Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Philosophy of Science

Transformability as a Wicked Problem: A Cautionary Tale?

Profile image of Nathalie Frascaria-lacosteNathalie Frascaria-lacoste

2020, Sustainability

https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12155895
visibility

…

description

19 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Transformability is increasingly promoted as a way of moving societies toward more sustainable futures in the era of the Anthropocene, mostly because the concept of resilience has fallen short in many instances where impacts on social-ecological systems are continuous, varied, and usually unknown. While such transformations can play a crucial role in improving the sustainability of social-ecological systems, they may lead to unexpected and undesirable outcomes. This literature review on social-ecological transformability and wicked problems seeks to shed light on and acknowledge some of the limitations of transformability regarding unforeseen conditions. We argue that wicked problems arise in transformation initiatives in the presence of high complexity, deep uncertainty, deep conflicts, and divergence among stakeholders, as well as scale mismatches concerning spatial, temporal, and institutional processes. Our findings may explain why some transformation initiatives fail to generat...

Related papers

Interplays of Sustainability, Resilience, Adaptation and Transformation
Courtney Carothers, Jennifer Lee Johnson

This chapter analyzes the complex interplays between and among sustainability, resilience, adaptation and transformation, key paradigms and analytical concepts that have emerged from the human-environmental interactions, social-ecological systems, and global environmental change literatures. Specifically , this chapter provides a summary of how these key paradigms and analytical concepts have evolved over time and synthesizes current debates about their interplays. Our findings reveal certain theoretical synergies between and among sustainability, resilience, adaptation and transformation, as well as epistemological tensions and practical tradeoffs when actions are taken to promote ostensibly desirable attributes of social-ecological systems through on-the-ground actions. These findings highlight the need for scholars, practi

View PDFchevron_right
Overcoming the process-structure divide in conceptions of Social-Ecological Transformation
Julia Tschersich

Ecological Economics, 2019

A fundamental transformation towards sustainability in face of complex social-ecological challenges needs to initiate deep changes of those incumbent system structures that support unsustainable trajectories, while at the same time encouraging a diversity of alternative practices. A review of transformation approaches towards sustainability shows that these do not (sufficiently) link processes of change at the micro level to deep leverages of change in wider system structures. Addressing this research gap, we develop a conceptual framework for a social-ecological transformation that connects the macro and the micro level and helps to bridge process-oriented and structural approaches to transformation. At the macro level, the objectives of inter-and intragenerational justice need to be pursued by challenging the central paradigms that constitute unsustainable trajectories. To make the framework concrete and applicable in practice, we propose a preliminary set of evaluation principles for the micro and meso level that reflect these normative objectives and help to measure the transformative character and transformative impact of change processes. The example of the European Organic Breeding Network illustrates the application of the framework. An Ecological Economics research that is reflective of its transformative quality in light of the incumbent paradigms can make important contributions to transformation research.

View PDFchevron_right
How to get out of the multiple crisis?: Towards a critical theory of social-ecological transformation
Ulrich Brand

The concept of transformation has become a buzzword within the last few years. This has to do, first, with the ever broader recognition of the profound character of the environmental crisis, secondly, with increasingly obvious limits to existing forms of (global) environmental governance, thirdly, with the emergence of other dimensions of the crisis since 2008 and, fourthly, with intensified debates about required profound social change, especially of societal nature relations. However, the term transformation itself is contested. It largely depends on theoretical assumptions as well as the plausibility and applicability of the arguments which are made. In this paper, a historical-materialist approach to social-ecological transformation is outlined by referring to a theoretically sophisticated understanding of " subject(s) " of transformation as well as the " object(s) " of what is to be transformed. Theoretical concepts like the capitalist mode of production, regulation and hegemony, a critical understanding of the state and governance as well as the term societal nature relations are key. Such a perspective contributes to a more sophisticated understanding of the obstacles and requirements of real-world transformation. Finally, the argument has implications for visions and strategies, i.e. an emancipatory and democratic shaping of social relations and societal nature relations.

View PDFchevron_right
Sustainability, resilience, adaptation, and transformation: tensions and plural approaches
Jennifer Lee Johnson

Ecology and Society, 2020

This article focuses on the debates among resilience, sustainability, adaptation, and transformation concepts. The conceptualization and application of sustainability and resilience thinking in the human-environmental interactions, social-ecological systems, and global environmental change literature remain dominant, which provide a common interdisciplinary and policy language where research in socio-environmental systems can converge. Yet, the lack of clarity and multiplicity among and between these concepts and paradigms allows them to continue to be widely adopted in different sectors of society. Drawing on five case studies from different geographical locations, these diverse applications of resilience, sustainability, adaptation, and transformation are explored from disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives. The diversity in the operationalization and use of the concepts and paradigms can result in applications that undermine goals of sustainability or resilience when a particular resource is prioritized over others or is applied in a way that results in inequitable outcomes. Findings from the cases reinforce the importance of being explicit about the spatial, temporal, and institutional boundaries drawn because proposed solutions will vary in their effectiveness if attention to scale, stressors, worldviews, and actors are not addressed holistically. We suggest the ongoing adoption of sustainability, resilience, adaptation, and transformation requires clear and explicit definitions, that draw from decolonized methodologies, goals, in-depth analysis of potential unintended consequences, and situated understanding of how these concepts and the associated paradigms are embedded in particular contexts.

