Search

Transformation research has in the past years emerged as a shared lens to study and support radical societal change towards sustainability. Given the nascent and exploratory—yet highly normative and ambitious—character of transformation research, we aim to enhance the understanding of transformation research: when do research designs qualify as transformation research, what is needed for putting transformation research into practice, and what are results? To this end, we develop a framework that identifies criteria for designing and reflecting on research results, design and processes as transformation research. We employ this framework to reflect on our work in a research project that was designed in the spirit of transformation research: The TRAFIS (Transformations towards resource-conserving and climate-resilient coupled infrastructures) project sought to understand and support the development of innovative coupled infrastructures to mobilize their critical role in achieving sustainability transformations. Our results yield lessons and recommendations about what transformation research looks like in practice and how it can be strengthened, focussing on 1, redefining and re-valuing research for societal impact; 2, redesigning research to integrate perspectives on radical societal change; and 3, re-equipping researchers and research partners for social learning. We conclude that while transformation research already contributes to framing and generating knowledge about real-world sustainability challenges, its transformative impact is still limited. Practicing transformation research requires far-reaching changes in the science system, but also continuous reflection about legitimacy, power relations, and impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The narrative of urban sustainability transformations epitomises the hope that urban governance can create the conditions to plan and govern cities in a way that they contribute to local and global sustainability and resilience. So far, urban governance is not delivering: novel governance approaches are emerging in cities worldwide, yet are unable to transform conventional policymaking and planning to allow for innovative, co-beneficial and long-term solutions and actions to emerge and institutionalise. We present a capacities framework for urban transformations governance, starting from the need to fulfil distinct output functions ('what needs to happen') for mobilising and influencing urban transformation dynamics. The framework helps to diagnose and inform urban governance for responding to disturbances (stewarding capacity), phasing-out drivers of path-dependency (unlocking capacity), creating and embedding novelties (transformative capacity) and coordinating multi-actor processes (orchestrating capacity). Our case study of climate governance in New York City exemplifies the framework's applicability and explanatory power to identify conditions and activities facilitating transformation (governance), and to reveal gaps and barriers of these vis-à-vis the existing governance regime. Our framework thereby functions as a tool to explore what new forms of urban transformation governance are emerging, how effective these are, and how to strengthen capacities. • Existing urban governance is unable to address persistent problems. • Effective governance support of transformation lies in collective capacities. • We develop a framework of four capacities for urban transformation governance (UTG). • We use the framework to explain the development of UTG capacities in New York City. • The framework enables explaining, evaluating and supporting UTG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Climate change actions in cities worldwide are driving deep changes in urban governance. We ask whether new capacities for transformative climate governance are emerging in two cities that have experimented with urban climate governance: Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and New York City (NYC), United States. Transformative climate governance creates the conditions for developing integrated and innovative climate mitigation and adaptation policies and interventions that respond to and shape urban transformation dynamics and contribute to sustainability and resilience. The comparison of capacities for transformative climate governance in Rotterdam and NYC offers insights into the emerging features of urban climate governance vis-à-vis existing urban governance regimes: how urban climate governance is driven and delivered, what new governance conditions emerge, and whether these conditions enable transformative climate governance. In both cities, an integrated, experimental and inclusive approach to climate governance is emerging, which crosses multiple policy sectors and domains (e.g. transport, energy, health, justice), involves a variety of actors and facilitates innovative solutions. Envisioning, long-term goal and knowledge integration, experimentation and tapping into coalitions for change help to provide the basis (including guiding principles, urgency, actor networks, innovative solutions) for transformative climate governance. However, these transformative approaches tend to be still subordinate to business-as-usual interests and policy and planning approaches, which favour isolated, incremental and short-term responses. The challenge for strengthening transformative climate governance will be to develop rigorous institutional and organisational conditions that decisively stipulate a prioritisation of climate change across scales and sectors, provide action mandates and enable wider coordination, collaboration and learning. Highlights • Climate governance activities in cities drive deep changes in urban governance. • Transformative climate governance (TCG) supports desirable urban transformations. • Capacities for TCG manifest in new institutional, knowledge and network conditions. • Visioning, goal and knowledge integration and experimentation create TCG capacities. • Top-down institutional and organisational conditions need to be strengthened for TCG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complex interactions of drivers represented in scenarios and climate change impacts across scales have led to the development of multiscale scenarios. Since the recent development of global shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), which have started being downscaled to lower scales, the potential of scenarios to be relevant for decision making and facilitate appreciation and inclusion of different perspectives has been increasing, compared with a single-scale global scenario set. However, in practice, quantitative downscaling of global scenarios results in narratives that are compressed from the global level to fit the local context to enhance consistency between global and local scales. We brought forward the concept of scenario archetypes to analyze multiscale SSP scenario narratives and highlight important diverging assumptions within the same archetype. Our methodology applied scenario archetypes both as typologies, to allocate specific cases of scenarios into existing scenario archetypes, and building blocks, conceptualized with worldviews from cultural theory. Although global SSPs generally match existing archetypes and tend to be well defined, the socially unequal SSPs at subglobal scales are more nuanced, and dominant worldviews are much less straighforward to interpret than in global scenarios. The closest match was the great transition--sustainability (SSP1) archetype, whereas the most divergent was the market forces--fossil fuel development (SSP5) archetype. Overall, our results highlight the need to improve uptake of bottom-up approaches in global scenarios to improve appreciation of different perspectives as sought after in multiscale scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]