Non-technical summary The article addresses the role of science in the present global ecological crisis, both as a factor in bringing it about and as a means to confront it. It is argued that the history of science, pursued in a global and long-term perspective, is an important knowledge resource for understanding the development of science in society. Pivotal episodes from that history, ranging from the origin of science in antiquity via the early modern scientific revolution to recent developments in industrial societies, are discussed with a particular emphasis on the case of China and with a view to the present crisis. Technical summary In this contribution, examples from the global, long-term history of science are used to illustrate characteristics of the historical development of science that are considered important in the context of the question of the role of science in the Anthropocene. In particular, it is argued that certain central features of modern science, such as its production of surplus knowledge (i.e., knowledge not immediately useful for the material reproduction of society) and the crucial role of technology in the scientific experience of nature, are actually very ancient in origin and, contrary to widespread views, not at all essentially ‘Western’. The comparison of different origins of science in antiquity reveals cross-cultural similarities as well as culture-dependent variations that suggest the existence of alternatives in the development of science from early on. Further emphasis is put on the fundamental role of the societal embedding of science and the force of path dependence in the historical development of science. The paper concludes with a few preliminary thoughts and questions on what these findings tell us about the necessary transformations of science in the Anthropocene and how they can be brought about. Social media summary The global history of science is argued to provide an important knowledge resource for the Anthropocene.
{"title":"Global history of science as a knowledge resource for the Anthropocene","authors":"Matthias Schemmel","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.16","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary The article addresses the role of science in the present global ecological crisis, both as a factor in bringing it about and as a means to confront it. It is argued that the history of science, pursued in a global and long-term perspective, is an important knowledge resource for understanding the development of science in society. Pivotal episodes from that history, ranging from the origin of science in antiquity via the early modern scientific revolution to recent developments in industrial societies, are discussed with a particular emphasis on the case of China and with a view to the present crisis. Technical summary In this contribution, examples from the global, long-term history of science are used to illustrate characteristics of the historical development of science that are considered important in the context of the question of the role of science in the Anthropocene. In particular, it is argued that certain central features of modern science, such as its production of surplus knowledge (i.e., knowledge not immediately useful for the material reproduction of society) and the crucial role of technology in the scientific experience of nature, are actually very ancient in origin and, contrary to widespread views, not at all essentially ‘Western’. The comparison of different origins of science in antiquity reveals cross-cultural similarities as well as culture-dependent variations that suggest the existence of alternatives in the development of science from early on. Further emphasis is put on the fundamental role of the societal embedding of science and the force of path dependence in the historical development of science. The paper concludes with a few preliminary thoughts and questions on what these findings tell us about the necessary transformations of science in the Anthropocene and how they can be brought about. Social media summary The global history of science is argued to provide an important knowledge resource for the Anthropocene.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.16","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44133674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
B. Martín‐López, P. Balvanera, R. Manson, T. Mwampamba, A. Norström
