; the liberal state was itself a creation of the self-regulating market. The key to the institutional system of the 19 century lay in the laws governing market economy. (p. 3).
8,514 citations
TL;DR: Lindblom, C.E. as mentioned in this paper discussed the science of "muddling through" in the context of monetary policy. But he did not consider monetary policy with respect to inflation.
Abstract: Originally published as Lindblom, C.E. (1959). "The science of "muddling" through," Public Administration Review, 19(2): 79-88. Reprinted with kind permission. For a critical analysis of this issue's Classic Paper "The Science of 'Muddling' Through" by Charles E. Lindblom, please refer to Ronald J. Scott, Jr.'s article "The Science of Muddling Through Revisited" on pages 5-18. SUPPOSE an administrator is given responsibility for formulating policy with respect to inflation. He might start by trying to list all related values in order of importance, e.g., full employment, reasonable business profit, protection of small savings, prevention of a stock market crash. Then all possible policy outcomes could be rated as more or less efficient in attaining a maximum of these values. This would of course require a prodigious inquiry into values held by members of society and an equally prodigious set of calculations on how much of each value is equal to how much of each other value. He could then proceed to outline all possible policy alternatives. In a third step, he would undertake systematic comparison of his multitude of alternatives to determine which attains the greatest amount of values. In comparing policies, he would take advantage of any theory available that generalized about classes of policies. In considering inflation, for example, he would compare all policies in the light of the theory of prices. Since no alternatives are beyond his investigation, he would consider strict central control and the abolition of all prices and markets on the one hand and elimination of all public controls with reliance completely on the free market on the other, both in the light of whatever theoretical generalizations he could find on such hypothetical economies. Finally, he would try to make the choice that would in fact maximize his values. An alternative line of attack would be to set as his principal objective, either explicitly or without conscious thought, the relatively simple goal of keeping prices level. This objective might be compromised or complicated by only a few other goals, such as full employment. He would in fact disregard most other social values as beyond his present interest, and he would for the moment not even attempt to rank the few values that he regarded as immediately relevant. Were he pressed, he would quickly admit that he was ignoring many related values and many possible important consequences of his policies. As a second step, he would outline those relatively few policy alternatives that occurred to him. He would then compare them. In comparing his limited number of alternatives, most of them familiar from past controversies, he would not ordinarily find a body of theory precise enough to carry him through a comparison of their respective consequences. Instead he would rely heavily on the record of past experience with small policy steps to predict the consequences of similar steps extended into the future. Moreover, he would find that the policy alternatives combined objectives or values in different ways. For example, one policy might offer price level stability at the cost of some risk of unemployment; another might offer less price stability but also less risk of unemployment. Hence, the next step in his approach-the final selection- would combine into one the choice among values and the choice among instruments for reaching values. It would not, as in the first method of policymaking, approximate a more mechanical process of choosing the means that best satisfied goals that were previously clarified and ranked. Because practitioners of the second approach expect to achieve their goals only partially, they would expect to repeat endlessly the sequence just described, as conditions and aspirations changed and as accuracy of prediction improved. By Root or by Branch For complex problems, the first of these two approaches is of course impossible. …
6,596 citations
TL;DR: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling's (1973) seminal paper as discussed by the authors and different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion, and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow.
