J. Braun, F. Stenzel, B. Bodirsky, M. Jalava, D. Gerten
Non-technical summary Globally, freshwater systems are degrading due to excessive water withdrawals. We estimate that if rivers’ environmental flow requirements were protected, the associated decrease in irrigation water availability would reduce global yields by ~5%. As one option to increase food supply within limited water resources, we show that dietary changes toward less livestock products could compensate for this effect. If all currently grown edible feed was directly consumed by humans, we estimate that global food supply would even increase by 19%. We thus provide evidence that dietary changes are an important strategy to harmonize river flow protection with sustained food supply. Technical summary To protect global freshwater ecosystems and restore their integrity, freshwater withdrawals could be restricted to maintain rivers' environmental flow requirements (EFRs). However, without further measures, reduced irrigation water availability would decrease crop yields and put additional pressure on global food provision. By comparing the quantitative effects of both global EFR protection and dietary changes on regional and global food supply in a spatially explicit modeling framework, we show that dietary changes toward less livestock products could effectively contribute to solving this trade-off. Results indicate that protection of EFRs would almost halve current global irrigation water withdrawals and reduce global crop yields by 5%. Limiting animal protein share to 25, 12.5 and 0% of total protein supply and shifting released crop feed to direct human consumption could however increase global food supply by 4, 11 and 19%, respectively. The effects are geographically decoupled: water-scarce regions such as the Middle East, or South and Central Asia would be most affected by EFR protection, whereas dietary changes are most effective in North America and Europe. This underpins the disproportionally high responsibilities of countries with resource-intensive diets and the need for regionally adapted and diverse strategies to transform the global food system toward sustainability. Social media summary Combining dietary changes and global river flow protection could contribute to a more sustainable food system.
{"title":"Dietary changes could compensate for potential yield reductions upon global river flow protection","authors":"J. Braun, F. Stenzel, B. Bodirsky, M. Jalava, D. Gerten","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.12","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Globally, freshwater systems are degrading due to excessive water withdrawals. We estimate that if rivers’ environmental flow requirements were protected, the associated decrease in irrigation water availability would reduce global yields by ~5%. As one option to increase food supply within limited water resources, we show that dietary changes toward less livestock products could compensate for this effect. If all currently grown edible feed was directly consumed by humans, we estimate that global food supply would even increase by 19%. We thus provide evidence that dietary changes are an important strategy to harmonize river flow protection with sustained food supply. Technical summary To protect global freshwater ecosystems and restore their integrity, freshwater withdrawals could be restricted to maintain rivers' environmental flow requirements (EFRs). However, without further measures, reduced irrigation water availability would decrease crop yields and put additional pressure on global food provision. By comparing the quantitative effects of both global EFR protection and dietary changes on regional and global food supply in a spatially explicit modeling framework, we show that dietary changes toward less livestock products could effectively contribute to solving this trade-off. Results indicate that protection of EFRs would almost halve current global irrigation water withdrawals and reduce global crop yields by 5%. Limiting animal protein share to 25, 12.5 and 0% of total protein supply and shifting released crop feed to direct human consumption could however increase global food supply by 4, 11 and 19%, respectively. The effects are geographically decoupled: water-scarce regions such as the Middle East, or South and Central Asia would be most affected by EFR protection, whereas dietary changes are most effective in North America and Europe. This underpins the disproportionally high responsibilities of countries with resource-intensive diets and the need for regionally adapted and diverse strategies to transform the global food system toward sustainability. Social media summary Combining dietary changes and global river flow protection could contribute to a more sustainable food system.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45396087","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 Mainstreaming climate objectives into sectoral work and policies is widely advocated as the way forward for sustainable public–private action. However, current knowledge on effective climate mainstreaming has rarely translated into policy outcomes and radical, transformational change. This ‘implementation gap’ relates to the limitations of current approaches, which do not adequately address so-called ‘internal’ or ‘personal’ spheres of transformation. Here, we address this gap and provide an integrative climate mainstreaming framework for improving and guiding future sustainability research, education, policy and practice. Technical summary Current knowledge on what makes climate mainstreaming effective has, so far, seldom translated into policy outcomes and radical, transformational change. This ‘implementation gap’ is related to the limitations of current approaches. The latter tend to focus on isolated, highly tangible, but essentially weak leverage points that do not adequately link practical and political solutions with ‘internal’ or ‘personal’ spheres of transformation. This link involves