Conceptual Framework for Assessing Transformation

5.2.1.1 Change towards sustainability requires addressing root causes, implying fundamental changes in society

The society/nature interface can be described in various ways (see, for example, Haraway 1990; Latour 2004; Mol and Spaargaren 2006; Takeuchi et al. 2016; Jetzkowitz 2018;

Descola 2013, for further references to ILK-related concepts of the society-nature nexus see Chapter 1 and IPBES 2018a). Here we follow IPBES’ conceptual framework assuming that institutions, governance systems and other indirect drivers are “the root causes of the direct anthropogenic drivers that affect nature” (Diaz et al., 2015; also see Chapter 1). These root causes also affect all other elements of the society/nature interface, including interactions between nature and anthropogenic assets in the co-production of nature's contributions to people (see Diaz et al., 2015; Chapters 1 and 2.3). In addition to the conceptual framework, we adopt systems thinking because it allows (1) the combination of biophysical and societal understanding of processes, which helps to identify seeds for change, and (2) the combination of results from quantitative and qualitative scenarios and other pertinent literature.

5.2.1.2 Conceptual frameworks addressing transformative change

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

Various approaches currently discussed in sustainability science address the question of how profound, systemic, and strategic-reflexive changes toward (more) sustainability can be initiated. Our selection of five approaches—complexity theory and the identification of layers of transformation and leverage points, resilience thinking, the multi-level perspective on transformative change, the systems of innovation approach and initiative-based learning—

comprises those we identify as widely consistent with the IPBES conceptual framework and mandate. They provide useful concepts for the integration of knowledge on pathways towards a (more) sustainable future and facilitate our imagination throughout the whole chapter.

Complexity theory and leverage points of transformation

Complexity theory attempts to untangle emergent processes in coupled human and natural systems (Liu et al., 2007; Nguyen and Bosch, 2013). It stresses the importance of specific contexts and interdependent influences among various components of systems, which may result in path dependency and multi-causality, where most patterns are products of several processes operating at multiple scales (Levin 1992). One of the implications of such interdependence is that small actions can lead to big changes (Meadows, 1999), i.e., processes can be nonlinear (Levin 1998; Levin et al. 2013). These impactful actions are considered leverage points because they can produce outcomes that are disproportionate large relative to intial inputs (UNEP, 2012). Although identifying and implementing such leverage points is not easy, the results can be profound and lasting (Meadows, 1999).

Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems

In the context of pathways involving nature and people, changes are bounded not only by technological and social feasibility, but also by spatial and ecological characteristics.

Resilience thinking enhances our systemic understanding by putting three aspects of social-ecological systems at the center: persistence, adaptability and transformability (Folke, 2016).

Resilience refers to the capacity of a system—such as a village, country or ecosystem—to adapt to change, deal with surprise, and retain its basic function and structure (Berkes et al., 2003, Nelson et al. 2007). Adaptability—a component of resilience—represents the capacity to adjust responses to changing external drivers and internal processes, and thereby channel development along a preferred trajectory in what is called a stability domain (Walker et al., 2004). Transformability is the capacity to cross thresholds, enter new development

trajectories, abandon unsustainable actions and chart better pathways to established targets (Folke et al. 2010).

A multi-level perspective for transformative change

Complementary to the perspectives above, the multi-level perspective sees pathways as an outcome of coupled processes on three levels—niches, regimes and landscapes (Geels, 2002;

1261). At the micro level, niches are the safe spaces where radical innovations are possible but localized. For innovations to spread to the meso level (regimes—interlinked actors and established practices, including skills and corporate cultures), they must overcome incumbent actors who benefit from the status quo. Regimes can either steer for incremental

improvement along a trajectory or can affect change in the landscape (which includes factors like cultural values, institutional arrangements, social pressures, and broad economic trends).

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

Change at this macro (landscape) level generally involves a cascade of changes, which also affect the regime itself. The multi-level perspective has been particularly useful in

understanding socio-technical pathways, which tend to be nested and interdependent across levels. It raises strategic and reflexive questions—for instance, How can we identify actions that yield structural change from individual and local to societal levels, identifying and avoiding blockages and supporting transformations towards sustainability?

System innovations and their dynamics

The system innovation (or ‘systems of innovation’) approach provides a framework for policy interventions to address not only single market failures, but also interconnected challenges through a combination of market mechanisms and policy tools (e.g., OECD, 2015). This approach emphasizes that system innovation generally requires a fundamentally different knowledge base and technical capabilities that either disrupt existing competencies and technologies or complement them. As technology innovation proceeds, it also involves changes in consumer practices and markets, infrastructure, skills, policy and culture (Smits et al., 2014). A key component of innovation for sustainability is thus supportive business models (Seroka-Stolka et al., 2017; Abdelkafi and Täuscher, 2016; Boken et al., 2014;

Schaltegger et al., 2012). Governments also have a role in supporting transitions, however, which extends beyond orchestrating and coordinating policies and requires an active management of transformative change, especially sequencing of policies with the different stages of the transition (Seroka-Stolka et al., 2017; Mol et al., 2009; Huber, 2008).

Learning sustainability through ‘real world experiments’

Several strands of research take an approach of so-called real world experiments (Gross and Krohn 2005). These action research approaches emphasize how local and regional initiatives can foster shared values among diverse societal actors (Hajer, 2011), accelerating adoption of pathways to sustainability (Geels et al., 2016). These experimental approaches contribute to niche innovations that are able to challenge existing unsustainable pathways and the regimes that maintain them. Bennett et al. (2016) suggest that emphasizing hopeful elements of existing practice offers the opportunity to: (1) understand the values (guiding principles) and features that constitute transformative change (referred to by the authors as the Good

Anthropocene), (2) determine the processes that lead to the emergence and growth of initiatives that fundamentally change human-environmental relationships, and (3) generate creative, bottom-up scenarios that feature well-articulated pathways toward a more positive future (see also Chapter 2.1). In the multi-scale scenario analysis applied in this chapter, local scenarios may be most closely connected to this approach.

Synthesis

The above conceptual approaches converge on the idea that profound changes in global socioeconomic systems towards sustainability occur as transformation of nested and

interlinked structures and processes across various scales. In line with systems of innovation approaches, resilience thinking and the multi-level perspective, we consider profound changes as structural changes. However, these changes do not happen without activating impulses of individuals, groups and organisations. Accordingly, our methods for identifying pathways for sustainable futures includes two key elements: structural analyses of alternative

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

pathways; and cross-cutting analyses of entry points for change (‘leverage points’) and enabling interventions for transformations (‘levers’).

5.2.1.3 From concepts to methods: Linking scenario reviews and nexus analyses to leverage points and levers