View PDFchevron_right
How to Get Out of the Multiple Crisis? Contours of a Critical Theory of Social-Ecological Transformation
Ulrich Brand

The concept of transformation has become a buzzword within the last few years. This has to do, first, with the ever broader recognition of the profound character of the environmental crisis, secondly, with increasingly obvious limits to existing forms of (global) environmental governance, thirdly, with the emergence of other dimensions of the crisis since 2008 and, fourthly, with intensified debates about required profound social change, especially of societal nature relations. However, the term transformation itself is contested. It largely depends on theoretical assumptions as well as the plausibility and applicability of the arguments which are made. In this paper, a historical-materialist approach to social-ecological transformation is outlined by referring to a theoretically sophisticated understanding of 'subject(s)' of transformation as well as the 'object(s)' of what is to be transformed. Theoretical concepts like the capitalist mode of production, regulation and hegemony, a critical understanding of the state and governance as well as the term societal nature relations are key. Such a perspective contributes to a more sophisticated understanding of the obstacles and requirements of real-world transformation. Finally, the argument has implications for visions and strategies, i.e., an emancipatory and democratic shaping of social relations and societal nature relations.

View PDFchevron_right
Sustainability transformations: socio-political shocks as opportunities for governance transitions
Maja Schlüter

Global Environmental Change, 2020

View PDFchevron_right
The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary Sustainability Discourse
Nathan J Bennett, Jessica Blythe

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.

View PDFchevron_right
Just Transformations to Sustainability
Nathan J Bennett, Jessica Blythe

Sustainability, 2019

Transformations towards sustainability are needed to address many of the earth's profound environmental and social challenges. Yet, actions taken to deliberately shift social-ecological systems towards more sustainable trajectories can have substantial social impacts and exclude people from decision-making processes. The concept of just transformations makes explicit a need to consider social justice in the process of shifting towards sustainability. In this paper, we draw on the transformations, just transitions, and social justice literature to advance a pragmatic framing of just transformations that includes recognitional, procedural and distributional considerations. Decision-making processes to guide just transformations need to consider these three factors before, during and after the transformation period. We offer practical and methodological guidance to help navigate just transformations in environmental management and sustainability policies and practice. The framing of just transformations put forward here might be used to inform decision making in numerous marine and terrestrial ecosystems, in rural and urban environments, and at various scales from local to global. We argue that sustainability transformations cannot be considered a success unless social justice is a central concern.

View PDFchevron_right
Social‐Ecological Transformation
Ulrich Brand

The International Encyclopedia of Geography, 2017

Social-ecological transformation” is an umbrella term which describes recent political, socioeconomic, and cultural shifts resulting from attempts to address the social-ecological crisis. On the one hand, think tanks and international organizations have issued reports which provide for an interpretation of the crisis and propose ways out of it. Their common denominator is that economic growth can be reconciled with social and environmental objectives. On the other hand, there is an academic debate in progress which at least in part addresses the crisis in more fundamental ways, challenging not only existing technologies and market structures, but also the underlying patterns of production and consumption. It is informed by social ecology, practice theory and political ecology. This entry presents these two strands of the debate and suggests a combination of political ecology and critical political economy as a means for better understanding the crisis and for informing the emancipatory strategies designed to address it.

View PDFchevron_right
‘Transformations towards sustainability’ Emerging approaches, critical reflections, and a research agenda
Aliyu Salisu Barau

Over the last two decades researchers have come to understand much about the global challenges confronting human society (e.g. climate change; biodiversity loss; water, energy and food insecurity; poverty and widening social inequality). However, the extent to which research and policy efforts are succeeding in steering human societies towards more sustainable and just futures is unclear. Attention is increasingly turning towards better understanding how to navigate processes of social and institutional transformation to bring about more desirable trajectories of change in various sectors of human society. A major knowledge gap concerns understanding how transformations towards sustainability are conceptualised, understood and analysed. Limited existing scholarship on this topic is fragmented, sometimes overly deterministic, and weak in its capacity to critically analyse transformation processes which are inherently political and contested. This paper aims to advance understanding of transformations towards sustainability, recognising it as both a normative and an analytical concept. We firstly review existing concepts of transformation in global environmental change literature, and the role of governance in relation to it. We then propose a framework for understanding and critically analysing transformations towards sustainability based on the existing ‘Earth System Governance’ framework (Biermann et al., 2009). We then outline a research agenda, and argue that transdisciplinary research approaches and a key role for early career researchers are vital for pursuing this agenda. Finally, we argue that critical reflexivity among global environmental change scholars, both individually and collectively, will be important for developing innovative research on transformations towards sustainability to meaningfully contribute to policy and action over time.

