Smallholder farmer-based rural social movements have been heralded as a promising source of political power with the potential to effectively promote sustainable trajectories of agricultural development in Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond. However, the very early stages of rural social movement building remain understudied, including under what conditions such nascent efforts are likely to lead to effective political influence and foundations for broader collective action. Drawing on insights from organizational studies and resource mobilization theories, we provide an analytical narrative of the emergence and development of a smallholder farmerbased policy advocacy organization, the Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana (PFAG). Through analysis of organizational documents and an extensive open-ended focus group interview with PFAG's founders, long-term members, and current staff, we discuss how PFAG managed to overcome the "liability of newness" faced by new organizations, and how its resulting organizational structure influences its modes of resource mobilization and thus type and coverage of its advocacy and service delivery activities. Considering this developmental narrative, we elaborate several challenges that PFAG faces in pursuit of its ambitions to expand its influence in Ghanaian agricultural policy and practice. Our findings indicate the need for PFAG to address emerging contradictions in project activities and uneven geographical coverage, manage tensions between advocacy and service delivery objectives and to work towards establishing an umbrella agenda capable of providing for the diverse and evolving needs of their membership base.

Sustainable development (SD) is a concept that can be used to address complex challenges, including energy transitions. SD offers diverse strategies that provide useful direction in navigating tensions, trade-offs and synergies in energy transitions. The purpose of this research was to identify the challenges that energy practitioners are faced with in energy transitions and explore potential solutions. To achieve this purpose, we identified and explored the challenges faced by energy practitioners in Canada. Specifically, we conducted a survey of 34 energy practitioners from across Canada, as well as in-depth interviews with the Energy Futures Lab design team (which is a civil society initiative actively working on the energy transition in Canada).

We identified the following challenges faced by energy practitioners in Canada: there is no simple, single solution for energy transitions; energy transitions have potentially conflicting considerations; energy systems have potentially conflicting goals; energy practitioners have different levels of trust and competencies in key actors; energy practitioners need to work across the political spectrum; and the costs and benefits of energy transitions are unevenly distributed. We discuss how the three strategies of SD (i.e., economic choice, political choice, social choice) could be applied to manage the intended and unintended tensions and trade-offs inherent in energy transitions. We conclude that the three SD strategies are not always equally valued by energy practitioners, but they have the potential to be useful in different energy transitions scenarios.

Agriculture is key to sustainable development globally – particularly in countries where agriculture both accounts for most of the land use and provides a livelihood for most of the population. We map out a collaborative research agenda aimed at tackling the urgent but poorly understood issue of the role of farmer organisations in overcoming political barriers to sustainable and inclusive agricultural development, with particular attention to sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. Building on a critical and collaborative dialogue between a diversity of small-scale farmer-led organisations, local activist groups, transnational civil society networks, and heterogeneous academic institutions, our agenda is organized around two key objectives: 1) understanding the conditions for, development of and outcomes from farmer-based political mobilisation in rural areas; and 2) strengthening participatory, action-oriented research capacity for critically engaged research on agrarian questions in SSA. The approach we advocate emphasises the scientific and societal benefits of combining theoretically informed crosscountry comparison of farmer-based rural social movements, with deepening of academic-civil society collaboration

It has become quite common in environmental sustainability research to promote the influencing of so-called inner dimensions of individuals as means to address pressing environmental problems such as climate change, what we refer to as the Inward Turn. We argue that the conceptual foundations of the Inward Turn, an extreme form of methodological individualism, limit it significantly as a strategy for addressing climate change and other socially relevant environmental problems. After briefly reviewing major shortcomings with the way the Inward Turn conceptualizes the relationship between individuals and social change, including its neglect of causal structures and propensity to abstract its analysis away from problems that are specific to place and time, we sketch the basic tenets of an alternative methodological approach capable of overcoming these limitations. Our approach, however, does not go to the other extreme and neglect the role of individuals; rather, our recognition of the structural drivers of particular environmental problems points to the necessity of specific collective actions by individuals, for example, in the practice of social movements. This recognition demands a rethinking of the role of individual factors, like emotion and empathy, in addressing environmental sustainability problems, namely as they relate to collective action/social movement emergence, development, and outcomes.

