A better world is a question of more sustainable relations between individuals, communities, and ecosystems, and how these relations are structured and governed. Yet, our focus often gravitates towards images rather than these foundational questions. Particularly for understanding social-ecological systems, visual representations and images play a crucial role. How can we bring the two together?
You are cordially invited to view an innovative art exhibition by Leuphana’s Social-Ecological Systems Institute (SESI, School of Sustainability), demonstrating how art serves as a powerful tool for comprehending sustainability challenges and devising effective solutions. This exhibition offers a glimpse into the diverse work of Leuphana’s SESI in different parts of the world via various types of photography and artwork. Visitors will be able to experience how social-ecological systems thinking can contribute valuable solutions towards sustainable and just futures. If you’re interested in social-ecological systems, this is the perfect place to get inspiration and knowledge on the wide range of topics covered at SESI.
Open exhibition | 6-20 June 2024, in the foyer of Leuphana’s library.
Opening ceremony | 6 June 2024, 1 pm with light refreshments
Closing ceremony | 20 June 2024, 3.30 pm with light refreshments
Register here if you can’t make it in person but want to attend online: https://bit.ly/3iqb7l0
Please circulate this advertisement within your networks!
Social-ecological systems and sustainability: three panel discussions
The toughest questions about how to reach a sustainable future are often those that are least addressed by scientists. With this series of panel discussions, Leuphana’s Social-Ecological Systems Institute (SESI, School of Sustainability) seeks to engage a diverse range of scholars on current controversial topics in sustainability such as: Does the convergence of ecological, health, and social crises inevitably result in paralysis, or is there a chance for a better future? Should we conduct sustainability research in the Global South – does it really help there, or is it even post-colonial due to power asymmetries between external science and local life? Which role does political power play in shaping social-ecological research agendas?
Come join us on campus (Hoersaal 2) or online to address these challenging questions.
Getting unstuck: from polycrisis to a better future | 6 June 2024, 1.30 pm
Social-ecological systems research in the Global South: beneficial or post-colonial? |13 June 2024, 1.30 pm
The workings of politics and power behind social-ecological systems research |20 June 2024, 1.30 pm
Register here if you can’t make it in person but want to attend online: https://bit.ly/3iqb7l0
Please circulate this advertisement within your networks!
Ecosystem restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been damaged, degraded or destroyed, mostly due to human activities. Restoration activities hold immense promise for addressing pressing environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss or climate change. But how do we scale up our restoration efforts to achieve meaningful and lasting impact? How can the new demands on restoration and the need to address complex social-ecological dynamics be met? Let’s explore the factors that influence the scale and scope of restoration initiatives…
Social and ecological factors are strongly interconnected in shaping restoration ambition. Ecological considerations such as habitat connectivity, species diversity, and ecosystem resilience play a crucial role in determining the scale and scope of restoration initiatives. But social factors such as governance structures, institutional capacity, and community engagement are equally important.
An example: At the local level, restoration efforts may be driven by community-led initiatives aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems and improving livelihoods. These projects then often rely on traditional knowledge, local resources, and social networks to achieve their goals, which emphasizes the importance of community empowerment and participation in restoration activities. In contrast, at the regional or national level, restoration ambition may be driven by broader policy goals such as climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, or sustainable land management. In these cases, restoration efforts are often guided by national strategies, legal frameworks, and funding mechanisms aimed at scaling up restoration activities and achieving landscape-scale impact.
However, scaling up restoration ambition from local to landscape levels is not without its challenges. Desirable goals can get in each other’s way, and then actors have to handle complex decisions regarding which ambitions to pursue to which degree. This can hinder progress and undermine the effectiveness of restoration efforts. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-level approach. The “social-ecological ladder of restoration ambition” aims to do this.
The social-ecological ladder to restoration ambition helps to approach restoration goals that dynamically shift. (Source: iStock)
Said ladder is a conceptual model to approach dynamically shifting social and ecological restoration goals, and can therefore help to navigate the common challenges that come up with restoration projects. What this ladder can do:
illustrating that both social and ecological goals are important
underlining that goals change over time
increasing awareness of restoration challenges and trade-offs
indicating ways to foster synergies through time
encouraging iterative assessments of restoration projects (adaptive management!)