View PDFchevron_right

References (157)

  1. Crutzen, P.J. Geology of mankind. Nature 2002, 415, 23. [CrossRef]
  2. Steffen, W.; Crutzen, J.; McNeill, J.R. The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of Nature? Ambio 2007, 36, 614-621. [CrossRef]
  3. Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Colding, J. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998; ISBN 978-0-521-78562-4.
  4. Herrfahrdt-Pahle, E.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Continuity and Change in Social-ecological Systems: The Role of Institutional Resilience. Ecol. and Soc. 2012, 17, 8. [CrossRef]
  5. Levin, S.; Xepapadeas, T.; Crepin, A.S.; Norberg, J.; De Zeeuw, A.; Folke, C.; Hughes, T.; Arrow, K.; Barrett, S.; Daily, G.; et al. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Modeling and policy implications. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2013, 18, 111-132. [CrossRef]
  6. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S.; Walker, B. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 2002, 31, 437-440. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Folke, C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang.-Hum. Policy Dimens. 2006, 16, 253-267. [CrossRef]
  8. Gunderson, L.; Folke, C. Resilience-Now more than ever. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10, 22-27. [CrossRef]
  9. Walker, B.; Hollin, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 5-14. [CrossRef]
  10. Gelcich, S.; Hughes, T.P.; Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Defeo, O.; Fernández, M.; Foale, S.; Gunderson, L.H.; Rodríguez-Sickert, C.; Scheffer, M.; et al. Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 16794. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Pelling, M.; Manuel-Navarrete, D. From Resilience to Transformation: The Adaptive Cycle in Two Mexican Urban Centers. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 11-22. [CrossRef]
  12. Jerneck, A.; Olsson, L. Adaptation and the poor: Development, resilience and transition. Clim. Policy 2008, 8, 170-182. [CrossRef]
  13. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockstrom, J. Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20-29. [CrossRef]
  14. Westley, F.; Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Homer-Dixon, T.; Vredenburg, H.; Loorbach, D.; Thompson, J.; Nilsson, M.; Lambin, E.; Sendzimir, J.; et al. Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation. Ambio 2011, 40, 762-780. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. O'Brien, K. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 667-676. [CrossRef]
  16. Steffen, W. Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2009; ISBN 0-643-10182-9.
  17. Liu, J.G.; Linderman, M.; Ouyang, Z.Y.; An, L.; Yang, J.; Zhang, H.M. Ecological degradation in protected areas: The case of Wolong Nature Reserve for giant pandas. Science 2001, 292, 98-101. [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, J.; Hull, V.; Carter, N.; Viña, A.; Yang, W. Framing sustainability of coupled human and natural systems. In Pandas and People: Coupling Human and Natural Systems for Sustainability; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016.
  19. Xu, J.Y.; Wei, J.Y.; Liu, W.H. Escalating human-wildlife conflict in the Wolong Nature Reserve, China: A dynamic and paradoxical process. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 7273-7283. [CrossRef]
  20. Mollinga, P.P. Boundary Work and the Complexity of Natural Resources Management. Crop. Sci. 2010, 50, S1-S9. [CrossRef]
  21. Biggs, R.; Rhode, C.; Archibald, S.; Kunene, L.M.; Mutanga, S.S.; Nkuna, N.; Ocholla, P.O.; Phadima, L.J. Strategies for managing complex social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty: Examples from South Africa and beyond. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 52. [CrossRef]
  22. Levin, S.A. Ecosystems and the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems. Ecosystems 1998, 1, 431-436.
  23. Holling, C.S. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 390-405. [CrossRef]
  24. Xiang, W.N. Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: Awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 110, 1-4. [CrossRef]
  25. Head, B.W.; Xiang, W.N. Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: More awareness, greater acceptance, and better adaptation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 154, 1-3. [CrossRef]
  26. Termeer, C.; Dewulf, A.; Biesbroek, R. A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: Relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 167-179. [CrossRef]
  27. Rittel, H.W.J.; Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155-169. [CrossRef]
  28. Davies, K.K.; Fisher, K.T.; Dickson, M.E.; Thrush, S.F.; Le Heron, R. Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 37. [CrossRef]
  29. Mason, T.H.E.; Pollard, C.R.J.; Chimalakonda, D.; Guerrero, A.M.; Kerr-Smith, C.; Milheiras, S.A.G.; Roberts, M.; Ngafack, P.R.; Bunnefeld, N. Wicked conflict: Using wicked problem thinking for holistic management of conservation conflict. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12460. [CrossRef]
  30. Pelling, M. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation; Routledge: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 1-134-02201-8.
  31. O'Brien, K.L.; Wolf, J. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 232-242. [CrossRef]
  32. Moore, M.-L.; Tjornbo, O.; Enfors, E.; Knapp, C.; Hodbod, J.; Baggio, J.A.; Norström, A.; Olsson, P.; Biggs, D. Studying the complexity of change: Toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 54. [CrossRef]
  33. Görg, C.; Brand, U.; Haberl, H.; Hummel, D.; Jahn, T.; Liehr, S. Challenges for social-ecological transformations: Contributions from social and political ecology. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1045. [CrossRef]
  34. Nair, S.; Howlett, M. Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: Adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. Policy Polit. 2017, 45, 103-118. [CrossRef]
  35. Walker, B.; Gunderson, L.; Kinzig, A.; Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Schultz, L. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 13-28. [CrossRef]
  36. Bai, X.; van der Leeuw, S.; O'Brien, K.; Berkhout, F.; Biermann, F.; Brondizio, E.S.; Cudennec, C.; Dearing, J.; Duraiappah, A.; Glaser, M.; et al. Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: A new research agenda. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 351-362. [CrossRef]
  37. Berkes, F.; Hughes, T.P.; Steneck, R.S.; Wilson, J.A.; Bellwood, D.R.; Crona, B.; Folke, C.; Gunderson, L.H.; Leslie, H.M.; Norberg, J.; et al. Ecology -Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science 2006, 311, 1557-1558. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Liu, J.G.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, C.; Moran, E.; Pell, A.N.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; Lubchenco, J.; et al. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 2007, 317, 1513-1516.