A central challenge for sustainable development is how societies are to avoid, minimize or address impacts from anthropogenic climate change. However, competing perspectives on “what should be sustained” lead to widely different understandings of what mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage entail and how best to approach them. We provide a novel conceptual and empirical comparison of two contrasting sustainable development-based approaches to the study of impacts from climate-related extreme events: Capital Theory and capability-based Human Development. We use our analysis of immediate residential property value and housing capacity impacts caused by Hurricane Michael in Gulf County, Florida, to demonstrate how the sustainable development theory used to assess and interpret impacts greatly affects the identification of whom and where is objectively “most impacted.” Through a comparison of the two approaches, we identify relative advantages and disadvantages, emphasizing that while both provide coherent, comprehensive, and integrative approaches to climate-related impact assessment, the capability approach is much less likely to lead researchers and practitioners to overlook the most disadvantaged communities when compared to Capital Theory.

An energy transition is unfolding in Canada and across the world. During this transition, countries are facing increasing demands for their energy systems to address economic, social, and environmental considerations, including providing affordable and reliable energy, reducing inequality, and producing fewer environmental impacts. First, we identify key themes from the academic literature related to energy transitions: the systems perspective; economic, social, and environmental considerations; collaboration and dialogue; and social innovation. Second, we focus on a case study of a critical actor in Canada’s energy transition, the Energy Futures Lab (EFL), a social innovation lab that is actively working on the energy transition in Canada. We interviewed members of the EFL design team to investigate and deepen our understanding of the key themes identified in the academic literature. Third, we discuss how our research results relate to innovation and governance in the energy transition in Canada, and we offer an Integrated Model of Sustainable Development (SD) to help manage the common affairs of the energy transition. Fourth, we offer a theoretical contribution, arguing that both the ends and the means should be considered in an energy transition. It is important to keep in mind the overarching objective, or end, of the energy transition (e.g., alignment with the sustainability principles) to create the energy system that the future requires of us. Finally, we offer a practical contribution to show that SD can help inform a collaborative approach, that promotes innovation and increases knowledge, in an effort to address complex sustainability challenges.

Sustainability science (SS) is diverse field of problem-driven and solution-oriented research that is still developing. The further maturation of the field relies on its practitioners formulating alternative paradigms to use-inspired knowledge production to facilitate comparison and reasoned judgment on what constitutes scientific best practices. In this short article, we flag several blind spots that can arise in attempts to articulate potential paradigms in SS. We identify and discuss three crucial components that should be included when constructing and presenting potential paradigms in the field, namely the necessity of 1) comparing suggested alternatives with available competitors, 2) preserving scientific integrity in scientific knowledge production, and 3) clarifying the particular contribution of scientific knowledge to social change. Keeping sight of these three important issues will allow the still developing field of SS to mature in a way that builds on scientific comparison and reasoned judgment among the field’s practitioners, with implications for advancing its research agenda. The issues we outline here should not only concern authors, but reviewers and editors of SS journals as well. 

Loss and damage from climate change, recognized as a unique research and policy domain through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) in 2013, has drawn increasing attention among climate scientists and policy makers. Labelled by some as the “third pillar” of the international climate regime—along with mitigation and adaptation—it has been suggested that loss and damage has the potential to catalyze important synergies with other international agendas, particularly sustainable development. However, the specific approaches to sustainable development that inform loss and damage research and how these approaches influence research outcomes and policy recommendations remain largely unexplored. We offer a systematic analysis of the assumptions of sustainable development that underpins loss and damage scholarship through a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed research on loss and damage. We demonstrate that the use of specific metrics, decision criteria, and policy prescriptions by loss and damage researchers and practitioners implies an unwitting adherence to different underlying theories of sustainable development, which in turn impact how loss and damage is conceptualized and applied. In addition to research and policy implications, our review suggests that assumptions about the aims of sustainable development determine how loss and damage is conceptualized, measured, and governed, and the human development approach currently represents the most advanced perspective on sustainable development and thus loss and damage. This review supports sustainable development as a coherent, comprehensive, and integrative framework for guiding further conceptual and empirical development of loss and damage scholarship.