an internal (mindset/consciousness) shift leading to long-lasting changes in the way that we experience and relate to our self, others, the world and future generations. It requires unleashing people's internal potential and capacity to care, commit to, and effect change for a more sustainable life across individual, collective, organisational and system levels. To address this gap, we analyse how such internal dimensions can be integrated into climate mainstreaming, to move beyond its current, partial focus on external and technological solutions. Through a robust investigation of how to scale up climate mainstreaming in a more transformative manner, we explore how mainstreaming and conscious full-spectrum theories can be related to fundamentally advance the field and improve current approaches. The resulting integrative framework breaks new ground by linking the mainstreaming of climate considerations and internal dimensions across all spheres of transformation. We conclude with some policy recommendations and future research needs. Social media summary Linking climate policy integration/mainstreaming and personal development: an integrative framework.
{"title":"Transformative climate policy mainstreaming – engaging the political and the personal","authors":"C. Wamsler, G. Osberg","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.11","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Mainstreaming climate objectives into sectoral work and policies is widely advocated as the way forward for sustainable public–private action. However, current knowledge on effective climate mainstreaming has rarely translated into policy outcomes and radical, transformational change. This ‘implementation gap’ relates to the limitations of current approaches, which do not adequately address so-called ‘internal’ or ‘personal’ spheres of transformation. Here, we address this gap and provide an integrative climate mainstreaming framework for improving and guiding future sustainability research, education, policy and practice. Technical summary Current knowledge on what makes climate mainstreaming effective has, so far, seldom translated into policy outcomes and radical, transformational change. This ‘implementation gap’ is related to the limitations of current approaches. The latter tend to focus on isolated, highly tangible, but essentially weak leverage points that do not adequately link practical and political solutions with ‘internal’ or ‘personal’ spheres of transformation. This link involves an internal (mindset/consciousness) shift leading to long-lasting changes in the way that we experience and relate to our self, others, the world and future generations. It requires unleashing people's internal potential and capacity to care, commit to, and effect change for a more sustainable life across individual, collective, organisational and system levels. To address this gap, we analyse how such internal dimensions can be integrated into climate mainstreaming, to move beyond its current, partial focus on external and technological solutions. Through a robust investigation of how to scale up climate mainstreaming in a more transformative manner, we explore how mainstreaming and conscious full-spectrum theories can be related to fundamentally advance the field and improve current approaches. The resulting integrative framework breaks new ground by linking the mainstreaming of climate considerations and internal dimensions across all spheres of transformation. We conclude with some policy recommendations and future research needs. Social media summary Linking climate policy integration/mainstreaming and personal development: an integrative framework.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45807900","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 A wide variety of social innovations exist today that offer urgently needed pathways for transforming societal systems into more just, sustainable and regenerative ways of organising human existence on this planet. However, a more systematic and practically useful understanding is needed of how individuals and organisations can strengthen the transformative capacity of people working on connecting, spreading, maturing and structurally embedding these innovations. This study presents an updated conceptual framework of network leadership roles and practices, and describes how these can contribute to more widespread, systemic and lasting impact of social innovations. Technical summary This study tests and refines a conceptual framework, describing the roles and practices of network leadership that can support the development of transformative capacities, in the context of social innovation networks. Such capacities include spreading social innovations in wider society, embedding them in policy and public discourse, and generating continuity and further development of social innovation activities. We studied five cases of transnational social innovation networks involving community-led and student-led sustainability initiatives. Practitioners in these networks were asked to rate and comment on the perceived recognisability and importance of network leadership roles and practices, as well as challenges, which we articulated in a previous study and further developed in the current study through participant observation and document analyses. This resulted in a revision of the roles and practices, the identification of relations between roles and a better understanding of how they can contribute to transformative capacity development. The interviews also helped to clarify the practical usefulness of the framework, suggesting possible applications for evaluating, prioritising and aligning roles performed by various individuals and organisations. The findings are relevant for better understanding and guiding distributed agency in transformative social innovation networks. Social media summary Roles and practices for network leadership to enable more widespread, systemic and lasting impact of social innovation.
