Societal climate transitions must (1) fundamentally alter unsustainable normative assumptions and (2) be attentive to notions of social justice. Our research project seeks to encourage this by disseminating knowledge of intersectionality theory to four Swedish government agencies involved in the Swedish climate transition: the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), the Swedish Energy Agency (SEA), the Swedish Transport Administration (STA) and Vinnova (VIN), Sweden’s innovation agency. In this article, we assess the normative narrative assumptions that underpin interview respondents’ framing of institutional change possibilities. We analyse these data utilising the theory of sociocultural viability (cultural theory). Cultural theory allows us to (a) locate each agency’s institutional norms and values within a typology and (b) suggest concrete strategies for encouraging desired institutional change attentive to institutional types and the forms of knowledge each can process. We argue that the SEPA, SEA and STA manifest primarily a hierarchical-type institutional perspective, while VIN evidences a hybrid individualist-hierarchy perspective. The paper suggests ways for communicating knowledge aimed at engendering change within these institutions. Cultural theory’s typology then generates further insight of interest to institutional change-makers beyond these cases. Thus, the results are of interest to scholars promoting institutional change, using intersectionality or other means.

Cities and theirgovernance structures face myriad environmental and sustainability challenges and are often important sites for environmental action. This is the case for biodiversity protection, which is increasingly an urban policy focus. Concomitant to this are conceptualisations of human-environmental relationships. Exploring and problematising such relationships is an increasingly prominent concern within sustainability science, not least around urban planning. In this article, I explore how public officials at four Swedish municipalities frame biodiversity protection within urban planning. The article contributes by increasing knowledge of how the concept of biodiversity is applied at the level of local government. I apply P & aacute;lsson's typology of human-environmental relationships. Analysis of these data reveals a predominance of paternalistic views of human-environmental relations. Biodiversity is considered a measurable indicator for wider nature; a feature of place; a source of value and something that can be engineered. Uniting these framings is the paternalistic view of 'nature' as a separate entity to 'society', and that biodiversity is framed as a largely technical issue. The implications of these framings are that alternative views of human-environmental relations and the diversity of society are currently occluded. This is relevant as the public officials participating in this study, including'ecologists' and 'landscape architects', were equivocal about the prospect of combining biodiversity protection and urban development.

Cities are important sites for societal transitions towards sustainability, which is increasingly recognised around the issue of biodiversity conservation and protection. However, cities are often characterised by the need to develop and grow. Furthermore, efforts to promote sustainable development have been criticised as failing to address the fundamental causes of environmental destruction. In this article, based on interviews with bureaucrats and documentary analysis, I explore urban planning and biodiversity protection at four Swedish municipalities. Biodiversity protection has been an official goal in Sweden for 30 years. As such, my research aim is to explore how Swedish bureaucrats represent efforts to balance imperatives to develop cities and protect biodiversity. Taking an institutional approach, I identify what information is included and excluded. In assessing municipal discourse, I utilise the theory of sociocultural viability, which provides an analytical typology of four worldviews. I identify that within respondents' discourse, biodiversity primarily emerges as a product of a hierarchical view of reality, as a measurable object; an indicator; a characteristic; and as a provider that is both engineerable and replaceable. This was despite numerous respondents articulating an egalitarian desire for more holistic interpretations of biodiversity in urban planning, appreciative of its inherent worth. This suggests that biodiversity has largely been integrated into extant hierarchical conceptualisations of public administration. According to cultural theory, addressing wicked policy problems effectively requires insight from several of the typology's worldviews. As such, current practice may reiterate dominant contemporary views on nature rather than innovation towards a radically different society.

In a recent opinion article, sustainability researcher orjan Bodin claims that a shift leftward in sustainability science has rendered certain topics and research methods taboo, thus inhibiting the field's ability to contribute to achieving Agenda 2030. In this response, we problematise Bodin's framing of sustainability science, arguing he has misrepresented the field as "normal" rather than acknowledging its unparadigmatic character. It is precisely the unparadigmatic character of sustainability sciences (plural emphasised) that allows the field to begin addressing the wicked problems of our time. The question is then how to "disagree well" and assure quality in this unparadigmatic field.