Sustainability science is fundamentally a problem-driven and solutions-oriented science which necessitates engagement with questions of interdisciplinarity and normativity. Nagatsu et al. (2020) recently investigated the significance of these peculiar characteristics and produce a useful and timely overview of the problems facing sustainability science, as a science. Perhaps the most crucial and crosscutting challenge they identify regards the need for researchers to justify the particular values guiding sustainability research. In the spirit of advancing Nagatsu et al.’s agenda for further developing the role of values in sustainability science, I argue two things. First, that there are in practice several active and competing approaches to dealing with the problem of normativity in sustainablity science that provide options to researchers. Second, that this unresolved tension at the core of sustainability science points to a more overarching problem, namely the need to more explicitly identify coherent, competing research paradigms within the field.

Sabotera gasledningar, menar Andreas Malm. Vänta på ”riktig kris”, menar Alf Hornborg. Men det duger inte. Lösningen är att fortsätta agera kollektivt genom civilsamhället med olika metoder för att mobilisera bredare massor och sätta press på makthavare, skriver forskare vid Lunds universitet. 

Local communities around the world are directly exposed to impacts of climate change. It is also clear that many local governments are politically and economically constrained in their capacity to implement needed adaptations. These constraints can restrict adaptation options to incremental, or even maladaptive, practices. At the same time, necessary transformational actions may remain out of reach for local actors. Building on five years of collaborative research with the city of Flagler Beach (FL, USA), we draw on political process theories to describe how incremental adaptation activities that are possible within current constraints can serve to build local capacity for instigating reforms at higher scales of social organization. We use the concept of a collective action strategy to conceptualize how context-specific barriers to adaptation can be overcome. From our analysis, an idealized multi-step process for designing collective action strategies is presented. The study advances scholarship on limits to adaptation beyond the diagnosis of barriers to action by taking steps towards developing context-specific strategies for overcoming these barriers.

När det gäller klimatrörelsen och debatten kring den behövs kunskap om hur samhället fungerar. Det skriver sex forskare vid Lucsus, Lunds universitets centrum för studier av uthållig samhällsutveckling.

In recent years, a strong natural science hegemony has predominantly framed our understanding of sustainability challenges and, as a result, the production of solution strategies. In countering this, some academic centers have sought to promote interdisciplinary research, starting from the recognition that the scale and complexity of sustainability challenges necessitates a plurality of different social science perspectives to be incorporated in research. In this article, we analyze the process and outcomes of one of these centers, namely, the Lund University Centre of Excellence for Integration of the Social and Natural Dimensions of Sustainability (LUCID), maintaining a heavy emphasis on incorporating social sciences into interdisciplinary sustainability research from its inception. First, we identify and motivate the selection of a consistent set of criteria for evaluating interdisciplinary research processes and outcomes. Second, we apply these criteria in an analysis of a selection of scholarly work produced at LUCID. Third, we evaluate the impacts of LUCID’s institutional settings on the process of interdisciplinary research. Finally, we assess to what degree the outcomes of LUCID research have managed to produce the synthetic integrated knowledge required to analyze and address complex sustainability challenges. Although the LUCID work in aggregate represents a plurality of social science perspectives, our analysis suggests that a meaningful synthetic integration of knowledge was accomplished in cases where researchers employed retroductive logic and adhered to the principles of methodological pluralism. In highlighting the need to systematically incorporate these essential elements into the research process, we stress the importance of institutional settings in terms of finance, administration, and providing a conducive intellectual environment wherein authentic interdisciplinarity can emerge. Maintaining the kinds of horizontal and vertical institutional integration characteristic of such conducive settings, however, poses a major challenge in light of current trends, at least in Sweden, toward more compartmentalized, disciplinary university structures.

In this article, I outline the foundations of a consistent and systematic approach to conceptualizing communities in action-oriented sustainability research. More specifically, I develop a conceptual heuristic based on key questions related to ontology, epistemology, methodology and motivation that should be useful for researchers regarding the process of initiating, clarifying and reporting on research with communities. While the use of the community concept in sustainability research is particularly prominent, variability in the possible types of social groupings combined with the concept’s long and complicated etymology in the English language means the community concept lends itself easily to ambiguous and unspecified use. This can lead to problems of both conceptual vagueness and concept-object mismatch in scientific research, which in turn can influence the applicability and efficacy of research outcomes. While problems with community conceptualization are generally recognized, the heuristic developed here contributes by providing researchers with a framework and procedure for addressing these persistent challenges. The heuristic supports the rational and systematic development of a community concept that is sensitive to concrete contextual characteristics, while maintaining roots in a consistent philosophy of scientific knowledge production.