In addition to addressing all these specific challenges, the social-ecological ladder of restoration ambition helps to improve restoration science and practice: It views restoration sites as social-ecological systems. And it makes restoration more adaptive and dynamic, which is becoming more and more important in the context of global environmental change. So the ladder basically (and literally?) helps us climb towards an increasingly more sustainable world.
If you want to read more about this topic, you can find the whole paper HERE.
Frietsch, M., Pacheco-Romero, M., Temperton, V.M., Kaplin, B.A., Fischer, J. The social–ecological ladder of restoration ambition. Ambio (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02021-8
Native orchid species on a grassland in Northern Germany. Source: Alina Twerski
In this blog article, Vicky Temperton talks about her passion for grasslands and how grasslands can contribute to mitigating and adapting to the climate crisis. Recently she has been nominated to the advisory board on natural climate solutions to advise the ministry of the environment and the German government with her expertise. She did her PhD on trees under climate change conditions, but then switched to research grasslands, because she sees in this field more potential for the sustainability crises.
Vicky, you are dedicating much research and time to grasslands. Why?
There is a personal and a broader answer. Personally, I grew up in Luxembourg, right next to the grasslands, mainly meadows but also pastures with cows. And I also grew up next to forest. For me, a natural landscape is a biodiverse landscape: species rich grasslands and species rich forests. For example, my neighbour, she was from Italy, and she would go out with me into the grassland, and we’d pick the champignons. I also played football in them. So, I kind of got these relational values, those connection to grasslands from a very early age. Grassland was just the place where I lived, and it was and is massively important to me.
What is the broader answer to your passion about grasslands?
I did my PhD on trees, but then after that, my first postdoc in Jena was on degraded grassland and how it was recovering after pollution from the biggest fertilizer factory for phosphorus in the German Democratic Republic. Grasslands cover about a third to 40% of the earth. So, they are everywhere. And they contribute enormous amounts of biodiversity, or at least they used to, and they contribute enormously to the functioning of systems and landscapes and to their ecosystem services.
Why are grasslands so important?
Most of the plant species that we’re currently losing (the ones on the red list of endangered species), for example, in Germany, are species which live in grasslands. Our study (Staude et al. 2023) looked at species on the Red List and found out that 82% of the species on the Red List need high light and 61% need low nitrogen. Before we looked at the data, I would have said that the main driver for biodiversity loss was the nitrogen. But it’s actually even more the light. This was really shocking and eye opening for me.
Humans and other animals have lived with grasslands for millennia. Recent research has found out that this whole idea that the whole landscape before humans, was just forest is probably not correct. With more and larger herbivores around during the period since the last ice age, the co-called “Temperate Forest Biome” probably resembled wood pastures and woodland as well as thicker forest in many places. Pearce et al. (2023) have shown with their recent pan-European study of pollen evidence that the openness and darkness of what we call forest has been very dynamic over time. This affects what we consider to be the best reference conditions or goal for conservation or restoration.
Grasslands are important for people. There’s now a global grasslands dialog platform, run by the WWF that I’m a member of. We’re pushing this because we feel like this biome is being disregarded and not adequately given the attention it deserves considering it covers one third of the planet and is a baseline for many pastoralist cultures as well as rangeland communities. People do not see it or value it enough and this is visible in current science policy. It’s almost analogous with our society only considering men, not women or other genders, yet other genders make up a large proportion of society.
Source: Pixabay
Do you have an example for the disregarding of grasslands?
The Aktion Natürlicher Klimaschutz (ANK) of the German government is the largest environmental funding ever coming from the German parliament, and yet grasslands are not explicitly positioned in the programme description: analagous to their “disappearance” in the words agriculture, rangeland, or farmland, pasture, they are implicitly included in the chapter on peatlands (but these habitats are only one form of grassland, albeit the one that can store by far the most carbon than any habitat) and implicitly included in Urban Green Spaces, as we as well as the chapter on Soils. No-one deemed them important enough to have their own chapter – this could be called grassland blindness. I do find myself wondering, why we are so grassland blind as a society, when we know that to bend the biodiversity curve in Germany (and elsewhere), we would do well to invest a lot more in recreating species-rich grasslands.
To me, a grassland really involves people living in it or around it, often with their livestock or with wild animals, and managing it because otherwise you can’t have a grassland, you can’t keep it open, unless it’s super dry or super wet, or you reintroduce large herbivores.