[ ]achieving global sustainability targets such as the Global Agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or the future Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Post-2020 Agenda for biodiversity conservation requires better understanding of social-ecological interactions between regions and across spatial scales [ ]the IPBES Global Assessment reported that demand for material benefits, such as food or biofuels, is predominantly from higher- and middle-income countries, while its provision tends to originate from land-use systems in middle- and lower-income countries (Díaz et al , 2019) [ ]the extraction and exchange of material benefits are often negotiated between powerful social actors and institutions, often leading to unequal distributions of economic and environmental benefits and costs among actors and between regions (Díaz et al , 2019;Folke et al , 2019;Martín-López et al , 2019;Österblom et al , 2015) Improving current understanding of cross-scale social-ecological dynamics in order to better identify those dynamics that lead to unsustainable and unjust futures and the governance systems that promote sustainability and justice are – arguably – two of the most salient challenges for sustainability science today
{"title":"Contributions of place-based social-ecological research to address global sustainability challenges","authors":"B. Martín‐López, P. Balvanera, R. Manson, T. Mwampamba, A. Norström","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.18","url":null,"abstract":"[ ]achieving global sustainability targets such as the Global Agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or the future Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Post-2020 Agenda for biodiversity conservation requires better understanding of social-ecological interactions between regions and across spatial scales [ ]the IPBES Global Assessment reported that demand for material benefits, such as food or biofuels, is predominantly from higher- and middle-income countries, while its provision tends to originate from land-use systems in middle- and lower-income countries (Díaz et al , 2019) [ ]the extraction and exchange of material benefits are often negotiated between powerful social actors and institutions, often leading to unequal distributions of economic and environmental benefits and costs among actors and between regions (Díaz et al , 2019;Folke et al , 2019;Martín-López et al , 2019;Österblom et al , 2015) Improving current understanding of cross-scale social-ecological dynamics in order to better identify those dynamics that lead to unsustainable and unjust futures and the governance systems that promote sustainability and justice are – arguably – two of the most salient challenges for sustainability science today","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.18","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43804613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Dornelles, E. Boyd, R. Nunes, M. Asquith, W. J. Boonstra, I. Delabre, J. Denney, V. Grimm, A. Jentsch, K. Nicholas, M. Schröter, R. Seppelt, J. Settele, N. Shackelford, R. Standish, G. Yengoh, T. Oliver
Non-technical summary Resilience is a cross-disciplinary concept that is relevant for understanding the sustainability of the social and environmental conditions in which we live. Most research normatively focuses on building or strengthening resilience, despite growing recognition of the importance of breaking the resilience of, and thus transforming, unsustainable social-ecological systems. Undesirable resilience (cf. lock-ins, social-ecological traps), however, is not only less explored in the academic literature, but its understanding is also more fragmented across different disciplines. This disparity can inhibit collaboration among researchers exploring interdependent challenges in sustainability sciences. In this article, we propose that the term lock-in may contribute to a common understanding of undesirable resilience across scientific fields. Technical summary Resilience is an extendable concept that bridges the social and life sciences. Studies increasingly interpret resilience normatively as a desirable property of social-ecological systems, despite growing awareness of resilient properties leading to social and ecological degradation, vulnerability or barriers that hinder sustainability transformations (i.e., ‘undesirable’ resilience). This is the first study to qualify, quantify and compare the conceptualization of ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’ resilience across academic disciplines. Our literature analysis found that various synonyms are used to denote undesirable resilience (e.g., path dependency, social-ecological traps, institutional inertia). Compared to resilience as a desirable property, research on undesirable resilience is substantially less frequent and scattered across distinct scientific fields. Amongst synonyms for undesirable resilience, the term lock-in is more frequently and evenly used across academic disciplines. We propose that lock-in therefore has the potential to reconcile diverse interpretations of the mechanisms that constrain system transformation – explicitly and coherently addressing characteristics of reversibility and plausibility – and thus enabling integrative understanding of social-ecological system dynamics. Social media summary ‘Lock-in’ as a bridging concept for interdisciplinary understanding of barriers to desirable sustainability transitions.
{"title":"Towards a bridging concept for undesirable resilience in social-ecological systems","authors":"A. Dornelles, E. Boyd, R. Nunes, M. Asquith, W. J. Boonstra, I. Delabre, J. Denney, V. Grimm, A. Jentsch, K. Nicholas, M. Schröter, R. Seppelt, J. Settele, N. Shackelford, R. Standish, G. Yengoh, T. Oliver","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.15","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Resilience is a cross-disciplinary concept that is relevant for understanding the sustainability of the social and environmental conditions in which we live. Most research normatively focuses on building or strengthening resilience, despite growing recognition of the importance of breaking the resilience of, and thus transforming, unsustainable social-ecological systems. Undesirable resilience (cf. lock-ins, social-ecological traps), however, is not only less explored in the academic literature, but its understanding is also more fragmented across different disciplines. This disparity can inhibit collaboration among researchers exploring interdependent challenges in sustainability sciences. In this article, we propose that the term lock-in may contribute to a common understanding of undesirable resilience across scientific fields. Technical summary Resilience is an extendable concept that bridges the social and life sciences. Studies increasingly interpret resilience normatively as a desirable property of social-ecological systems, despite growing awareness of resilient properties leading to social and ecological degradation, vulnerability or barriers that hinder sustainability transformations (i.e., ‘undesirable’ resilience). This is the first study to qualify, quantify and compare the conceptualization of ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’ resilience across academic disciplines. Our literature analysis found that various synonyms are used to denote undesirable resilience (e.g., path dependency, social-ecological traps, institutional inertia). Compared to resilience as a desirable property, research on undesirable resilience is substantially less frequent and scattered across distinct scientific fields. Amongst synonyms for undesirable resilience, the term lock-in is more frequently and evenly used across academic disciplines. We propose that lock-in therefore has the potential to reconcile diverse interpretations of the mechanisms that constrain system transformation – explicitly and coherently addressing characteristics of reversibility and plausibility – and thus enabling integrative understanding of social-ecological system dynamics. Social media summary ‘Lock-in’ as a bridging concept for interdisciplinary understanding of barriers to desirable sustainability transitions.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.15","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42378698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
V. Ramenzoni, M. Besonen, D. Yoskowitz, Vanessa Vázquez Sánchez, A. Rivero, P. González‐Díaz, A. Méndez, Daily Y. Borroto Escuela, Idania Hernández Ramos, Norgis Hernandez Lopez, L. McKinney
Non-technical summary Sharing information between different countries is key for developing sustainable solutions to environmental change. Coastal wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico are suffering significant environmental and human-related threats. Working across national boundaries, this research project brings together scientists, specialists and local communities from Cuba and the USA. While important advances have been made in strengthening collaborations, important obstacles remain in terms of international policy constraints, different institutional and academic cultures and technology. Overcoming these limitations is essential to formulating a comprehensive understanding of the challenges that coastal socioecological systems are facing now and into the future. Technical summary This article presents initial results from an ongoing transnational research collaboration between the USA and Cuba for the conservation of coastal wetlands in Caguanes National Park, Sancti Spíritus, Cuba. It focuses on the first two initial workshops among research scientists from Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies (Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi) and Universidad de La Habana, resource managers from Caguanes National Park and local communities. The main goals of these exchanges were to share knowledge and experiences in the protection of wetlands, to identify current and future environmental threats to these habitats and to develop a common programme of research that might potentially enhance wetland conservation in the larger Gulf region. A comparison between Caguanes and the Laguna Madre ecosystem is made to establish similarities in ecological conditions. As outcomes of the exchanges, participants agreed on a common set of research interests, management priorities and extension activities that will include the active engagement of local communities. The contribution also explores issues about local development, co-production of knowledge and societal transformations in place-based research. The article highlights the complexities of developing a research programme that relies on transnational partnerships that are very sensitive to larger geopolitical configurations. Social media summary Transnational research in Cuba for wetlands conservation shows benefits of collaboration in sustainable solutions.
{"title":"Transnational research for coastal wetlands conservation in a Cuba–US setting","authors":"V. Ramenzoni, M. Besonen, D. Yoskowitz, Vanessa Vázquez Sánchez, A. Rivero, P. González‐Díaz, A. Méndez, Daily Y. Borroto Escuela, Idania Hernández Ramos, Norgis Hernandez Lopez, L. McKinney","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.14","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Sharing information between different countries is key for developing sustainable solutions to environmental change. Coastal wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico are suffering significant environmental and human-related threats. Working across national boundaries, this research project brings together scientists, specialists and local communities from Cuba and the USA. While important advances have been made in strengthening collaborations, important obstacles remain in terms of international policy constraints, different institutional and academic cultures and technology. Overcoming these limitations is essential to formulating a comprehensive understanding of the challenges that coastal socioecological systems are facing now and into the future. Technical summary This article presents initial results from an ongoing transnational research collaboration between the USA and Cuba for the conservation of coastal wetlands in Caguanes National Park, Sancti Spíritus, Cuba. It focuses on the first two initial workshops among research scientists from Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies (Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi) and Universidad de La Habana, resource managers from Caguanes National Park and local communities. The main goals of these exchanges were to share knowledge and experiences in the protection of wetlands, to identify current and future environmental threats to these habitats and to develop a common programme of research that might potentially enhance wetland conservation in the larger Gulf region. A comparison between Caguanes and the Laguna Madre ecosystem is made to establish similarities in ecological conditions. As outcomes of the exchanges, participants agreed on a common set of research interests, management priorities and extension activities that will include the active engagement of local communities. The contribution also explores issues about local development, co-production of knowledge and societal transformations in place-based research. The article highlights the complexities of developing a research programme that relies on transnational partnerships that are very sensitive to larger geopolitical configurations. Social media summary Transnational research in Cuba for wetlands conservation shows benefits of collaboration in sustainable solutions.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.14","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45685517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
William F. Lamb, Giulio Mattioli, S. Levi, J. Roberts, S. Capstick, F. Creutzig, J. Minx, Finn Müller-Hansen, Trevor Culhane, J. Steinberger
Non-technical summary ‘Discourses of climate delay’ pervade current debates on climate action. These discourses accept the existence of climate change, but justify inaction or inadequate efforts. In contemporary discussions on what actions should be taken, by whom and how fast, proponents of climate delay would argue for minimal action or action taken by others. They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible. Here, we outline the common features of climate delay discourses and provide a guide to identifying them. Technical summary Through our collective observations as social scientists studying climate change, we describe 12 climate delay discourses and develop a typology based on their underlying logic. Delay discourses can be grouped into those that: (1) redirect responsibility; (2) push non-transformative solutions; (3) emphasize the downsides of climate policies; or (4) surrender to climate change. These discourses are distinct from climate denialism, climate-impact scepticism and ad hominem attacks, but are often used in combination to erode public and political support for climate policies. A deeper investigation of climate delay discourses is necessary in order to understand their prevalence and to develop inoculation strategies that protect the public from their intended effects. Our typology enables scientists, climate advocates and policymakers to recognize and counter these arguments when they are used. We urge all proponents of climate action to address these common misrepresentations of the climate crisis and to better communicate the dramatic pace of global warming, the gravity of its impacts and the possibility of effective and just mitigation policies. Social media summary Discourses of climate delay: redirect responsibility, push non-transformative solutions, emphasize downsides, surrender.
{"title":"Discourses of climate delay","authors":"William F. Lamb, Giulio Mattioli, S. Levi, J. Roberts, S. Capstick, F. Creutzig, J. Minx, Finn Müller-Hansen, Trevor Culhane, J. Steinberger","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary ‘Discourses of climate delay’ pervade current debates on climate action. These discourses accept the existence of climate change, but justify inaction or inadequate efforts. In contemporary discussions on what actions should be taken, by whom and how fast, proponents of climate delay would argue for minimal action or action taken by others. They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible. Here, we outline the common features of climate delay discourses and provide a guide to identifying them. Technical summary Through our collective observations as social scientists studying climate change, we describe 12 climate delay discourses and develop a typology based on their underlying logic. Delay discourses can be grouped into those that: (1) redirect responsibility; (2) push non-transformative solutions; (3) emphasize the downsides of climate policies; or (4) surrender to climate change. These discourses are distinct from climate denialism, climate-impact scepticism and ad hominem attacks, but are often used in combination to erode public and political support for climate policies. A deeper investigation of climate delay discourses is necessary in order to understand their prevalence and to develop inoculation strategies that protect the public from their intended effects. Our typology enables scientists, climate advocates and policymakers to recognize and counter these arguments when they are used. We urge all proponents of climate action to address these common misrepresentations of the climate crisis and to better communicate the dramatic pace of global warming, the gravity of its impacts and the possibility of effective and just mitigation policies. Social media summary Discourses of climate delay: redirect responsibility, push non-transformative solutions, emphasize downsides, surrender.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.13","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49193405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary The distribution of household carbon footprints is largely unequal within and across countries. Here, we explore household-level consumption data to illustrate the distribution of carbon footprints and consumption within 26 European Union countries, regions and social groups. The analysis further sheds light on the relationships between carbon footprints and socially desirable outcomes such as income, equality, education, nutrition, sanitation, employment and adequate living conditions. Technical summary We need a good understanding of household carbon distributions in order to design equitable carbon policy. In this work, we analyse household-level consumer expenditure from 26 European Union (EU) countries and link it with greenhouse gas (GHG) intensities from the multiregional input–output database EXIOBASE. We show carbon footprint distributions and elasticities by country, region and socio-economic group in the context of per capita climate targets. The top 10% of the population with the highest carbon footprints per capita account for 27% of the EU carbon footprint, a higher contribution to that of the bottom 50% of the population. The top 1% of EU households have a carbon footprint of 55 tCO2eq/cap. The most significant contribution is from air and land transport, with 41% and 21% among the top 1% of EU households. Air transport has a rising elasticity coefficient across EU expenditure quintiles, making it the most elastic, unequal and carbon-intensive consumption category in this study. Only 5% of EU households live within climate targets, with carbon footprints below 2.5 tCO2eq/cap. Our analysis points to the possibility of mitigating climate change while achieving various well-being outcomes. Further attention is needed to limit trade-offs between climate change mitigation and socially desirable outcomes. Social media summary EU top 1% of households emit 22 times the per capita climate targets. Only 5% of EU households live within the targets.
{"title":"The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to sustainability","authors":"D. Ivanova, Richard Wood","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.12","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary The distribution of household carbon footprints is largely unequal within and across countries. Here, we explore household-level consumption data to illustrate the distribution of carbon footprints and consumption within 26 European Union countries, regions and social groups. The analysis further sheds light on the relationships between carbon footprints and socially desirable outcomes such as income, equality, education, nutrition, sanitation, employment and adequate living conditions. Technical summary We need a good understanding of household carbon distributions in order to design equitable carbon policy. In this work, we analyse household-level consumer expenditure from 26 European Union (EU) countries and link it with greenhouse gas (GHG) intensities from the multiregional input–output database EXIOBASE. We show carbon footprint distributions and elasticities by country, region and socio-economic group in the context of per capita climate targets. The top 10% of the population with the highest carbon footprints per capita account for 27% of the EU carbon footprint, a higher contribution to that of the bottom 50% of the population. The top 1% of EU households have a carbon footprint of 55 tCO2eq/cap. The most significant contribution is from air and land transport, with 41% and 21% among the top 1% of EU households. Air transport has a rising elasticity coefficient across EU expenditure quintiles, making it the most elastic, unequal and carbon-intensive consumption category in this study. Only 5% of EU households live within climate targets, with carbon footprints below 2.5 tCO2eq/cap. Our analysis points to the possibility of mitigating climate change while achieving various well-being outcomes. Further attention is needed to limit trade-offs between climate change mitigation and socially desirable outcomes. Social media summary EU top 1% of households emit 22 times the per capita climate targets. Only 5% of EU households live within the targets.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.12","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49491193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I. Delabre, E. Boyd, M. Brockhaus, Wim Carton, T. Krause, P. Newell, G. Wong, F. Zelli
Non-technical summary Despite efforts to address the global forest crisis, deforestation and degradation continue, so we need to urgently revisit possible solutions. A failure to halt the global forest crisis contributes to climate change and biodiversity loss and will continue to result in inequalities in access to, and benefits from, forest resources. In this paper, we unpack a series of powerful myths about forests and their management. By exposing and better understanding these myths and what makes them so persistent, we have the basis to make the social and political changes needed to better manage and protect forests globally. Technical summary There is increasing recognition in the scientific community that environmental problems such as climate change are not just technological or engineering problems, but part of an ideational crisis. One particularly dominant idea is that sustainability problems can be solved by treating them as predominantly economic problems to be solved by market-based instruments or by mobilizing enough financial resources. In this article, we suggest that ideas like these are not only challenged by available scientific evidence about the best way to tackle the global forest crisis, but also produce socio-institutional lock-ins. We examine various myths underlying these lock-ins and show how they create barriers to transformations towards global forest sustainability. In the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, we ask why we are stuck with seemingly ineffective and inequitable approaches to global forest governance. We examine deforestation and some of the currently discussed policy solutions such as carbon forestry, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and private forest governance. We aim to unearth these myths and explore their consequences, warning that, in many contexts, their prevalence may preclude other solutions that might be more effective. Finally, we consider the transformative changes that are needed to unlock these lock-ins through a combination of ‘counteractions’ for sustainable forest governance. Social media summary Myths about the global forest crisis need to be disrupted to sustainably govern and protect forests globally.
{"title":"Unearthing the myths of global sustainable forest governance","authors":"I. Delabre, E. Boyd, M. Brockhaus, Wim Carton, T. Krause, P. Newell, G. Wong, F. Zelli","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.11","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Despite efforts to address the global forest crisis, deforestation and degradation continue, so we need to urgently revisit possible solutions. A failure to halt the global forest crisis contributes to climate change and biodiversity loss and will continue to result in inequalities in access to, and benefits from, forest resources. In this paper, we unpack a series of powerful myths about forests and their management. By exposing and better understanding these myths and what makes them so persistent, we have the basis to make the social and political changes needed to better manage and protect forests globally. Technical summary There is increasing recognition in the scientific community that environmental problems such as climate change are not just technological or engineering problems, but part of an ideational crisis. One particularly dominant idea is that sustainability problems can be solved by treating them as predominantly economic problems to be solved by market-based instruments or by mobilizing enough financial resources. In this article, we suggest that ideas like these are not only challenged by available scientific evidence about the best way to tackle the global forest crisis, but also produce socio-institutional lock-ins. We examine various myths underlying these lock-ins and show how they create barriers to transformations towards global forest sustainability. In the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, we ask why we are stuck with seemingly ineffective and inequitable approaches to global forest governance. We examine deforestation and some of the currently discussed policy solutions such as carbon forestry, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and private forest governance. We aim to unearth these myths and explore their consequences, warning that, in many contexts, their prevalence may preclude other solutions that might be more effective. Finally, we consider the transformative changes that are needed to unlock these lock-ins through a combination of ‘counteractions’ for sustainable forest governance. Social media summary Myths about the global forest crisis need to be disrupted to sustainably govern and protect forests globally.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.11","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48922879","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ekaterina Chertkovskaya, Karl Holmberg, Moa Petersén, J. Stripple, Sara Ullström
Non-technical summary Modern society without plastics is difficult to imagine. Yet the global plastic system is linked to a multitude of problems of a scope that is hard to grasp and address. In short, we are facing a plastic crisis. This article explores the role of art in stimulating critical reflection about plastics and analyses how it contributes to making the plastic crisis increasingly visible. Plastic-related artworks mostly focus on ocean pollution and do not pay due attention to other aspects of the plastic crisis. At the same time, they creatively communicate clear and emotionally charged messages. Art has the potential to play an important role in coming to grips with the plastic crisis if it succeeds in adopting a broader understanding of the problem. Technical summary Since the mid-twentieth century, plastic has become a ubiquitous material. However, its production, consumption and disposal on a massive scale have led to a range of devastating consequences that together form the ‘plastic crisis’. This paper presents a novel mapping of the ways contemporary artistic visual representations narrate and politicize the plastic crisis through their different messages and aesthetics. Drawing on a multifaceted understanding of the plastic crisis and on how art navigates political and aesthetic spheres, an analysis of 35 artworks is conducted. Ocean plastic pollution emerges as a dominant theme, together with disposability; and these are connected to consumption patterns and consumer responsibility. However, less attention is given to plastic's dependence on fossil fuels and possible toxicity. The result is art of striking beauty and emotional resonance, but that downplays the systemic nature of the plastic crisis and the urgent need to hold manufacturers and regulators to account.
{"title":"Making visible, rendering obscure: reading the plastic crisis through contemporary artistic visual representations","authors":"Ekaterina Chertkovskaya, Karl Holmberg, Moa Petersén, J. Stripple, Sara Ullström","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.10","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Modern society without plastics is difficult to imagine. Yet the global plastic system is linked to a multitude of problems of a scope that is hard to grasp and address. In short, we are facing a plastic crisis. This article explores the role of art in stimulating critical reflection about plastics and analyses how it contributes to making the plastic crisis increasingly visible. Plastic-related artworks mostly focus on ocean pollution and do not pay due attention to other aspects of the plastic crisis. At the same time, they creatively communicate clear and emotionally charged messages. Art has the potential to play an important role in coming to grips with the plastic crisis if it succeeds in adopting a broader understanding of the problem. Technical summary Since the mid-twentieth century, plastic has become a ubiquitous material. However, its production, consumption and disposal on a massive scale have led to a range of devastating consequences that together form the ‘plastic crisis’. This paper presents a novel mapping of the ways contemporary artistic visual representations narrate and politicize the plastic crisis through their different messages and aesthetics. Drawing on a multifaceted understanding of the plastic crisis and on how art navigates political and aesthetic spheres, an analysis of 35 artworks is conducted. Ocean plastic pollution emerges as a dominant theme, together with disposability; and these are connected to consumption patterns and consumer responsibility. However, less attention is given to plastic's dependence on fossil fuels and possible toxicity. The result is art of striking beauty and emotional resonance, but that downplays the systemic nature of the plastic crisis and the urgent need to hold manufacturers and regulators to account.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.10","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43982034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
N. Seddon, E. Daniels, Rowan Davis, A. Chausson, Rian Harris, X. Hou-Jones, S. Huq, V. Kapos, G. Mace, A. Rizvi, H. Reid, D. Roe, B. Turner, S. Wicander
Non-technical summary Ecosystems across the globe are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, as are the communities that depend on them. However, ecosystems can also protect people from climate change impacts. As the evidence base strengthens, nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly prominent in climate change policy, especially in developing nations. Yet intentions rarely translate into measurable, evidence-based targets. As Paris Agreement signatories revise their Nationally Determined Contributions, we argue that NbS are key to meeting global goals for climate and biodiversity, and we urge researchers to work more closely with policy-makers to identify targets that benefit both people and ecosystems. Technical summary Recent research demonstrates that nature-based solutions (NbS) can help protect communities and infrastructure from the impacts of climate change while providing a range of other benefits for society. As nations revise or prepare new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in support of the Paris Agreement, there is a major opportunity to increase global ambition on NbS. To support this process and to provide a baseline against which ambition for NbS can be tracked, here we report on the prominence of NbS in the 168 NDCs that were submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In total, 104 nations include NbS in the adaptation component of their NDCs, 77 nations include them in both their adaptation and mitigation components and an additional 27 include them as part of their mitigation plans only. In other words, 131 nations – or 66% of all signatories to the Paris Agreement – have articulated intentions of working with ecosystems, in one form or another. However, national intentions to deliver NbS for adaptation vary by level of economic development, region and habitat type, and rarely translate into measurable evidence-based targets. We discuss possible reasons for these findings and provide recommendations on how national governments, practitioners and researchers can together enhance ambition for NbS to climate change impacts. As climate pledges are revised during successive global ‘stock takes’ of the Paris Agreement, we urge the research community to work closely with practitioners and policy-makers to identify meaningful targets that benefit both people and the ecosystems on which they depend.
{"title":"Global recognition of the importance of nature-based solutions to the impacts of climate change","authors":"N. Seddon, E. Daniels, Rowan Davis, A. Chausson, Rian Harris, X. Hou-Jones, S. Huq, V. Kapos, G. Mace, A. Rizvi, H. Reid, D. Roe, B. Turner, S. Wicander","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.8","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Ecosystems across the globe are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, as are the communities that depend on them. However, ecosystems can also protect people from climate change impacts. As the evidence base strengthens, nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly prominent in climate change policy, especially in developing nations. Yet intentions rarely translate into measurable, evidence-based targets. As Paris Agreement signatories revise their Nationally Determined Contributions, we argue that NbS are key to meeting global goals for climate and biodiversity, and we urge researchers to work more closely with policy-makers to identify targets that benefit both people and ecosystems. Technical summary Recent research demonstrates that nature-based solutions (NbS) can help protect communities and infrastructure from the impacts of climate change while providing a range of other benefits for society. As nations revise or prepare new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in support of the Paris Agreement, there is a major opportunity to increase global ambition on NbS. To support this process and to provide a baseline against which ambition for NbS can be tracked, here we report on the prominence of NbS in the 168 NDCs that were submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In total, 104 nations include NbS in the adaptation component of their NDCs, 77 nations include them in both their adaptation and mitigation components and an additional 27 include them as part of their mitigation plans only. In other words, 131 nations – or 66% of all signatories to the Paris Agreement – have articulated intentions of working with ecosystems, in one form or another. However, national intentions to deliver NbS for adaptation vary by level of economic development, region and habitat type, and rarely translate into measurable evidence-based targets. We discuss possible reasons for these findings and provide recommendations on how national governments, practitioners and researchers can together enhance ambition for NbS to climate change impacts. As climate pledges are revised during successive global ‘stock takes’ of the Paris Agreement, we urge the research community to work closely with practitioners and policy-makers to identify meaningful targets that benefit both people and the ecosystems on which they depend.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.8","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47244784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary Achieving sustainability requires that businesses transform; however, it is virtually impossible in today's competitive environment for individual businesses to do what is needed to bring about systemic transformation. Instead, it is the context around businesses, including the public policy environment and changes by major actors, which must shift so that the pressures, constraints and demands on businesses can epimimetically drive their competitive instincts in the direction of wellbeing for all. Technical summary Businesses and economic systems are implicated in the need to come into much better harmony with the realities of nature and in support of better human dignity and wellbeing to achieve sustainability in what is here called an epimimetic process. This article argues that while it is occasionally possible for leaders and companies to transform in the direction of sustainability or flourishing for all, it is unlikely that enough individual businesses can transform sufficiently while relying on an individual basis to achieve transformation. The context that constitutes the ecosystem in which businesses operate needs to change so that businesses themselves can change. Transforming businesses means significant change to the ‘what’ of businesses and their ecosystems – the purposes, perspectives, powers, practices and performance criteria shape businesses both internally and as external pressures. Businesses are unlikely to transform until the surrounding ecosystem demands that they do so. Social media summary Individual businesses need public policy, activist and peer support to achieve systemic change towards sustainability.
{"title":"Achieving sustainability requires systemic business transformation","authors":"S. Waddock","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.9","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Achieving sustainability requires that businesses transform; however, it is virtually impossible in today's competitive environment for individual businesses to do what is needed to bring about systemic transformation. Instead, it is the context around businesses, including the public policy environment and changes by major actors, which must shift so that the pressures, constraints and demands on businesses can epimimetically drive their competitive instincts in the direction of wellbeing for all. Technical summary Businesses and economic systems are implicated in the need to come into much better harmony with the realities of nature and in support of better human dignity and wellbeing to achieve sustainability in what is here called an epimimetic process. This article argues that while it is occasionally possible for leaders and companies to transform in the direction of sustainability or flourishing for all, it is unlikely that enough individual businesses can transform sufficiently while relying on an individual basis to achieve transformation. The context that constitutes the ecosystem in which businesses operate needs to change so that businesses themselves can change. Transforming businesses means significant change to the ‘what’ of businesses and their ecosystems – the purposes, perspectives, powers, practices and performance criteria shape businesses both internally and as external pressures. Businesses are unlikely to transform until the surrounding ecosystem demands that they do so. Social media summary Individual businesses need public policy, activist and peer support to achieve systemic change towards sustainability.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.9","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49260754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：