  39. Liu, J.; V, H.; Yang, W.; Vina, A.; X, C.; Ouyang, Z.; Zhang, H. Across Local to Global Coupled Human and Natural Systems. In Pandas and People: Coupling Human and Natural Systems for Sustainability; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 187-188.
  40. Folke, C.; Jansson, A.; Rockstrom, J.; Olsson, P.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Crepin, A.S.; Daily, G.; Danell, K.; Ebbesson, J.; et al. Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio 2011, 40, 719-738. [CrossRef]
  41. Preiser, R.; Biggs, R.; De Vos, A.; Folke, C. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 46. [CrossRef]
  42. Pace, M.L.; Carpenter, S.R.; Cole, J.J. With and without warning: Managing ecosystems in a changing world. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 13, 460-467. [CrossRef]
  43. Taleb, N.N. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable; Random House Publishing Group, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2007; Volume 2, ISBN 1-58836-583-2.
  44. Batie, S.S. Wicked Problems and Applied Economics. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90, 1176-1191. [CrossRef]
  45. Game, E.T.; Meijaard, E.; Sheil, D.; McDonald-Madden, E. Conservation in a Wicked Complex World; Challenges and Solutions. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 271-277. [CrossRef]
  46. Weber, E.P.; Khademian, A.M. Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public Adm. Rev. 2008, 68, 334-349. [CrossRef]
  47. Peters, B.G. What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy Soc. 2017, 36, 385-396. [CrossRef]
  48. Head, B.W.; Alford, J. Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Adm. Soc. 2015, 47, 711-739. [CrossRef]
  49. Greenwood, R.; Raynard, M.; Kodeih, F.; Micelotta, E.R.; Lounsbury, M. Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011, 5, 317-371. [CrossRef]
  50. Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441-473. [CrossRef]
  51. Folke, C. Social-ecological systems and adaptive governance of the commons. Ecol. Res. 2007, 22, 14-15.
  52. Folke, C.; Pritchard, L.; Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Svedin, U. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 30-68. [CrossRef]
  53. Lubell, M.; Robins, G.; Wang, P. Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 23. [CrossRef]
  54. Head, B.W. Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 180-197. [CrossRef]
  55. van Bueren, E.M.; Klijn, E.H.; Koppenjan, J.F.M. Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2003, 13, 193-212. [CrossRef]
  56. Alford, J.; Head, B.W. Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy Soc. 2017, 36, 397-413. [CrossRef]
  57. Andersson, C.; Törnberg, P. Wickedness and the anatomy of complexity. Futures 2018, 95, 118-138. [CrossRef]
  58. Kreuter, M.W.; Rosa, C.D.; Howze, E.H.; Baldwin, G.T. Understanding Wicked Problems: A Key to Advancing Environmental Health Promotion. Health Educ. Behav. 2004, 31, 441-454. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kuhn, T.S. Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1970; Volume 4, ISBN 0-521-09623-5.
  60. Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J. Post-normal science. Science and Governance under conditions of complexity. In Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2001; pp. 15-24.
  61. Ravetz, I.R. What is post-normal science. Futures-J. Forecast. Plan. Policy 1999, 31, 647-654.
  62. Armsworth, P.R.; Daily, G.C.; Kareiva, P.; Sanchirico, J.N. Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 5403-5408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Mauser, W.; Klepper, G.; Rice, M.; Schmalzbauer, B.S.; Hackmann, H.; Leemans, R.; Moore, H. Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 420-431. [CrossRef]
  64. Brandt, P.; Ernst, A.; Gralla, F.; Luederitz, C.; Lang, D.J.; Newig, J.; Reinert, F.; Abson, D.J.; Wehrden, H. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 1-15. [CrossRef]
  65. Folke, C.; Biggs, R.; Norstrom, A.V.; Reyers, B.; Rockstrom, J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 41. [CrossRef]
  66. Walker, B. A resilience approach to integrated assessment. Integr. Assess. 2005, 5, 77-97.
  67. Nelson, D.R.; Adger, W.N.; Brown, K. Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007, 32, 395-419. [CrossRef]
  68. Cumming, G.S.; Collier, J. Change and identity in complex systems. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10, 29-42. [CrossRef]
  69. Chapin, F.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kofinas, G.P.; Folke, C.; Abel, N.; Clark, W.C.; Olsson, P.; Smith, D.M.S.; Walker, B.; Young, O.R.; et al. Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 241-249. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Feola, G. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts. Ambio 2015, 44, 376-390. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Walker, B.; Salt, D. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN 1-59726-622-1.
  72. Nalau, J.; Handmer, J. When is transformation a viable policy alternative? Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 349-356. [CrossRef]
  73. Scheffer, M.; Carpenter, S.; Foley, J.A.; Folke, C.; Walker, B. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 2001, 413, 591-596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Hahn, T. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 2-28. [CrossRef]
  75. Carpenter, S.R.; Brock, W.A. Adaptive Capacity and Traps. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 3-29. [CrossRef]
  76. Enfors, E. Social-ecological traps and transformations in dryland agro-ecosystems: Using water system innovations to change the trajectory of development. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2013, 23, 51-60. [CrossRef]
  77. Olsson, P.; Bodin, Ö.; Folke, C. Building Transformative Capacity for Ecosystem Stewardship in Social-Ecological Systems. In Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance; Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 263-285. ISBN 978-3-642-12194-4.
  78. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472-475. [CrossRef]
  79. Gunderson, L.H.; Holling, C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; ISBN 1559638575.
  80. Folke, C.; Chapin, F.S.; Olsson, P. Transformations in Ecosystem Stewardship. In Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World; Folke, C., Kofinas, G.P., Chapin, F.S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 103-125. ISBN 978-0-387-73033-2.
  81. McSweeney, K.; Coomes, O.T. Climate-related disaster opens a window of opportunity for rural poor in northeastern Honduras. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 5203-5208. [CrossRef]
  82. Olsson, P.; Gunderson, L.H.; Carpenter, S.R.; Ryan, P.; Lebel, L.; Folke, C.; Holling, C.S. Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 18-39.
