Search

Studying social–ecological interactions systematically is difficult when dealing with case study data. The methodological flexibility inherent in case studies facilitates the discovery of complex relationships between social and ecological variables; however, it also poses problems for knowledge accumulation given the diverse ways that variables are measured, as well as the descriptive approaches to causal inference that are typically employed. This article builds on the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) to systematically compare interactions among variables across case studies. We adopt a 'model-centered' meta-analysis of existing SESF case studies, in which the units of analysis are causal explanations including sets of variables and their effects on outcomes (i.e. 'models'). Our analysis encompassed 30 studies and resulted in the formalization of 125 models. The analysis illustrates opportunities to assess interactions at different levels of detail. The paper concludes by proposing strategies to advance the study and reporting of interactions in case studies to foster a better understanding of dynamics and outcomes of environmental sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Evidence on whether transdisciplinarity leads to transformations is lacking. • Three generic, but not exclusive, mechanisms of impact generation can be identified. • Seven associated strategies were used to pursue different pathways to impact. • Combinations of several strategies showed most promise. • Using a theory of change approach recursively helps increase relevance of outcomes. Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge is widely credited with producing knowledge that can contribute to sustainability transformations, but there is little empirical evidence showing to what extent and through what mechanisms it is actually advancing sustainability. This article analyses how 31 transdisciplinary projects conceptualised the link between transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations, and as part of an institutional learning process explores what experiences projects garnered while implementing their theories of change. The research identified three generic conceptualisations of impact generation mechanisms: a) promoting systems, target, and transformation knowledge for more informed and equitable decision-making, b) fostering social learning for collective action, and c) enhancing competences for reflective leadership. It also identified seven different strategies through which the studied projects implemented these three generic mechanisms to induce sustainability transformations. Exploring potentials and limitations of the different mechanisms, the article concludes that the question is not which mechanisms or strategies are better than others, but in what situation and combination they might be most promising. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Incoherent resource regimes are drivers for polycentric governance. • Polycentric governance can compensate for regime incoherence. • Polycentric governance can improve the coordination of resource uses. • Combining IRR and polycentric governance allows to analyze co-evolving resource regimes and governance processes. Incoherent institutional regimes are among the most critical barriers to adapt water governance under climate change. However, it remains unclear how different governance processes can coordinate competing resource uses despite incoherence of institutional resource regimes. This paper examines how institutional resource regimes and polycentric governance processes are co-evolving and to what extent these processes coordinate competing resource uses in incoherent resource regimes. Empirically, we performed an embedded case study of the institutional resource regime and governance processes of three water reservoir projects with contrasting outcomes in the region of Oberhasli in the canton of Berne, Switzerland, covering a timeframe starting from the early 20th century. Data were collected through 21 semi-structured interviews, document analysis, participatory observation, and transect walks. Analytically, we demonstrate how the combination of the Institutional Resource Regime and polycentric governance frameworks provides an opportunity to analyze co-evolving resource regimes and governance processes. The results show that the institutional resource regime has become increasingly incoherent over the past decades, but the evolution of polycentric processes to govern competing water uses compensated for regime incoherence. Polycentric governance improved the coordination of water uses, if mutual adjustment, trust and activation of overarching rules between actors with similar and opposing interests were present. We conclude that institutional regime incoherence may constitute a critical barrier to climate change adaptation, but polycentric governance processes may alleviate critical challenges arising from regime incoherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food systems upon which humanity depends face multiple interdependent environmental, social and economic threats in the 21st Century. Yet, the governance of these systems, which determines to a large extent the ability to adapt and transform in response to these challenges, is underresearched. This perspective piece synthesises the findings of two recent reviews of food systems governance and transformations and proposes a comprehensive research agenda for the coming years. These reviews highlight the influence of governance on food systems, methodological