The ambition of this two-part article is to argue for immanent critique as a research strategy in sustainability studies. We do this by picking up and developing two central, cross-cutting themes in sustainability research, namely interdisciplinarity and normativity. It is widely suggested that the problem-driven and solution-focused orientation in sustainability studies necessitates interdisciplinarity and an engagement with questions of normativity, each creating problems regarding how science is conducted. For interdisciplinarity, questions remain regarding by what scientific procedure rational (i.e., non-arbitrary) interdisciplinarity can be accomplished. For normativity, it is unclear whether normativity can be addressed scientifically, or only politically; in other words, can normativity be objectively incorporated in sustainability research, and if so, how? Ultimately, the paper asks and answers the following questions: when should a researcher move from one discipline to another in sustainability research and, how do we judge the validity of the normative values that are deemed necessary for sustainability? In Part I, we show the silences, gaps, vagueness and inadequacies of how these themes are currently addressed in sustainability science literature, and from this move to propose immanent critique as a potential strategy for dealing with them in a scientific manner. In Part II, we exemplify our strategy by applying it to re-construct the debate over sustainable development, by far the most prominent topical focus in sustainability science research, producing a novel systematized typology of sustainable development approaches in the process. We conclude with reflections on how this paper amounts to an initial contribution to the construction of a Lakatosian research programme in sustainability studies.

The way we frame a given problem structures the content that is brought into focus and thus the kinds of practical steps seen as necessary to alleviate it. This article interrogates two competing partial framings implicated in ongoing controversy over mangrove destruction in Vikhroli East, Mumbai, which have precluded integrated conservation and development. The article analyses the content of each particular framing, identifies their respective “blind spots”, and evaluates the validity of various frame components. It concludes with an exemplary alternative reframing arguably more conducive to social justice and sustainability in Vikhroli East and beyond. 

Fisheries exemplify the immense complexity of interactions in social-ecological systems (SESs). This complexity has created management challenges and raises concerns for the sustainability of our marine natural resource systems. This article contributes to SES fisheries research and management in two ways: first, it enhances our understanding of lobster fisheries as complex social-ecological systems, focusing on the Southern California Spiny Lobster Fishery (SCSLF) as a case study. Secondly, it demonstrates a methodological approach for assessing component interactions in SESs that can be used to assess the sustainability of management approaches. The first contribution involves the systematic review of the literature on lobster fisheries management and their SES characteristics. The review results are then used to modify and extensively define the diagnostic SES framework for specific use in lobster fisheries. For the second contribution, we demonstrate how to operationalize the modified framework for the diagnosis of a real-life case, using the SCSLF as an example. This involves framing the SCSLF classificatory diagnosis for analysis of the stakeholder-comprised management group of the SCSLF as a social-ecological action situation. This analysis is aided by the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, a SES-imbedded tool used in our case to assess sustainability in resource management systems through critical analysis of stakeholder and resource system interactions. More generally, we find that research in lobster fisheries could benefit from broadening its scope of analysis, as overly narrow research foci have worked to limit the production of more holistic SES knowledge. Our exemplary analysis of the LAC's management of the SCSLF shows that the SES contains multiple components which have been associated with sustainable outcomes elsewhere; however, the fishery still faces many obstacles, including how to adapt to future challenges. Our results contribute to developing a holistic methodological approach for operationalizing SES framework research into practical fisheries management.

We explore the emergence of two contemporary mega water projects in Turkey that are designed to meet the demands of the country’s major urban centers. Moreover, we analyze how policy makers in the water sector frame problems and solutions. We argue that these projects represent a tendency to depoliticize water management and steer away from controversial issues of water allocation by emphasizing large-scale, centralized, technical, and supply-oriented solutions. In doing so, urgent concerns are ignored regarding unsustainable water use, impacts on rural livelihoods, and institutional shortcomings in the water sector. These aspirations build heavily on prevailing discourses of modernity, development, and economic growth, and how urban centers are perceived as drivers of this growth. In the light of these tendencies, social and environmental implications are downplayed, even though the projects will change or already have changed the dynamics within urban-rural life and agricultural water resources practices. We develop an understanding of how such projects are presented as the only solution to problems of water scarcity in Turkey.