That means, the perception about grasslands is also really about, if you see humans as part of nature or if you see them separately…
… yes, and the ironic thing is, people talk about forest as the only natural, but then they’re talking about something like a pine monoculture. In what way is this natural? That’s completely absurd. But we seem to have this ingrained view that everything should be forest. And that’s the natural state, and that grasslands are essentially degraded forests. But we have forgotten the large herbivores. Large herbivores were much more dominant in the past and therefore it was a much more open landscape. Also, fire keeps landscapes open.
This idea of what’s natural is very important. People often think that anything that was natural was the forest. Whereas to me it’s both, it’s going back to the Luxembourg story. Grasslands have been around even before humans, as a key component of the landscape (Pearce et al. 2023).
Forests are seen as important for climate change mitigation. What about grasslands?
There’s a big focus on the trees and, planting trees. But moorland, peatland – they’re grasslands – store way more carbon than the forest. Luckily now Germany has kind of understood this. And so, I’ve just joined the advisory board for the German government on natural climate solution, where peatlands are a major focus, as well as forests, urban spaces, soils, and the marine environment.
If you restore peatlands right and you have the water table at the right level, you can store enormous amounts of carbon. Additionally, a study from California (Dass et al. 2018) found that with business-as-usual climate scenarios, the grasslands will be the only remaining habitat that remains a carbon sink, and does not become a net source. Perhaps they have garnered less attention as they are often considered degraded forests, but studies such as Pearce et al. or the Wood Pasture Hypothesis do not align with this view.
When people are just planting trees, they’re not thinking about that there will be more fires because of climate change or more successful pest attacks as the trees weaken in climate change. The huge jarrah trees (Eucalyptus regnans) in Western Australia are keystone species for this wonderful habitat that has been successfully restored after mining, but the large trees are starting to die after temperatures of over 40 degrees in recent months. We need to factor these drivers of change into our response to global change. We are no longer living in a relatively stable world in terms of abiotic conditions, so when striving to mitigate climate change we need to consider the role of the current already changing environmental conditions.
Besides, trees often die anyway because they don’t establish very well (usually around 30% die after planting unless very good care is taken). After a fire, the carbon has gone again into the atmosphere. Therefore, we need to get that carbon below ground, whether it’s in a forest, a moorland, a peatland or a savanna. Grasslands have a lot of plant materials, roots, below the ground which is very good for carbon storage especially longer-term storage. I think this is the research that’s really important to do now: Find out, when grasslands can store carbon and for how long, and compare this across different habitat types. To what extent we have biodiversity and carbon and when not, and which management actions create which outcomes.
Grassland near Garlstorf at the Elbe
What are you exactly researching?
The big question in our Grassworks project is, what leads to success in grassland restoration. We have three regions: North, East and South of Germany with different partners and we’ve looked at over 180 already restored sites. It was a crazy job because, it took two years to do the field work. We’re doing it from an ecological, social and social-ecological perspective. We’re looking at the economics of grasslands, the value systems and leverage points and vector for change as well as the ecological outcomes of restoration. Some of the sites had as a previous land use grassland, some were crops, some were restored for a long time, some for less time. We have these different factors and then it’s a bit like a huge landscape experiment across the whole of Germany. We’re finally getting the results now, and I can’t tell you too much yet, except for the vegetation, it is looking like the best option for ecological success in terms of plants is either to use direct hay transfer methods, or to sow wild seed mixtures if you want to recreate a meadow, but the answer does depend on which positive reference site you use – and the quality of these positive sites varies strongly across Germany.
The other research I’m working on with grasslands has a lot to do with history: Does it matter who arrives first or who arrives later? It’s called priority effect research. This is very interesting because you wouldn’t really expect it, but it can have a very big effect on productivity and biodiversity when certain plant species establish before others. In this experiment in the Lüneburger Heide, it’s called POEM – Priority Effect Mechanisms – there we sow either the grasses first and then later the other groups like forbs (fancy flowering plants) and legumes (such as clover) or the other way round. And then we also have a simultaneous treatment as normal in current restoration. The timing has an effect on the roots. We found that if you put the legumes, all the forbs first, astonishingly the roots go deeper. And we don’t know why. What we’re trying to find out now how persistent this effect is and whether we keep finding this effect across different experiments. Because if we could recreate this, then you might be able to have grasslands that are more adapted to drought, because they would have deeper roots and so be better adapted to finding water under drought conditions.