Abstract: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling’s (1973) seminal paper. Different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion. Resilience of a system needs to be considered in terms of the attributes that govern the system’s dynamics. Three related attributes of social– ecological systems (SESs) determine their future trajectories: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Resilience (the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks) has four components—latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy—most readily portrayed using the metaphor of a stability landscape. Adaptability is the capacity of actors in the system to influence resilience (in a SES, essentially to manage it). There are four general ways in which this can be done, corresponding to the four aspects of resilience. Transformability is the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable. The implications of this interpretation of SES dynamics for sustainability science include changing the focus from seeking optimal states and the determinants of maximum sustainable yield (the MSY paradigm), to resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance. INTRODUCTION An inherent difficulty in the application of these concepts is that, by their nature, they are rather imprecise. They fall into the same sort of category as “justice” or “wellbeing,” and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow. Because different groups adopt different interpretations to fit their understanding and purpose, however, there is confusion in their use. The confusion then extends to how a resilience approach (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002) can contribute to the goals of sustainable development. In what follows, we provide an interpretation and an explanation of how these concepts are reflected in the adaptive cycles of complex, multi-scalar SESs. We need a better scientific basis for sustainable development than is generally applied (e.g., a new “sustainability science”). The “Consortium for Sustainable Development” (of the International Council for Science, the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability, and the Third World Academy of Science), the US National Research Council (1999, 2002), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), have all focused increasing attention on such notions as robustness, vulnerability, and risk. There is good reason for this, as it is these characteristics of social–ecological systems (SESs) that will determine their ability to adapt to and benefit from change. In particular, the stability dynamics of all linked systems of humans and nature emerge from three complementary attributes: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. The purpose of this paper is to examine these three attributes; what they mean, how they interact, and their implications for our future well-being. There is little fundamentally new theory in this paper. What is new is that it uses established theory of nonlinear stability (Levin 1999, Scheffer et al. 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003) to clarify, explain, and diagnose known examples of regional development, regional poverty, and regional CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Arizona State University Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 sustainability. These include, among others, the Everglades and the Wisconsin Northern Highlands Lake District in the USA, rangelands and an agricultural catchment in southeastern Australia, the semi-arid savanna in southeastern Zimbabwe, the Kristianstad “Water Kingdom” in southern Sweden, and the Mae Ping valley in northern Thailand. These regions provide examples of both successes and failures of development. Some from rich countries have generated several pulses of solutions over a span of a hundred years and have generated huge costs of recovery (the Everglades). Some from poor countries have emerged in a transformed way but then, in some cases, have been dragged back by higher-level autocratic regimes (Zimbabwe). Some began as localscale solutions and then developed as transformations across scales from local to regional (Kristianstad and northern Wisconsin). In all of them, the outcomes were determined by the interplay of their resilience, adaptability, and transformability. There is a major distinction between resilience and adaptability, on the one hand, and transformability on the other. Resilience and adaptability have to do with the dynamics of a particular system, or a closely related set of systems. Transformability refers to fundamentally altering the nature of a system. As with many terms under the resilience rubric, the dividing line between “closely related” and “fundamentally altered” can be fuzzy, and subject to interpretation. So we begin by first offering the most general, qualitative set of definitions, without reference to conceptual frameworks, that can be used to describe these terms. We then use some examples and the literature on “basins of attraction” and “stability landscapes” to further refine our definitions. Before giving the definitions, however, we need to briefly introduce the concept of adaptive cycles. Adaptive Cycles and Cross-scale Effects The dynamics of SESs can be usefully described and analyzed in terms of a cycle, known as an adaptive cycle, that passes through four phases. Two of them— a growth and exploitation phase (r) merging into a conservation phase (K)—comprise a slow, cumulative forward loop of the cycle, during which the dynamics of the system are reasonably predictable. As the K phase continues, resources become increasingly locked up and the system becomes progressively less flexible and responsive to external shocks. It is eventually, inevitably, followed by a chaotic collapse and release phase (Ω) that rapidly gives way to a phase of reorganization (α), which may be rapid or slow, and during which, innovation and new opportunities are possible. The Ω and α phases together comprise an unpredictable backloop. The α phase leads into a subsequent r phase, which may resemble the previous r phase or be significantly different. This metaphor of the adaptive cycle is based on observed system changes, and does not imply fixed, regular cycling. Systems can move back from K toward r, or from r directly into Ω, or back from α to Ω. Finally (and importantly), the cycles occur at a number of scales and SESs exist as “panarchies”— adaptive cycles interacting across multiple scales. These cross-scale effects are of great significance in the dynamics of SESs.
5,745 citations
"Exploring the governance and politi..." refers background in this paper
...…to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions make the existing system untenable” (Walker et al., 2004), which results in “different controls over system properties, new ways of making a living and often changes in scales of…...
[...]
...Social-ecological transformations are built on theory that is centrally focused on change and adaptiveness in complex and dynamic systems (Walker et al., 2004; Folke et al., 2005; Armitage and Plummer, 2010)....
[...]
...For example, social-ecological systems scholars have focused on understanding how adaptive governance can facilitate adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems (Walker et al., 2004; Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2006)....
[...]
...…systems literature is based on complex adaptive systems theory, and highlights ‘transformability’, along with resilience and adaptability, as a key property of interest in social-ecological systems (Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Berkes et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2004; Folke et al., 2010)....
[...]
...Social-ecological transformations approaches view cross-scale dynamics as a fundamental attribute of ocial-ecological systems, and emphasise the interrelationship between resilience and transformation at different scales Walker et al., 2004; Folke et al., 2005)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors address the question of how technological transitions (TT) come about and identify particular patterns and mechanisms in transition processes, defined as major, long-term technological changes in the way societal functions are fulfilled.