  83. Rockström, J.; Falkenmark, M.; Folke, C.; Lannerstad, M.; Barron, J.; Enfors, E.; Gordon, L.; Heinke, J.; Hoff, H.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Water Resilience for Human Prosperity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; ISBN 1-139-86760-1.
  84. Ostrom, E. Understanding Institutional Diversity; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-691-12238-0.
  85. Raik, D.B.; Wilson, A.L.; Decker, D.J. Power in Natural Resources Management: An Application of Theory. Soc. Natur. Res. 2008, 21, 729-739. [CrossRef]
  86. Uphoff, N. Distinguishing Power, Authority & Legitimacy: Taking Max Weber at His Word by Using Resources-Exchange Analysis. Polity 1989, 22, 295-322. [CrossRef]
  87. Boonstra, W.J. Conceptualizing power to study social-ecological interactions. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 21. [CrossRef]
  88. Kronenberg, J.; Hubacek, K. From poverty trap to ecosystem service curse. Sustain. Sci. 2016, 11, 903-907.
  89. Westley, F.; Antadze, N. Making a difference: Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. Innov. J. 2010, 15, 1-19.
  90. Pelling, M.; O'Brien, K.; Matyas, D. Adaptation and transformation. Clim. Chang. 2015, 133, 113-127.
  91. Manuel-Navarrete, D.; Pelling, M. Subjectivity and the politics of transformation in response to development and environmental change. Global Environ. Chang. 2015, 35, 558-569. [CrossRef]
  92. Andrachuk, M.; Armitage, D. Understanding social-ecological change and transformation through community perceptions of system identity. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 26. [CrossRef]
  93. Marshall, N.A.; Park, S.E.; Adger, W.N.; Brown, K.; Howden, S.M. Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 1-10. [CrossRef]
  94. Khanian, M.; Marshall, N.; Zakerhaghighi, K.; Salimi, M.; Naghdi, A. Transforming agriculture to climate change in Famenin County, West Iran through a focus on environmental, economic and social factors. Weather Clim. Extremes 2018, 21, 52-64. [CrossRef]
  95. Pagiola, S.; Arcenas, A.; Platais, G. Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America. World Dev. 2005, 33, 237-253.
  96. Salzman, J. The promise and perils of payments for ecosystem services. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 1, 5-20. [CrossRef]
  97. Bowles, S.; Polania-Reyes, S. Economic Incentives and Social Preferences: Substitutes or Complements? J. Econ. Lit. 2012, 50, 368-425. [CrossRef]
  98. Neuteleers, S.; Engelen, B. Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 117, 253-260. [CrossRef]
  99. Frame, D.J. The problems of markets: Science, norms and the commodification of carbon. Geogr. J. 2011, 177, 138-148. [CrossRef]
  100. Ninan, K.N. Conserving and Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity: Economic, Institutional and Social Challenges; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 1-136-56911-1.
  101. Kronenberg, J.; Hubacek, K. Could Payments for Ecosystem Services Create an "Ecosystem Service Curse"? Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 10. [CrossRef]
  102. Landell-Mills, N.; Porras, I.T. Silver Bullet or Fools' Gold?: A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor; Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2002; pp. 236-250.
  103. Unruh, J.D. Carbon sequestration in Africa: The land tenure problem. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 700-707. [CrossRef]
  104. Pollini, J. Carbon Sequestration for Linking Conservation and Rural Development in Madagascar: The Case of the Vohidrazana-Mantadia Corridor Restoration and Conservation Carbon Project. J. Sustain. For. 2009, 28, 322-342. [CrossRef]
  105. Scales, I.R. Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 1-136-30908-X.
  106. Cumming, G.S.; Olsson, P.; Chapin, F.S.; Holling, C.S. Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1139-1150. [CrossRef]
  107. Jagers, S.C.; Harring, N.; Löfgren, Å.; Sjöstedt, M.; Alpizar, F.; Brülde, B.; Langlet, D.; Nilsson, A.; Almroth, B.C.; Dupont, S.; et al. On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. Ambio 2020, 49, 1282-1296. [CrossRef]
  108. Kern, F.; Rogge, K.S. The pace of governed energy transitions: Agency, international dynamics and the global Paris agreement accelerating decarbonisation processes? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 22, 13-17. [CrossRef]
  109. Kronsell, A.; Khan, J.; Hildingsson, R. Actor relations in climate policymaking: Governing decarbonisation in a corporatist green state. Environ. Policy Gov. 2019, 29, 399-408. [CrossRef]
  110. Cumming, G.S.; Cumming, D.H.M.; Redman, C.L. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 14-34. [CrossRef]
  111. Mathevet, R.; Mauchamp, A. Evidence-based conservation: Dealing with social issues. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 422-423. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Termeer, C.J.; Dewulf, A.; Van Lieshout, M. Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: Comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 29-44. [CrossRef]
  113. Bergsten, A.; Galafassi, D.; Bodin, O. The problem of spatial fit in social-ecological systems: Detecting mismatches between ecological connectivity and land management in an urban region. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 6.
  114. Irawan, S.; Widiastomo, T.; Tacconi, L.; Watts, J.D.; Steni, B. Exploring the design of jurisdictional REDD+: The case of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 108, 101853. [CrossRef]
  115. Moeliono, M.; Gallemore, C.; Santoso, L.; Brockhaus, M.; Di Gregorio, M. Information networks and power: Confronting the "wicked problem" of REDD plus in Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 9. [CrossRef]
  116. Head, B.W. Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy 2008, 3, 101-118.
  117. Patterson, J.; Schulz, K.; Vervoort, J.; van der Hel, S.; Widerberg, O.; Adler, C.; Hurlbert, M.; Anderton, K.; Sethi, M.; Barau, A. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 1-16. [CrossRef]
  118. Plummer, R. Social-ecological resilience and environmental education: Synopsis, application, implications. Environ. Educ. Res. 2010, 16, 493-509. [CrossRef]
  119. Westley, F.; McGowan, K. The Evolution of Social Innovation: Building Resilience through Transitions; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017; ISBN 1-78643-115-7.
  120. Geels, F.W. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 2014, 31, 21-40. [CrossRef]
  121. Lockwood, M.; Mitchell, C.; Hoggett, R. Unpacking 'regime resistance'in low-carbon transitions: The case of the British Capacity Market. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 58, 101278. [CrossRef]
  122. Haukkala, T. Does the sun shine in the High North? Vested interests as a barrier to solar energy deployment in Finland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6, 50-58. [CrossRef]