obstacles to explaining the effectiveness of governance in realising food sustainability, and conditions that have historically supported food system transformations. We argue that the following steps are key to improving our knowledge of the role of governance in food systems: (1) developing more comparable research designs for building generalisable explanations of the governance elements that are most effective in realising food systems goals; (2) using the lens of polycentricity to help disentangle complex governance networks; (3) giving greater attention to the conditions and pre-conditions associated with historical food system transformations; (4) identifying adaptations that strengthen or weaken path dependency; and, (5) focusing research on how transformations can be supported by institutions that facilitate collective action and stakeholder agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) have become a major concern for land use sustainability at a global scale. A considerable body of case studies has shown that the livelihood outcomes of LSLAs vary, but the understanding of factors and processes that generate these livelihood outcomes remains controversial and fragmented in terms of cases, contexts, and normative orientations. Therefore, this study presents a meta-analysis of case studies and applies the archetypes approach developed in global change research to analyse the configurations of factors and processes that generate different livelihood outcomes in LSLA situations. The analysis is based on 44 systematically selected studies covering 66 cases in 21 countries in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe. The results show that LSLAs affect rural livelihoods through a small set of archetypical configurations. Adverse livelihood outcomes arise most frequently from processes of (1) enclosure of livelihood assets, (2) elite capture, (3) selective marginalisation of people already living in difficult conditions, and (4) polarisation of development discourses, and less frequently from (5) competitive exclusion, (6) agribusiness failure, and (7) transient jobs. The processes are activated in specific configurations of social-ecological factors. Moving beyond diagnosis, the paper identifies archetypical potentials for safeguarding or enhancing sustainable livelihoods in LSLA target regions at multiple levels of decision-making. Finally, we analyse how contextual factors modify these general insights. This paper helps to advance the archetypes methodology for use in global change research that aims at integral analysis of recurrent patterns expressed in local manifestations. The results can be used to better link local case studies with regional and global inventories of the global land rush. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Links international cooperation with local barriers to climate adaptation. [•] Models barriers and change factors for urban adaptation in developing countries. [•] Identifies modes of international cooperation to facilitate climate adaptation. [•] Explores design properties of international cooperation on climate adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Archetype analysis of well-being impacts conducted on land deals in 294 villages in Lao PDR. • Land deals affect well-being through 18 pathways and five archetypical processes. • Most of the land deals affect well-being either with trade-offs or adversely. • Enhanced well-being arises in a limited number of villages shaped by preconditions. • To avoid adverse impacts, land-use rights should be protected, large-scale deals avoided. Land acquisitions are transforming land-use systems globally, and their characteristics and impacts on human well-being have been extensively analysed through local case studies and regional or global inventories. However, national-level analysis that is crucial for national policy on sustainable agricultural investments and land use is still lacking. This paper conducts an archetype analysis of a unique dataset on land concessions in Lao PDR to provide a national-scale assessment of the impacts of land acquisitions on human well-being in 294 affected villages. The results show that land acquisitions influence human well-being through 18 distinct pathways. These pathways describe how some land acquisitions enhance or maintain well-being, while others elicit adverse impacts or trade-offs between well-being dimensions, particularly food security, income, and livelihood resilience. They further reveal five archetypical processes that mediate the effects of land acquisitions on well-being through: (i) shifting access to land and natural resources; (ii) commercialization of agriculture; (iii) availability of development opportunities; (iv) environmental impacts; and (v) employment opportunities within and outside land acquisitions. These processes affect well-being by shaping livelihood portfolios and dependence on natural resources. The majority of land acquisitions trigger trade-offs or adverse impacts on well-being. The small number of villages where well-being increased despite the presence of land acquisitions were mainly shaped by narrow and rigid preconditions. The archetypical processes and the explanatory factors suggest that it is imperative to protect smallholders' land-use rights and to avoid large-scale deals, as their adverse impacts outweigh opportunities and are more severe than the impacts of small-scale acquisitions. Employment opportunities may provide additional cash income but should not be exclusively relied upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]