{"title":"Network leadership for transformative capacity development: roles, practices and challenges","authors":"T. Strasser, J. de Kraker, R. Kemp","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.6","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary A wide variety of social innovations exist today that offer urgently needed pathways for transforming societal systems into more just, sustainable and regenerative ways of organising human existence on this planet. However, a more systematic and practically useful understanding is needed of how individuals and organisations can strengthen the transformative capacity of people working on connecting, spreading, maturing and structurally embedding these innovations. This study presents an updated conceptual framework of network leadership roles and practices, and describes how these can contribute to more widespread, systemic and lasting impact of social innovations. Technical summary This study tests and refines a conceptual framework, describing the roles and practices of network leadership that can support the development of transformative capacities, in the context of social innovation networks. Such capacities include spreading social innovations in wider society, embedding them in policy and public discourse, and generating continuity and further development of social innovation activities. We studied five cases of transnational social innovation networks involving community-led and student-led sustainability initiatives. Practitioners in these networks were asked to rate and comment on the perceived recognisability and importance of network leadership roles and practices, as well as challenges, which we articulated in a previous study and further developed in the current study through participant observation and document analyses. This resulted in a revision of the roles and practices, the identification of relations between roles and a better understanding of how they can contribute to transformative capacity development. The interviews also helped to clarify the practical usefulness of the framework, suggesting possible applications for evaluating, prioritising and aligning roles performed by various individuals and organisations. The findings are relevant for better understanding and guiding distributed agency in transformative social innovation networks. Social media summary Roles and practices for network leadership to enable more widespread, systemic and lasting impact of social innovation.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47971115","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}
Javad Jozaei, Wen-Ching Chuang, Craig R Allen, Ahjond Garmestani
Non-technical summary: Our analysis shows that the framing of social vulnerability is shaped by a narrow definition of resilience, focusing on post-disaster return and recovery responses. This perspective does not account for the dynamism and non-stationarity of social-ecological systems (SES) which is becoming increasingly important in the face of accelerating environmental change. Incorporating social-ecological resilience into social vulnerability analysis can improve coastal governance by accounting for adaptation and transformation, as well as scale and cross-scale interactions.
Technical summary: Social vulnerability analysis has been unable to deliver outcomes that reflect the reality of vulnerability and its consequences in an era characterised by accelerating environmental change. In this work, we used critical discourse analysis and key informant interviews to understand different framings of social vulnerability in coastal governance and management, globally and in New Zealand. We found that the framing of system vulnerability could vary depending on the definition of resilience adopted, which has critical ramifications for coastal governance of linked systems of humans and nature. We found that the framing of social vulnerability in coastal governance is mainly influenced by engineering, community and disaster resilience, focusing on return and recovery governance responses to environmental change (e.g. hurricanes, wildfires). Instead, we suggest a novel perspective based on social-ecological resilience, which more accurately reflects the dynamics of linked systems of humans and nature (SES). This revised perspective, general vulnerability, accounts for the dynamics of Earth's systems across various spatial and temporal scales in the face of accelerating environmental change. Accounting for social-ecological resilience and its core aspects (i.e. panarchy, adaptation and transformation) is essential for informing coastal governance of SES (Do we adapt? or Do we transform the SES?).
Social media summary: Social-ecological resilience is essential for social vulnerability analysis in the face of accelerating environmental change.