  123. Parlee, B.L.; Geertsema, K.; Willier, A. Social-ecological thresholds in a changing boreal landscape: Insights from Cree knowledge of the Lesser Slave Lake region of Alberta, Canada. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. [CrossRef]
  124. Blythe, J.; Silver, J.; Evans, L.; Armitage, D.; Bennett, N.J.; Moore, M.-L.; Morrison, T.H.; Brown, K. The dark side of transformation: Latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode 2018, 50, 1206-1223.
  125. Bennett, N.J.; Dearden, P. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar. Policy 2014, 44, 107-116.
  126. Lam, D.P.; Hinz, E.; Lang, D.; Tengö, M.; Wehrden, H.; Martín-López, B. Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations research: A literature review. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 3-28. [CrossRef]
  127. Crane, T.A. Of models and meanings: Cultural resilience in social-ecological. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 4-20.
  128. Sheppard, E.; Porter, P.W.; Faust, D.R.; Nagar, R. A World of Difference: Encountering and Contesting Development; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 1-60918-123-9.
  129. Biggs, R.; Westley, F.R.; Carpenter, S.R. Navigating the back loop: Fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 9-34. [CrossRef]
  130. DeFries, R.; Nagendra, H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 2017, 356, 265-270. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Roberts, N. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. Int. Public Manag. Rev. 2000, 1, 1-19.
  132. Cashore, B.; Bernstein, S.; Humphreys, D.; Visseren-Hamakers, I.; Rietig, K. Designing stakeholder learning dialogues for effective global governance. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 118-147. [CrossRef]
  133. Frerks, G.E.; Dietz, T.; Zaag, P. van der Conflict and cooperation on natural resources: Justifying the CoCooN programme. In Conflict over Natural resources in the Global South. Conceptual Approaches; Bavinck, M., Pellegrini, L., Mostert, E., Eds.; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2014; pp. 13-43. ISBN 978-1-138-02040-5.
  134. Tufa, F.A.; Amsalu, A.; Zoomers, E.B. Failed promises: Governance regimes and conflict transformation related to Jatropha cultivation in Ethiopia. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 26. [CrossRef]
  135. Krasny, M.E.; Lundholm, C.; Plummer, R. Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: The Role of Learning and Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [CrossRef]
  136. Timko, J.A.; Amsalu, A.; Acheampong, E.; Teferi, M.K. Local Perceptions about the Effects of Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) and Castor (Ricinus communis) Plantations on Households in Ghana and Ethiopia. Sustainability 2014, 6, 7224-7241. [CrossRef]
  137. Elshout, P.M.; van Zelm, R.; van der Velde, M.; Steinmann, Z.; Huijbregts, M.A. Global relative species loss due to first-generation biofuel production for the transport sector. GCB Bioenergy 2019, 11, 763-772.
  138. Balint, P.J.; Stewart, R.E.; Desai, A.; Walters, L.C. Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict; Island Press: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 1-59726-475-X.
  139. Ostrom, E. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad. Sci USA 2007, 104, 15181-15187.
  140. Young, O.R.; Gasser, L. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale; MIT press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; ISBN 0-262-74024-9.
  141. Roe, M. Governance, Policy and Juxtaposition; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020.
  142. Ansell, C.K.; Trondal, J.; Øgård, M. Governance in Turbulent Times; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; ISBN 0-19-873951-6.
  143. Akamani, K.; Holzmueller, E.J.; Groninger, J.W. Managing wicked environmental problems as complex social-ecological systems: The promise of adaptive governance. In Landscape Dynamics, Soils and Hydrological Processes in Varied Climates; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 741-762.
  144. Bruggemann, J.H.; Rodier, M.; Guillaume, M.M.; Andréfouët, S.; Arfi, R.; Cinner, J.E.; Pichon, M.; Ramahatratra, F.; Rasoamanendrika, F.; Zinke, J. Wicked social-ecological problems forcing unprecedented change on the latitudinal margins of coral reefs: The case of southwest Madagascar. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17.
  145. Stahl, C.H.; Cimorelli, A.J. Environmental Public Policy Making Exposed; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020.
  146. Béné, C.; Evans, L.; Mills, D.; Ovie, S.; Raji, A.; Tafida, A.; Kodio, A.; Sinaba, F.; Morand, P.; Lemoalle, J. Testing resilience thinking in a poverty context: Experience from the Niger River basin. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 1173-1184. [CrossRef]
  147. Ostrom, E. Sustainable social-ecological systems: An impossibility? SSRN Electron. J. 2007. [CrossRef]
  148. Kates, R.W.; Travis, W.R.; Wilbanks, T.J. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 7156-7161. [CrossRef]
  149. Bannink, D.; Trommel, W. Intelligent modes of imperfect governance. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 198-217. [CrossRef]
  150. Turnbull, N.; Hoppe, R. Problematizing 'wickedness': A critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 315-337. [CrossRef]
  151. Torfing, J.; Peters, B.G.; Pierre, J.; Sørensen, E. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; ISBN 0-19-959675-1.
  152. McKay, P.A. Living the Tame Life in Wicked Times-Environmental and Natural Resource Management in a Rapidly Changing World; Michigan State University: Michigan, MI, USA, 2013; ISBN 1-303-33183-7.
  153. Noordegraaf, M.; Douglas, S.; Geuijen, K.; Van der Steen, M. Weaknesses of wickedness: A critical perspective on wickedness theory. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 278-297. [CrossRef]
  154. McKay, P.A.; Vogt, C.A.; Olabisi, L.S. Development and testing a diagnostic capacity tool for improving socio-ecological system governance. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2017, 37, 156-183. [CrossRef]
  155. McKay, P.A.; Olabisi, L.S.; Vogt, C.A. Assessing improvements in socio-ecological system governance using mixed methods and the quality governance framework and its diagnostic capacity tool. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2020, 40, 41-66. [CrossRef]
  156. Termeer, C.J.; Dewulf, A.; Breeman, G.; Stiller, S.J. Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Admin. Soc. 2015, 47, 680-710. [CrossRef]
  157. Termeer, C.; Dewulf, A.; Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.I.; Vink, M.; Van Vliet, M. Coping with the wicked problem of climate adaptation across scales: The Five R Governance Capabilities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 154, 11-19. [CrossRef]