What do you want to examine in the future?
I want to go further in this story of biodiversity and carbon storage of grasslands: What leads to better carbon sequestration? How can you get the extra carbon into the soil? Does it stay there? There’s contradictory research at the moment. And what role does biodiversity play in this? Is the most carbon stored in the more biodiverse sites or not? And no one really knows this yet because it’s such a huge and challenging job to analyse this because soils are incredibly heterogeneous. Each area is affected by what was growing on it there in the past. Recent research on soil heterogeneity by the Thünen Institute for Climate Smart Agriculture (the group of Axel Don) is showing that soils can differ surprisingly strongly within a few metres of each other. The rock-based underneath is generally similar. It shows the power of the biota to change the soils.
I also want to expand my work on social-ecological aspects of restoration success. The biggest bottleneck for grassland restoration or biodiversity of grasslands is that they’re not valued enough and there are not yet incentives to maintain ore create new species-rich grasslands, especially for farmers. And so, it is also about the motivation for farmers to create specie rich grassland – giving them money and value from society for doing nature-friendly and carbon friendly farming as a contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation and bending the biodiversity curve. There isn’t much of an incentive right now.
Once we interviewed farmers in the Lüneburger Heide and asked, what’s keeping you from going for more of these GAP greening programs or getting the subsidies for that kind of thing? We had the hypothesis that the reason why they weren’t doing it was because it’s a lot of bureaucracy. Turns out, no, it’s actually what the others are doing. So, they’re looking at each other and deciding what they do based on their peer group. And this shows that there is a lever or change.
What should politics do?
I’m hoping, that when we finish the Grassworks project, that we’ll have some concrete recommendations. I think financial incentives could play a big role, but also the leverage related to connections and relational values, I think if people experience this kind of biodiversity more, if they’re used to it and seeing it in the landscape as well as knowing all the benefits we derive from it, I think then then they’d be more interested in saving or restoring it.
Interview by Mareike Andert
Read more about the topics here:
Dass, Pawlok et al. (2018): Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 074027. DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/aacb39.
Pearce, Elena A. et al. (2023): Substantial light woodland and open vegetation characterized the temperate forest biome before Homo sapiens. Sci. Adv. 9. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adi9135.
Staude, Ingmar R. (2023): Prioritize grassland restoration to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Restoration Ecology, 31, 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13931
“Agriculture is one of the main drivers of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, and its impact is expected to grow further with the increasing population. Converting our current agricultural system to a more sustainable one is essential if we want to achieve the IPBES strategic goals of conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals.” (Rosa-Schleich et al., 2024)
At the core of diversified farming lies the concept of agroecology — a system of farming that emphasizes ecological principles such as biodiversity, soil health, and natural resource conservation. By integrating various crops, livestock, and other elements into a single farming system, diversified farmers aim to create resilient and sustainable food production systems that benefit both people and the planet.
The principle of agroecology and its components. (Source: iStock)
Adjacent to the diversity of this type of farming, there are also diverse perceptions farmers have of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming. While some farmers emphasize the environmental benefits, such as improved soil fertility, enhanced biodiversity, and reduced reliance on chemical inputs, others focus on the economic advantages, such as increased farm income, diversified revenue streams, and enhanced market opportunities.
Why diversified farming?
For many farmers, the decision to adopt diversified farming practices is driven by a desire to mitigate risks and adapt to changing environmental conditions. By diversifying their crops and livestock, they are better able to withstand the impacts of climate change, pest outbreaks, and market fluctuations, ensuring the long-term resilience and viability of their farming operations.
Crop diversity and diversified farming can help to withstand changing environmental conditions. (Source: iStock)
But the benefits of diversified farming extend “beyond the crop”. By enhancing ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, and water regulation, diversified farming systems contribute to broader environmental goals such as biodiversity conservation, soil health, and climate change mitigation. In this way, diversified farmers can play a crucial role in safeguarding the health and resilience of the natural ecosystems upon which we all depend.
Hesitation towards diversified farming
Yet, despite its many benefits, diversified farming is not without its challenges. A lot of farmers are still hesitant towards applying diversified farming. They may see barriers such as limited access to markets, technical knowledge, and financial resources, as well as social and cultural norms that favor conventional farming practices. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach that includes supportive policies, extension services, market incentives, and farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing.