Many scientists and environmental activists argue that the scale and scope of contemporary conservation must increase dramatically if we are to halt biodiversity declines and sustain a healthy planet. Yet conservation as currently practiced has faced significant critique for its reliance on reductionist science, advocacy of "fortress"-like preservation measures that disproportionately harm marginalized communities, and integration into the global capitalist system that is the root cause of environmental degradation. The contributions to this special issue, developed from a panel at the Anthropology and Conservation conference co-hosted by the Royal Anthropological Institute and the Society of Ethnobiology in October 2021, collectively argue for what we, borrowing from Gibson-Graham's diverse economies framework, call "doing conservation differently." By bringing marginalized, hidden, and alternative conservation activities to light, researchers can contribute, in the spirit of Gibson-Graham's work, to making these diverse conservations more real and credible as objects of policy and activism. This special issue contributes to inventorying the diverse conservations that already exist, which opens new spaces for ethical intervention and collective action.

Many conservation researchers and practitioners argue that knowledges traditionally conceptualized as nonacademic are useful for guiding environmental decision-making and stewardship. As demonstrated by the articles in this special issue, bringing Indigenous and local knowledges to bear on environmental conservation requires forging new relationships and, de facto, new political arrangements. In this article, we seek to clarify what is at stake in such efforts to change (or maintain) what counts as knowledge by applying rubbish theory to the volume's case studies. Redrawing the boundaries of what counts as conservation knowledge in engagements between academic researchers and practitioners trained to "do conservation" according to western science traditions, on the one hand, and Indigenous peoples and local communities who possess knowledge generated in non-academic contexts, on the other, effects demarcations of expertise and so challenges existing social hierarchies. Unsurprisingly, tension emerges about how far such changes should go. By increasing awareness of the relationship between (re)defining knowledge and (re)configuring social and political hierarchies, we hope to make it easier for participants to manage such collaborations.

Parris et al.'s seven lamps (principles) of planning for biodiversity in the city (2018) provides a framework for achieving two objectives. Firstly, to alter the normative basis on which urban planning is predicated by integrating a concern for nonhuman inhabitants. Secondly, it argues for the greater enrolment of ecologists and the field of ecology within environmental planning. It seeks to encourage a paradigm-shift to reorient society on a more sustainable path by demonstrating that planning for more-than-human cities does not require a conceptual leap, rather it resonates with extant planning concerns. It thus takes a pragmatic approach to radical change. However, I argue that this framework as originally stated insufficiently considers the diversity of society or the field of ecology and entails an anthropocentric worldview. This undermines the lamps framework's radical agenda. I argue that this issue could be ameliorated by developing two further principles, Justice and Contact. Integrating these concerns into the lamps framework will strengthen its ability to contribute to efforts to transition society into a sustainable state.

Climate change effects, views and approaches vary based on geographical location, class, gender, age and other climate related social factors. It is thus relevant to explore how various government bodies/authorities involved in dealing with climate change represent and act on social difference across diverse societies. This article performs a discourse analysis of climate policy documents from three Swedish government agencies: the Transport Administration, the Energy Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This in order to explore how the different agencies represent social difference: what is made visible; what is obscured; what are the impli-cations? We collected a purposive, collated sample of literature through online searches and personal communications with agency staff. We apply an intersectional approach to the sampled literature. The article finds that while each agency articulates an awareness of social difference, this tends to manifest in broad terms. It argues that this has the effect of obscuring differential climate impacts and effects of climate action, with potential environmental justice implications. Finally, the article concludes by proposing that incorporating intersectional approaches will support more effective, inclusive and equitable climate action, in Sweden and elsewhere.