Related papers

Unpacking social-ecological transformations: Conceptual, ethical and methodological insights
Lucy Rodina

The Anthropocene Review, 2018

Social-ecological systems contribute to environmental change and, in turn, face its corresponding shocks and disturbances. As scholarship on resilience and social-ecological transformations grows, researchers from various disciplines continue to debate how major transitions and environmental change can be anticipated, studied or guided towards just and ethical outcomes. To this end, we apply an interdisciplinary perspective to describing key aspects of social-ecological transformations scholarship around three pressing questions: (1) What features or criteria distinguish transformations from other forms of change?; (2) What are the political, ethical, and normative concerns associated with transformations?; and (3) How can we better track, measure, and evaluate such transformations? Our insights, which emerged from a workshop with early-career interdisciplinary scholars, highlight questions of justice, equity and ethics in transformations research, and suggest that more precise indi...

View PDFchevron_right
Challenges for Social-Ecological Transformations: Contributions from Social and Political Ecology (2017)
Diana Hummel, S. Liehr, Ulrich Brand

Transformation has become a major topic of sustainability research. This opens up new perspectives, but at the same time, runs the danger to convert into a new critical orthodoxy which narrows down analytical perspectives. Most research is committed towards a political-strategic approach towards transformation. This focus, however, clashes with ongoing transformation processes towards un-sustainability. The paper presents cornerstones of an integrative approach to social-ecological transformations (SET), which builds upon empirical work and conceptual considerations from Social Ecology and Political Ecology. We argue that a critical understanding of the challenges for societal transformations can be advanced by focusing on the interdependencies between societies and the natural environment. This starting point provides a more realistic understanding of the societal and biophysical constraints of sustainability transformations by emphasising the crisis-driven and contested character of the appropriation of nature and the power relations involved. Moreover, it pursues a transdisciplinary mode of research, decisive for adequately understanding any strategy for transformations towards sustainability. Such a conceptual approach of SET is supposed to better integrate the analytical, normative and political-strategic dimension of transformation research. We use the examples of global land use patterns, neo-extractivism in Latin America and the global water crisis to clarify our approach.