So, what does this mean?
Diversified farming has a lot of potential to transform our agricultural systems and create a more sustainable future for all. By embracing the principles of agroecology and fostering a culture of innovation and collaboration, diversified farming can protect the planet, build resilient communities, and provide food for people. However, there is still a need for environmental policy to consider the different perceptions farmers have of diversified farming,
If you want to read more about this topic, you can find the whole paper HERE.
Rosa-Schleich, J., Loos, J., Ferrante, M., Mußhoff, O., & Tscharntke, T. (2024). Mixed farmers’ perception of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming. Ecological Economics, 220, 108174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108174
Look forward to three upcoming online-events and an exhibition at the SES-Institute: “Social-Ecological Systems – An Artistic Journey”.
Exhibition
The exhibition will take place in the foyer of the library at the Leuphana University from 6th to 20th, June.
Panel Discussions
The panel discussions will be on the 6th, 13th and 20th, June, 1:30PM-2:30PM CEST. Stay tuned and register here: https://bit.ly/3iqb7l0 . Online and in-person.
June 6 | Getting unstuck: from polycrisis to a better future.
June 13 | Social-ecological systems research in the Global South: beneficial or post-colonial?
June 20 | The workings of politics and power behind social-ecological systems research.
Diverse landscapes such as the ones found in southwestern Ethiopia provide a multitude of essential services that sustain both nature and people. But human activities continue to shape the land. What does this land-use change do to these invaluable ecosystem services? How does the future look like for southwestern Ethiopia’s landscapes? Let’s find out…
A recent study conducted by SESI members and other researchers offers insights into how land-use changes may impact the provision of ecosystem services in the years to come. Their findings shed light on the question of how ecosystem service provision might look like under future land-use change scenarios. Although rooted in the context of southwestern Ethiopia, this carries broader implications for global conservation efforts and sustainable development practices.
Every decision we make about how we utilize the land has far-reaching consequences for the services it provides. Consider, for example, the vital role that forests play in regulating the Earth’s climate. As trees are cleared to make way for agriculture or urban areas, the capacity of these ecosystems to sequester carbon is compromised. This, in turn, can lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, and thus contribute to climate change. And this example is only one of many ways human activities alter ecosystems and change landscapes.
Deforestation is just one of the many ways human activities change landscapes and affect ecosystem service provision. (Source: iStock)
Yet, amidst these challenges, there are opportunities for positive change. With the help of participatory scenario planning, the researchers were able to anticipate likely future changes to landscapes. They developed four future land-use scenarios, each showing different potential ecosystem service changes:
Gain over grain
Coffee and conservation
Mining green gold
Food first
The intensification of agriculture is the strongest factor influencing land-use change. It has diverse negative effects on ecosystems. (Source: iStock)
Not surprisingly, the study found that landscape modification was strongest for scenarios involving agricultural intensification, resulting in negative effects on ecosystem service provision. In contrast, the most sustainable scenario is “Coffee and conservation”. It is an integrative approach of food production AND biodiversity conservation and therefore secures diverse ecosystem services for the long-term.
Ultimately, the findings of this study underscore the urgent need for concerted action to safeguard the future of ecosystem services in southwestern Ethiopia and beyond. They can help stakeholders and decision-makers to understand and assess the viability of current development policies, as well as identify and design more sustainable land-use options.
If you would like to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.
Duguma, D. W.,Brueck, M., Shumi, G., Law, E., Benra, F., Schultner, J., Nemomissa, S., Abson, D. & Fischer, J. (2024). Future ecosystem service provision under land-use change scenarios in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecosystems and People, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2321613
Natural forest and restoration activties in western Rwanda.
Principles for natural resource management can serve many different purposes: they can simplify processes, facilitate negotiation processes between stakeholders, guide concrete action on the ground, and – in the best case – they can form the basis for success. Such principles also exist for ecosystem restoration.
Proper restoration is not that easy, but it is extremely important, as many ecosystems have been destroyed by humans. Healthy ecosystems are positive for human well-being and make us more resilient to sustainability crises such as global warming. It is ecologically, politically and socially challenging to get complex ecosystems with all their functions and processes up and running again. For that, various restoration guidelines exist. One set are the 10 “Principles to guide the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030”, which were developed by key restoration actors. Obviously, principles alone are not enough; their relevance in practice is crucial.
Therefore, Marina Frietsch and colleagues assessed “the perceived relevance of restoration principles in practice in a case study in Rwanda“. Their aim was “to assess to what extent the 10 international restoration principles put forward for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration are relevant to restoration practice among stakeholders in Rwanda.” To this end, they conducted a Q-study with 32 key actors involved in restoration interventions in western Rwanda. In a nutshell, study participants were asked to rank 20 proxy statements about factors that can contribute to successful restoration.
The analysis showed that the 10 principles are actually relevant in practice. The results can be clustered in such a way that three groups of stakeholder perspectives emerge, i.e. groups that have different opinions about what is needed for successful restoration:
Group 1: “You Can’t Treat a Disease If You Don’t Know the Cause”
Group 2: “Where Trees Grow, People Grow”
Group 3: “Real-World Knowledge Should Be the Foundation of Every Restoration Project”
Moreover, the participants expressed additional features that should be highlighted when discussing approaches for successful restoration practice:
restoring historical conditions
collecting baseline data
increasing local communities’ sense of ownership
pursuing a long-term vision for restoration activities.
Whereas the first two features are classical ecological priorities for restoration, the third is political in nature – this can be seen as connected to the current discourses on equity and justice in restoration issues. The fourth feature connects the other three by emphasizing that restoration is a challenging ecological, social as well as long-term task.
Although perspectives on what is important for designing and implementing restoration interventions in western Rwanda differ, they should be seen as complementary. Differing views on how to best approach restoration do not necessarily need to result in conflicts between stakeholder-groups, but can inspire integrated restoration activities that account for different needs and values – particularly in situations involving transdisciplinary approaches for deliberation and collaboration.
“The best part of this study was when participants reported back that the Q-method exercise inspired them to reflect their own attitudes and values regarding successful restoration and even sparked discussions with their colleagues”, says Marina Frietsch from SES-Institute.
For the Q-study, participants were given a scoreboard with 20 empty fields along a gradient from least to most important for successful restoration to sort proxy statements according to their own priorities. In a next step, they were asked to build towers using 60 LEGO bricks to illustrate the extent of application of each statement in practice.
Marina Frietsch, Joern Fischer, Beth A. Kaplin, Berta Martín-Lopez (2024). The relevance of international restoration principles for ecosystem restoration practice in Rwanda. Restoration Ecology Vol. 32, No. 3, e14085
Biosphere Reserves are not just protected areas; they are hubs of innovation, testing grounds for sustainable practices that could change the world. In their recent study, Dabard et al. delved deep into these model regions, analyzing the types of sustainability innovations found within them. The study’s findings shed light on how these innovations could transform our approach to conservation and development.
From community-based conservation efforts to cutting-edge technological solutions, sustainability innovations embody diverse approaches aimed at harmonizing human activities with the natural environment. However, beyond their individual merits, what truly sets these innovations apart is their collective capacity to instigate transformative change.
Grouping sustainability innovations into patterns, so called archetypes, helps studying and analyzing them. These archetypes reveal the essence of what makes sustainability innovations tick and how they can make a real difference.
The study identified six different archetypes:
Participative Transformation Governance
New Sectors for Social-ecological Transformations
Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurs
Social Innovations
Service Innovations
Technological Efficiency Innovations
Each of these archetypes targets different leverage points — so points where sustainability innovations cause a change and enhance impacts. This archetype approach is thus suitable for capturing a diverse range of sustainability innovations and characterizing their transformative outcomes.
What does all this mean for the world beyond Biosphere Reserves? It means we have a blueprint — a roadmap for how to tackle environmental issues in a way that works with nature, not against it. The findings underscore the importance of holistic and context-specific approaches that transcend disciplinary boundaries and cater to the diverse needs and aspirations of communities and ecosystems alike.
(Source: iStock)
In essence, the study invites us to reframe our understanding of sustainability innovations not merely as isolated interventions but as interconnected components of a larger transformative process. By recognizing and harnessing the diverse archetypes of sustainability within Biosphere Reserves (and beyond), we can chart a course towards a more resilient, equitable, and thriving future for both humanity and the planet. It shows us that the key to a sustainable future lies not in one big idea, but in many small ones working together in harmony. And Biosphere Reserves are where those ideas come to life.
If you would like to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.
Caroline Hélène Dabard, Carsten Mann, Berta Martín-López (2024). An archetype analysis of sustainability innovations in Biosphere Reserves: Insights for assessing transformative potential. Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 153, 2024, 103674, ISSN 1462-9011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103674.
Coasts provide special habitats for a wide variety of life forms. They also protect against erosion caused by storm surges and other large waves such as tsunamis. However, whether in Europe, Southeast Asia or Africa – coastal ecosystems are threatened worldwide due to anthropogenic sustainability crises such as the climate crises or pollution. People in the Global South in particular suffer from the consequences of changing coasts due to (neo-)colonialism, globalization and capitalism as well as unstable political and economic conditions.
“The literature review interestingly showed that (a) anticipatory research in the Global South has relatively speaking not increased over the last decade, and (b) much focus in transdisciplinary transformative research is on “past and current state” analyses and not on visioning.”
Maraja Riechers from SES-Institute
Relying solely on traditional academic knowledge may not be sufficient to protect those coasts and to facilitate the emergence of alternative sustainable visions, researchers from the SES-Institute at the Leuphana University are convinced. On the contrary, scientific efforts must innovate transformative methodologies and methods to support sustainable visions. Anticipation research in combination with transdisciplinary research is key in promoting sustainability transformation by enhancing alternative future scenarios in collaboration with stakeholders. Innovative research methods can create imaginative spaces, introducing novel ways of living and emphasizing radical, innovative, and sustainable goals to drive transformation towards a more sustainable future.
Therefore, Maraja Riechers, Lilly Baumann and colleagues analysed the extent to which transdisciplinary approaches applied to cases in the Global South consider ‘anticipation of the future’ of coastal systems. To answer this, they conducted a systematic literature review analysing 256 peer reviewed articles.
The systematic literature review revealed that the majority of the reviewed articles focused on analyzing past and current states instead of research on plausible futures, transition strategies or visioning research. The use of anticipation research, if conducted, primarily emphasized plausible and (im)probable futures, rather than pluralistic or performative scenarios, and aimed to enhance present capacities rather than mobilize or question various social actors and political implications in the current context. Articles utilizing anticipation methods seldom explored the connection between anticipation and sustainability transformation.
Transform framework with integrated numbers of articles found in each step, represented by the size of the circles. One article could perform more than one step of the framework. Adapted from (Wiek and Lang 2016).
Distribution of reviewed articles describing transdisciplinary and transformative research that work with (grey) and without (black) anticipation approaches specifically and from 2001 to 2020 in percent (legend on the left); number of articles in this literature by time (legend on the right).
Approaches to anticipatory governance with integrated numbers of articles found in each approach, represented by the size of the circles. One article could apply more than one step of the framework. Adapted from (Muiderman et al. 2020).
However, combining transdisciplinary and anticipation research can synergistically drive sustainability transformation. This combined approach can incorporate diverse perspectives and values of stakeholders, fostering alternative visions to challenge unsustainable narratives.
Their findings suggest enhancing the integration of transdisciplinary and anticipation methodologies in research to highlight alternative visions of sustainability that may already exist and to amplify diverse values, epistemologies, and ontologies.
By doing so, future visions may become more inclusive and reflective of realities in the Global South. Anticipating the future through transdisciplinary methods can lay the groundwork for managing future environmental and societal challenges adaptively. This approach can offer insights to identify, mitigate, or prevent governance actions leading to undesirable future outcomes. Integrating anticipation and foresight into transdisciplinary research holds promise for realizing innovative and sustainable future visions.
Using transdisciplinary anticipatory research offers the opportunity to produce knowledge which could lead to meaningful contributions to protect and sustain coastal regions, their ecosystems and values for people.
Lilly Baumann is the first author of the paper and did this research for her bachelor thesis.
This article is part of a (completed) working group of the German Commission on Sustainability (Deutschen Kommission Nachhaltigkeit (DKN)) of Future Earth. More information here.
Lilly Baumann, Maraja Riechers, Louis Celliers & Sebastian C. A. Ferse (2023). Anticipating and transforming futures: a literature review on transdisciplinary coastal research in the Global South, Ecosystems and People, 19:1, 2288957
Ideas for Sustainability 