{"title":"Social vulnerability, social-ecological resilience and coastal governance.","authors":"Javad Jozaei, Wen-Ching Chuang, Craig R Allen, Ahjond Garmestani","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.10","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Non-technical summary: </strong>Our analysis shows that the framing of social vulnerability is shaped by a narrow definition of resilience, focusing on post-disaster return and recovery responses. This perspective does not account for the dynamism and non-stationarity of social-ecological systems (SES) which is becoming increasingly important in the face of accelerating environmental change. Incorporating social-ecological resilience into social vulnerability analysis can improve coastal governance by accounting for adaptation and transformation, as well as scale and cross-scale interactions.</p><p><strong>Technical summary: </strong>Social vulnerability analysis has been unable to deliver outcomes that reflect the reality of vulnerability and its consequences in an era characterised by accelerating environmental change. In this work, we used critical discourse analysis and key informant interviews to understand different framings of social vulnerability in coastal governance and management, globally and in New Zealand. We found that the framing of system vulnerability could vary depending on the definition of resilience adopted, which has critical ramifications for coastal governance of linked systems of humans and nature. We found that the framing of social vulnerability in coastal governance is mainly influenced by engineering, community and disaster resilience, focusing on return and recovery governance responses to environmental change (e.g. hurricanes, wildfires). Instead, we suggest a novel perspective based on social-ecological resilience, which more accurately reflects the dynamics of linked systems of humans and nature (SES). This revised perspective, <i>general vulnerability</i>, accounts for the dynamics of Earth's systems across various spatial and temporal scales in the face of accelerating environmental change. Accounting for social-ecological resilience and its core aspects (i.e. panarchy, adaptation <i>and</i> transformation) is essential for informing coastal governance of SES (Do we adapt? or Do we transform the SES?).</p><p><strong>Social media summary: </strong>Social-ecological resilience is essential for social vulnerability analysis in the face of accelerating environmental change.</p>","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10304588/pdf/nihms-1877567.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9746496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Hole, Pamela Collins, A. Tesfaw, Lina Barrera, Michael B. Mascia, W. Turner
Non-technical summary Implicit in the UN's Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Agenda is the notion that environmental sustainability is intertwined with, and underpins, the 17 Goals. Yet the language of the Goals, and their Targets and indicators is blind to the myriad ways in which nature supports people's health and wealth – which we argue represents a key impediment to progress. Using examples of nature–human wellbeing linkages, we assess the language of all 169 Targets to identify urgent research, policy, and action needed to spotlight and leverage nature's foundational role, to help enable truly sustainable development for all. Technical summary Nature's foundational role in helping achieve the SDGs is implicit rather than explicit in the language of SDGs Goals, Targets, and indicators. Drawing from the scientific literature describing how nature underpins human wellbeing, we carry out a systematic assessment of the language of all 169 Targets, categorizing which Targets are dependent upon nature for their achievement, could harm nature if attained through business-as-usual actions, or may synergistically benefit nature through their attainment. We find that half are dependent upon nature for their achievement – yet for more than two-thirds of those nature's role goes unstated and risks being downplayed or ignored. Moreover, while achieving the overwhelming majority of the 169 Targets could potentially benefit nature, more than 60% are likely to deliver ‘mixed outcomes’ – benefitting or harming nature depending on how they're achieved. Furthermore, of the 241 official indicators <5% track nature's role in achieving the parent Target. Our analysis provides insights important for increasing effectiveness across the SDG agenda regarding where to invest, how to enhance synergies and limit unanticipated impacts, and how to measure success. It also suggests a path for integrating the ‘nature that people need’ to achieve the SDGs into the CBD's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Social media summary Harmonizing links between the SDGs and the CBD's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is vital for promoting sustainable development
{"title":"Make nature's role visible to achieve the SDGs","authors":"D. Hole, Pamela Collins, A. Tesfaw, Lina Barrera, Michael B. Mascia, W. Turner","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.5","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Implicit in the UN's Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Agenda is the notion that environmental sustainability is intertwined with, and underpins, the 17 Goals. Yet the language of the Goals, and their Targets and indicators is blind to the myriad ways in which nature supports people's health and wealth – which we argue represents a key impediment to progress. Using examples of nature–human wellbeing linkages, we assess the language of all 169 Targets to identify urgent research, policy, and action needed to spotlight and leverage nature's foundational role, to help enable truly sustainable development for all. Technical summary Nature's foundational role in helping achieve the SDGs is implicit rather than explicit in the language of SDGs Goals, Targets, and indicators. Drawing from the scientific literature describing how nature underpins human wellbeing, we carry out a systematic assessment of the language of all 169 Targets, categorizing which Targets are dependent upon nature for their achievement, could harm nature if attained through business-as-usual actions, or may synergistically benefit nature through their attainment. We find that half are dependent upon nature for their achievement – yet for more than two-thirds of those nature's role goes unstated and risks being downplayed or ignored. Moreover, while achieving the overwhelming majority of the 169 Targets could potentially benefit nature, more than 60% are likely to deliver ‘mixed outcomes’ – benefitting or harming nature depending on how they're achieved. Furthermore, of the 241 official indicators <5% track nature's role in achieving the parent Target. Our analysis provides insights important for increasing effectiveness across the SDG agenda regarding where to invest, how to enhance synergies and limit unanticipated impacts, and how to measure success. It also suggests a path for integrating the ‘nature that people need’ to achieve the SDGs into the CBD's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Social media summary Harmonizing links between the SDGs and the CBD's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is vital for promoting sustainable development","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41573500","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 Research on “corporate biosphere stewardship” and the related concept of “keystone actor” has proliferated in recent years. We scrutinize the program focusing on issues and assumptions associated with inequality, naturalizing social processes, or reification, and characterizing corporations as equivalent stakeholders in sustainable development with other actors and organizations. As a result, we argue the program does not promote the stated claim of transformative change for sustainability. We suggest that the research program should develop a deeper analysis of social dynamics, forces, and structures, based in social theory, particularly sociological work, which can help reveal common taken for granted assumptions. Technical Summary We highlight important assumptions associated with the research program in sustainability science developed around “corporate biosphere stewardship” and the promise of “science-business initiatives.” In doing so, we interrogate a central concept in this research, “keystone actors.” We analyze the program based on associated research outputs and communications, focusing on three key challenges 1) inequities related to the concentration of political-economic power 2) concerns with naturalizing social processes, or reification, and 3) the limitations of characterizing corporations as commensurable stakeholders in sustainable development. This research program has revealed some important conditions and dynamics in relation to consolidation and concentration in global industries. However, it has been limited by insufficient integration of knowledge from social science, particularly sociology. Thus, the approach tends to undertheorize social dynamics, processes, and structures. Despite being framed as an effort at “improving the prospects for transformative change,” the implications, outcomes, and recommendations that emerge from this research program may inadvertently promote increased control and power of elite actors by presenting an ostensible inevitability of corporate dominance for bringing about social welfare and sustainability. We suggest greater attention to social structural dynamics, and particularly social struggles and social movements, when considering the potential for transformational change for sustainability.
{"title":"Key challenges to the corporate biosphere stewardship research program: inequity, reification, and stakeholder commensurability","authors":"S. Longo, Ellinor Isgren, Richard York","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.8","url":null,"abstract":"Non-Technical Summary Research on “corporate biosphere stewardship” and the related concept of “keystone actor” has proliferated in recent years. We scrutinize the program focusing on issues and assumptions associated with inequality, naturalizing social processes, or reification, and characterizing corporations as equivalent stakeholders in sustainable development with other actors and organizations. As a result, we argue the program does not promote the stated claim of transformative change for sustainability. We suggest that the research program should develop a deeper analysis of social dynamics, forces, and structures, based in social theory, particularly sociological work, which can help reveal common taken for granted assumptions. Technical Summary We highlight important assumptions associated with the research program in sustainability science developed around “corporate biosphere stewardship” and the promise of “science-business initiatives.” In doing so, we interrogate a central concept in this research, “keystone actors.” We analyze the program based on associated research outputs and communications, focusing on three key challenges 1) inequities related to the concentration of political-economic power 2) concerns with naturalizing social processes, or reification, and 3) the limitations of characterizing corporations as commensurable stakeholders in sustainable development. This research program has revealed some important conditions and dynamics in relation to consolidation and concentration in global industries. However, it has been limited by insufficient integration of knowledge from social science, particularly sociology. Thus, the approach tends to undertheorize social dynamics, processes, and structures. Despite being framed as an effort at “improving the prospects for transformative change,” the implications, outcomes, and recommendations that emerge from this research program may inadvertently promote increased control and power of elite actors by presenting an ostensible inevitability of corporate dominance for bringing about social welfare and sustainability. We suggest greater attention to social structural dynamics, and particularly social struggles and social movements, when considering the potential for transformational change for sustainability.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41742317","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 More and more people around the globe experience climate hazards. For vulnerable populations, these hazards not only cause significant physical damages, but can also affect the way people interact with each other. How such interactions are affected by climate hazards is particularly important for understanding the vulnerability of communities. Prosocial behavior is key for communities that heavily rely on informal social support to deal with these threats and for cooperative solutions to provide and maintain public goods. To investigate these effects, we talk to people living on the front lines of climate change and measure their prosociality using behavioral tasks. Our results show that both fast- and slow-onset hazards increase prosociality, underscoring the importance of well-functioning social relationships for dealing with hardship and uncertainty in a variety of contexts. Technical summary People's willingness to engage in prosocial behavior can affect how vulnerable and resilient populations are to climate hazards. We study how different types of climate hazards, fast-onsetting cyclones and slowly rising sea-levels, might affect peoples' prosociality using incentivized behavioral tasks. We sample people who are at the forefront of climate change and either experienced Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (study 1; n = 378) or are from sea-level rise hotspots (study 2; n = 1047) in Solomon Islands, Bangladesh, and Vietnam. We experimentally manipulate the salience of these hazards through recall or informational videos. Results from study 1 show that increases in prosociality are (i) independent of whether supportive behaviors or conflicts are recalled, (ii) are not only targeted to a narrow in-group, and (iii) do not come with increases in antisocial behaviors. In study 2, we also find that people behave more prosocial when they are informed about the impacts of rising sea-levels. Our survey evidence suggests that people who already perceive the threat of displacement due to rising sea-levels are also more prosocial. Overall, peoples' responses to both types of hazards are geared toward collective action, which could strengthen their adaptive capacity to deal with climate risks. Social media summary People severely affected by sea-level rise and rapidly emerging climate hazards are responding with increases in prosocial behaviors to fellow villagers.
{"title":"Prosociality as response to slow- and fast-onset climate hazards","authors":"Ivo Steimanis, B. Vollan","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.9","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary More and more people around the globe experience climate hazards. For vulnerable populations, these hazards not only cause significant physical damages, but can also affect the way people interact with each other. How such interactions are affected by climate hazards is particularly important for understanding the vulnerability of communities. Prosocial behavior is key for communities that heavily rely on informal social support to deal with these threats and for cooperative solutions to provide and maintain public goods. To investigate these effects, we talk to people living on the front lines of climate change and measure their prosociality using behavioral tasks. Our results show that both fast- and slow-onset hazards increase prosociality, underscoring the importance of well-functioning social relationships for dealing with hardship and uncertainty in a variety of contexts. Technical summary People's willingness to engage in prosocial behavior can affect how vulnerable and resilient populations are to climate hazards. We study how different types of climate hazards, fast-onsetting cyclones and slowly rising sea-levels, might affect peoples' prosociality using incentivized behavioral tasks. We sample people who are at the forefront of climate change and either experienced Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (study 1; n = 378) or are from sea-level rise hotspots (study 2; n = 1047) in Solomon Islands, Bangladesh, and Vietnam. We experimentally manipulate the salience of these hazards through recall or informational videos. Results from study 1 show that increases in prosociality are (i) independent of whether supportive behaviors or conflicts are recalled, (ii) are not only targeted to a narrow in-group, and (iii) do not come with increases in antisocial behaviors. In study 2, we also find that people behave more prosocial when they are informed about the impacts of rising sea-levels. Our survey evidence suggests that people who already perceive the threat of displacement due to rising sea-levels are also more prosocial. Overall, peoples' responses to both types of hazards are geared toward collective action, which could strengthen their adaptive capacity to deal with climate risks. Social media summary People severely affected by sea-level rise and rapidly emerging climate hazards are responding with increases in prosocial behaviors to fellow villagers.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45876017","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 Models are increasingly used to inform the transformation of human–Earth systems towards a sustainable future, aligned with the sustainable development goals (SDGs). We argue that a greater diversity of models ought to be used for sustainability analysis to better address complexity and uncertainty. We articulate the steps to model global change socioeconomic and climatic scenarios with new models. Through these steps, we generate new scenario projections using a human–Earth system dynamics model. Our modelling brings new insights about the sensitivity of sustainability trends to future uncertainty and their alignment with or divergence from previous model-based scenario projections. Technical summary The future uncertainty and complexity of alternative socioeconomic and climatic scenarios challenge the model-based analysis of sustainable development. Obtaining robust insights requires a systematic processing of uncertainty and complexity not only in input assumptions, but also in the diversity of model structures that simulates the multisectoral dynamics of human and Earth system interactions. Here, we implement the global change scenarios, that is, the shared socioeconomic pathways and the representative concentration pathways, in a feedback-rich, integrated assessment model (IAM) of human–Earth system dynamics, called FeliX, to serve two aims: (1) to provide modellers with well-defined steps for the adoption of established scenarios in new IAMs and (2) to explore the impacts of model uncertainty and its structural complexity on the projection of these scenarios for sustainable development. Our modelling shows internally consistent scenario storylines across sectors, yet with quantitatively different realisations of these scenarios compared to other IAMs due to the new model's structural complexity. The results highlight the importance of enumerating global change scenarios and their uncertainty exploration with a diversity of models of different input assumptions and structures to capture a wider variety of future possibilities and sustainability indicators. Social media summary New study highlights the importance of global change scenario analysis with new, SDG-focused IAMs.
{"title":"Diversifying models for analysing global change scenarios and sustainability pathways","authors":"E. A. Moallemi, Lei Gao, S. Eker, B. Bryan","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.7","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Models are increasingly used to inform the transformation of human–Earth systems towards a sustainable future, aligned with the sustainable development goals (SDGs). We argue that a greater diversity of models ought to be used for sustainability analysis to better address complexity and uncertainty. We articulate the steps to model global change socioeconomic and climatic scenarios with new models. Through these steps, we generate new scenario projections using a human–Earth system dynamics model. Our modelling brings new insights about the sensitivity of sustainability trends to future uncertainty and their alignment with or divergence from previous model-based scenario projections. Technical summary The future uncertainty and complexity of alternative socioeconomic and climatic scenarios challenge the model-based analysis of sustainable development. Obtaining robust insights requires a systematic processing of uncertainty and complexity not only in input assumptions, but also in the diversity of model structures that simulates the multisectoral dynamics of human and Earth system interactions. Here, we implement the global change scenarios, that is, the shared socioeconomic pathways and the representative concentration pathways, in a feedback-rich, integrated assessment model (IAM) of human–Earth system dynamics, called FeliX, to serve two aims: (1) to provide modellers with well-defined steps for the adoption of established scenarios in new IAMs and (2) to explore the impacts of model uncertainty and its structural complexity on the projection of these scenarios for sustainable development. Our modelling shows internally consistent scenario storylines across sectors, yet with quantitatively different realisations of these scenarios compared to other IAMs due to the new model's structural complexity. The results highlight the importance of enumerating global change scenarios and their uncertainty exploration with a diversity of models of different input assumptions and structures to capture a wider variety of future possibilities and sustainability indicators. Social media summary New study highlights the importance of global change scenario analysis with new, SDG-focused IAMs.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47343791","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}
D. Fougères, Mike Jones, P. McElwee, Angela Andrade, S. Edwards
Non-technical summary Many conservation initiatives call for ‘transformative change’ to counter biodiversity loss, climate change, and injustice. The term connotes fundamental, broad, and durable changes to human relationships with nature. However, if oversimplified or overcomplicated, or not focused enough on power and the political action necessary for change, associated initiatives can perpetuate or exacerbate existing crises. This article aims to help practitioners deliberately catalyze and steer transformation processes. It provides a theoretically and practically grounded definition of ‘transformative conservation’, along with six strategic, interlocking recommendations. These cover systems pedagogy, political mobilization, inner transformation, as well as planning, action, and continual adjustment. Technical summary Calls for ‘transformative change’ point to the fundamental reorganization necessary for global conservation initiatives to stem ecological catastrophe. However, the concept risks being oversimplified or overcomplicated, and focusing too little on power and the political action necessary for change. Accordingly, its intersection with contemporary biodiversity and climate change mitigation initiatives needs explicit deliberation and clarification. This article advances the praxis of ‘transformative conservation’ as both (1) a desired process that rethinks the relationships between individuals, society, and nature, and restructures systems accordingly, and (2) a desired outcome that conserves biodiversity while justly transitioning to net zero emission economies and securing the sustainable and regenerative use of natural resources. It first reviews criticisms of area-based conservation targets, natural climate solutions, and nature-based solutions that are framed as transformative, including issues of ecological integrity, livelihoods, gender, equity, growth, power, participation, knowledge, and governance. It then substantiates six strategic recommendations designed to help practitioners deliberately steer transformation processes. These include taking a systems approach; partnering with political movements to achieve equitable and just transformation; linking societal with personal (‘inner’) transformation; updating how we plan; facilitating shifts from diagnosis and planning to action; and improving our ability to adjust to transformation as it occurs. Social media summary Curious about stemming the global biodiversity and climate crises? Browse this article on transformative conservation!
{"title":"Transformative conservation of ecosystems","authors":"D. Fougères, Mike Jones, P. McElwee, Angela Andrade, S. Edwards","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.4","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Many conservation initiatives call for ‘transformative change’ to counter biodiversity loss, climate change, and injustice. The term connotes fundamental, broad, and durable changes to human relationships with nature. However, if oversimplified or overcomplicated, or not focused enough on power and the political action necessary for change, associated initiatives can perpetuate or exacerbate existing crises. This article aims to help practitioners deliberately catalyze and steer transformation processes. It provides a theoretically and practically grounded definition of ‘transformative conservation’, along with six strategic, interlocking recommendations. These cover systems pedagogy, political mobilization, inner transformation, as well as planning, action, and continual adjustment. Technical summary Calls for ‘transformative change’ point to the fundamental reorganization necessary for global conservation initiatives to stem ecological catastrophe. However, the concept risks being oversimplified or overcomplicated, and focusing too little on power and the political action necessary for change. Accordingly, its intersection with contemporary biodiversity and climate change mitigation initiatives needs explicit deliberation and clarification. This article advances the praxis of ‘transformative conservation’ as both (1) a desired process that rethinks the relationships between individuals, society, and nature, and restructures systems accordingly, and (2) a desired outcome that conserves biodiversity while justly transitioning to net zero emission economies and securing the sustainable and regenerative use of natural resources. It first reviews criticisms of area-based conservation targets, natural climate solutions, and nature-based solutions that are framed as transformative, including issues of ecological integrity, livelihoods, gender, equity, growth, power, participation, knowledge, and governance. It then substantiates six strategic recommendations designed to help practitioners deliberately steer transformation processes. These include taking a systems approach; partnering with political movements to achieve equitable and just transformation; linking societal with personal (‘inner’) transformation; updating how we plan; facilitating shifts from diagnosis and planning to action; and improving our ability to adjust to transformation as it occurs. Social media summary Curious about stemming the global biodiversity and climate crises? Browse this article on transformative conservation!","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44860358","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：