View PDFchevron_right
Challenges for Social-Ecological Transformations: Contributions from Social and Political Ecology
Ulrich Brand

Sustainability, 2017

Transformation has become a major topic of sustainability research. This opens up new perspectives, but at the same time, runs the danger to convert into a new critical orthodoxy which narrows down analytical perspectives. Most research is committed towards a political-strategic approach towards transformation. This focus, however, clashes with ongoing transformation processes towards un-sustainability. The paper presents cornerstones of an integrative approach to social-ecological transformations (SET), which builds upon empirical work and conceptual considerations from Social Ecology and Political Ecology. We argue that a critical understanding of the challenges for societal transformations can be advanced by focusing on the interdependencies between societies and the natural environment. This starting point provides a more realistic understanding of the societal and biophysical constraints of sustainability transformations by emphasising the crisis-driven and contested character of the appropriation of nature and the power relations involved. Moreover, it pursues a transdisciplinary mode of research, decisive for adequately understanding any strategy for transformations towards sustainability. Such a conceptual approach of SET is supposed to better integrate the analytical, normative and political-strategic dimension of transformation research. We use the examples of global land use patterns, neo-extractivism in Latin America and the global water crisis to clarify our approach.

View PDFchevron_right
Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations
Ola Tjornbo

2014. Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecology and Society 19(4): 54. http://dx.ABSTRACT. Faced with numerous seemingly intractable social and environmental challenges, many scholars and practitioners are increasingly interested in understanding how to actively engage and transform the existing systems holding such problems in place. Although a variety of analytical models have emerged in recent years, most emphasize either the social or ecological elements of such transformations rather than their coupled nature. To address this, first we have presented a definition of the core elements of a socialecological system (SES) that could potentially be altered in a transformation. Second, we drew on insights about transformation from three branches of literature focused on radical change, i.e., social movements, socio-technical transitions, and social innovation, and gave consideration to the similarities and differences with the current studies by resilience scholars. Drawing on these findings, we have proposed a framework that outlines the process and phases of transformative change in an SES. Future research will be able to utilize the framework as a tool for analyzing the alteration of social-ecological feedbacks, identifying critical barriers and leverage points and assessing the outcome of social-ecological transformations.

View PDFchevron_right
Editorial: Discussing structural, systemic and enabling approaches to socio-environmental transformations: Stimulating an interdisciplinary and plural debate within the social sciences
Cristina Zurbriggen

Frontiers in Sociology

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Political Science
  • Wicked Problems
  • Futures Contract

    • Cited by

    The Roles of Adaptive Water Governance in Enhancing the Transition towards Ecosystem-Based Adaptation
    Kofi Akamani

    Water

    The growing realization of the inadequacies of the conventional approach to climate change adaptation has generated interest in sustainable forms of adaptation that could promote long-term ecosystem health and social equity. In this regard, the concept of ecosystem-based adaptation has been receiving attention as an integrative framework for maintaining healthy ecosystems, with the aim of building the resilience and reducing the vulnerability of social–ecological systems to climate change impacts. However, there is currently an inadequate understanding of the institutional requirements for the transition towards ecosystem-based adaptation. A promising institutional mechanism for addressing these governance challenges is adaptive governance, a governance mechanism that relies on flexible, multi-level institutions to connect actors across multiple scales in managing conflicting values and uncertainties in ecosystem-based management processes. This paper discusses four roles of adaptiv...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Circular Economy and Solid Waste Management: Connections from a Bibliometric Analysis
    Wender Reis

    Sustainability

    The aim of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis of the research published between 2012 and 2022 on solid waste management (SWM) and the circular economy (CE) using bibliometrics. To this end, the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases were used as sources of publications. Processing was conducted using the R language version 4.2.2 and the Bibliometrix software package version 4.1.2. A theoretical basis was built on the terms in order to present their interactions in the context of scientific debate. The results show that there is a need to create indicators to facilitate the evaluation of SWM. They can be identified from the data collected during the management process. Examples include the volume of material collected, operating costs, and recycling rates. Indicators are important in the waste management process because they help quantify the effectiveness of the management practices adopted, help to identify areas that need improvement, and make it possible to monitor the p...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Integrating Ecology into Land Planning and Development: Between Disillusionment and Hope, Questioning the Relevance and Implementation of the Mitigation Hierarchy
    Nathalie Frascaria-lacoste

    Sustainability, 2021

    Scientific research on the mitigation hierarchy has steadily increased over the past few years at the international level. While some seek to improve the application of this public action instrument, others point out its shortcomings and risks. This opinion paper—which focuses on the French context—does not provide an exhaustive overview of existing research but instead targets specific issues considered to be a “priority”. We mainly investigate the relevance and implementation of the mitigation hierarchy, especially from an ecological point of view. Part of this paper thus questions the very principle of biodiversity offsetting (BO)—the last resort of the mitigation hierarchy that brings together numerous controversies—and the adequacy of the mitigation hierarchy with the objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity. The general idea underlying this paper is to show how the mitigation hierarchy has been built and based on what values (mainly economic and legal, which leads us to ...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved