Search

• 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]

• Well-being impacts of certification schemes need to be compared with alternative private governance strategies. • Inclusive business and solidarity economy constitute two contrasting private governance strategies. • Paper presents an exploratory comparative analysis of four cases from the cacao sectors of Peru and Switzerland. • Value chain actors combine elements of certification, solidarity economy, and inclusive business into portfolios of instruments. • These instruments may address some barriers of certification, but come with own risks and limitations. Certification of sustainability standards is an important governance strategy aimed at enhancing the human well-being outcomes of agri-food value chains. While the impacts of certification on well-being are positive for some farmers under certain conditions, they are insignificant or adverse for others. Many barriers can impede positive impacts of certification on well-being. Alternative or complementary strategies such as inclusive business and solidarity economy may challenge these barriers. However, since certification, inclusive business and solidarity economy strategies are studied in isolation, their precise similarities and differences, their interplay and their relative efficacy and limitations remain elusive. Therefore, this paper explores to what extent and how inclusive business and solidarity economy strategies may overcome the persistent governance and economic barriers that limit well-being impacts of certification. We explore four purposively selected cases of inclusive business and solidarity economy strategies from the cacao value chains connecting Peru and Switzerland. Results show that value chain actors combine different specific elements of the three strategies (certification, inclusiveness and solidarity) into portfolios of instruments, which reflect their value chain role and organizational missions. These instrument portfolios may address some of the barriers of certification schemes, but they come with their own challenges and limitations. We conclude that promising future research may use comparative research designs to disentangle specific instruments of inclusiveness, solidarity, and certification; to build typologies of instrument portfolios; to understand their interaction with systemic change in markets and land-use systems; and to specify the conditions under which value chain actors can use specific instruments to improve well-being outcomes of agri-food value chains. [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]