5,020 citations
"Exploring the governance and politi..." refers background in this paper
...The multi-level perspective views transitions as occurring through niche-level innovations that have the potential to disrupt established socio-technical regimes, embedded within a broader socio-technical landscape (Geels, 2002)....
[...]
...…to conceptualising transformations towards sustainability have been developed in the literature, including socio-technical transitions (e.g. Geels, 2002; Geels and Schot, 2007), and transitions management (Kemp et al., 2007; Loorbach, 2009), social-ecological transformations (e.g. Olsson…...
[...]
...…and heurisics that are influential in thinking about ex-ante processes of change, such as the multi-level perspective and transition athways (Geels, 2002; Geels and Schot 2007), and key contributions to broader topics such as complex adaptive systems Loorbach, 2009; de Haan and Rotmans,…...
[...]
...Transitions approaches have a ulti-level conception of societal organization (niche/micro, regime/meso, landscape/macro) as a core tenet (Rotmans et al., 001; Geels, 2002)....
[...]
...…include a multi-level perspective (i.e. niche, regime, landscape levels) where transition is understood to involve change at multiple levels, and co-evolutionary change involving technological, social, institutional, and economic systems (Kemp et al., 2007; Geels, 2002; Geels and Schot, 2007)....
[...]
Stockholm University1, Stockholm Environment Institute2, Australian National University3, University of Alaska Fairbanks4, Université catholique de Louvain5, University of East Anglia6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences8, University of Oxford9, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research10, James Cook University11, Arizona State University12, Royal Institute of Technology13, University of Minnesota14, University of Vermont15, Stockholm International Water Institute16, California State University San Marcos17, Goddard Institute for Space Studies18, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation19, University of Arizona20, University of Copenhagen21, Max Planck Society22
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed a new approach to global sustainability in which they define planetary boundaries within which they expect that humanity can operate safely. But the proposed concept of "planetary boundaries" lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development.
Abstract: Anthropogenic pressures on the Earth System have reached a scale where abrupt global environmental change can no longer be excluded. We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely. Transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems. We have identified nine planetary boundaries and, drawing upon current scientific understanding, we propose quantifications for seven of them. These seven are climate change (CO2 concentration in the atmosphere <350 ppm and/or a maximum change of +1 W m-2 in radiative forcing); ocean acidification (mean surface seawater saturation state with respect to aragonite ≥ 80% of pre-industrial levels); stratospheric ozone (<5% reduction in O3 concentration from pre-industrial level of 290 Dobson Units); biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle (limit industrial and agricultural fixation of N2 to 35 Tg N yr-1) and phosphorus (P) cycle (annual P inflow to oceans not to exceed 10 times the natural background weathering of P); global freshwater use (<4000 km3 yr-1 of consumptive use of runoff resources); land system change (<15% of the ice-free land surface under cropland); and the rate at which biological diversity is lost (annual rate of <10 extinctions per million species). The two additional planetary boundaries for which we have not yet been able to determine a boundary level are chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading. We estimate that humanity has already transgressed three planetary boundaries: for climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and changes to the global nitrogen cycle. Planetary boundaries are interdependent, because transgressing one may both shift the position of other boundaries or cause them to be transgressed. The social impacts of transgressing boundaries will be a function of the social-ecological resilience of the affected societies. Our proposed boundaries are rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps. Filling these gaps will require major advancements in Earth System and resilience science. The proposed concept of "planetary boundaries" lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development. Planetary boundaries define, as it were, the boundaries of the "planetary playing field" for humanity if we want to be sure of avoiding major human-induced environmental change on a global scale.
4,771 citations
"Exploring the governance and politi..." refers background in this paper
...Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: a new research agenda....
[...]
...A bottom-up approach is taken by the Future Earth “Bright Spots—Seeds f a Good Anthropocene” project which aims to identify a wide range of practices that could be combined to contribute to arge-scale transformative change....
[...]
...Earth ystem governance in the Anthropocene is understood to require a rethinking of existing global institutions to better equip hem for contemporary challenges and for driving deep societal change (Biermann, 2014)....
[...]
...The planetary boundaries framework identifies key lobal biophysical thresholds that cannot be crossed without fundamentally compromising the resilience of planetary life upport systems (Rockström et al., 2009)....
[...]
...Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene....
[...]