Search

"Action situations"—instances of decision-making and agency—have become central to studying social–ecological systems. This special feature collects research using the network of action situations (NAS) approach to structure the way these action situations are embedded into broader interdependent instances of decision-making in different policy or discursive realms, spatial and jurisdictional context, or at different institutional levels. In this editorial, we summarize the key themes that emerged throughout the collection of the 17 articles included in this special feature. The editorial emphasizes the value of NAS in appropriately and sensitively reconstructing relations while pursuing consistency in modes of analysis. It highlights as key themes the complementarity of and disconnects between situations, temporality of NAS, and how NAS can structure the analysis of power in SES. Going further, we suggest expanding on the relational turn, developing NAS archetypes, and studying polycentric governance theories and hypotheses using the NAS approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent years have seen a proliferation of studies that use archetype analysis to better understand and to foster transitions toward sustainability. This growing literature reveals a common methodological ground, as well as a variety of perspectives and practices. In this paper, we provide an historical overview of the roots of archetype analysis from ancient philosophy to recent sustainability science. We thereby derive core features of the archetype approach, which we frame by eight propositions. We then introduce the Special Feature, "Archetype Analysis in Sustainability Research," which offers a consolidated understanding of the approach, a portfolio of methods, and quality criteria, as well as cutting-edge applications. By reflecting on the Special Feature's empirical and methodological contributions, we hope that the showcased advances, exemplary applications, and conceptual clarifications will help to design future research that contributes to collaborative learning on archetypical patterns leading toward sustainability. The paper concludes with an outlook highlighting central directions for the next wave of archetype analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participatory research approaches are often assumed to be effective for addressing sustainability problems that involve a substantial amount of complexity, uncertainty, and conflicting values. The adaptive and integrative character of these approaches engages various scientific and nonscientific actors in collective knowledge production processes. An increasing number of case studies documents pathways to impact triggered by participatory research approaches. However, cumulative learning across cases about the impacts of participatory research projects remains limited to date. One question is of particular interest, namely how and when different intensities of actor interactions in participatory research effectively contribute to advancing sustainable development. In this paper we address this knowledge gap by presenting a meta-analysis of 29 case studies of participatory research projects in agricultural settings. The study protocol follows systematic case retrieval and selection, coding, and data analysis through formal concept analysis. We introduce and utilize a new diagnostic framework to analyze the links between the intensity of actor interactions, sustainability impact goals, context conditions, and sustainability impacts. The results show that three archetypical patterns describe how the 29 case studies report that participatory research projects generate sustainability impacts: learning, knowledge products, and real-world transformations. Impact in all three patterns is consistently associated with higher intensities of interactions, i.e., coproduction and less consultation but not mere information. The most frequently reported impact is learning in a context of resources and environment problems. In this configuration, coproduction of knowledge is mainly used during the second research phase. However, the results also show that coproduction in the final phase of a participatory research project is more often used to achieve the impact of real-world transformations, which presumably involves more complexity and contestation than other impacts. We conclude that participatory research projects, which aim at transformative impacts in complex settings beyond knowledge products and learning, need to sustain high intensities of actor interactions in knowledge coproduction throughout all research phases to achieve their sustainability impact goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Archetypes are increasingly used as a methodological approach to understand recurrent patterns in variables and processes that shape the sustainability of social-ecological systems. The rapid growth and diversification of archetype analyses has generated variations, inconsistencies, and confusion about the meanings, potential, and limitations of archetypes. Based on a systematic review, a survey, and a workshop series, we provide a consolidated perspective on the core features and diverse meanings of archetype analysis in sustainability research, the motivations behind it, and its policy relevance. We identify three core features of archetype analysis: recurrent patterns, multiple models, and intermediate abstraction. Two gradients help to apprehend the variety of meanings of archetype analysis that sustainability researchers have developed: (1) understanding archetypes as building blocks or as case typologies and (2) using archetypes for pattern recognition, diagnosis, or scenario development. We demonstrate how archetype analysis has been used to synthesize results from case studies, bridge the gap between global narratives and local realities, foster methodological interplay, and transfer knowledge about sustainability strategies across cases. We also critically examine the potential and limitations of archetype analysis in supporting evidence-based policy making through context-sensitive generalizations with case-level empirical validity. Finally, we identify future priorities, with a view to leveraging the full potential of archetype analysis for supporting sustainable development. [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]

A key challenge in addressing the global degradation of natural resources and the environment is to effectively transfer successful strategies across heterogeneous contexts. Archetype analysis is a particularly salient approach in this regard that helps researchers to understand and compare patterns of (un)sustainability in heterogeneous cases. Archetype analysis avoids traps of overgeneralization and ideography by identifying reappearing but nonuniversal patterns that hold for well-defined subsets of cases. It can be applied by researchers working in inter- or transdisciplinary settings to study sustainability issues from a broad range of theoretical and methodological standpoints. However, there is still an urgent need for quality standards to guide the design of theoretically rigorous and practically useful archetype analyses. To this end, we propose four quality criteria and corresponding research strategies to address them: (1) specify the domain of validity for each archetype, (2) ensure that archetypes can be combined to characterize single cases, (3) explicitly navigate levels of abstraction, and (4) obtain a fit between attribute configurations, theories, and empirical domains of validity. These criteria are based on a stocktaking of current methodological challenges in archetypes research, including: to demonstrate the validity of the analysis, delineate boundaries of archetypes, and select appropriate attributes to define them. We thus contribute to a better common understanding of the approach and to the improvement of the research design of future archetype analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]