Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Faced with numerous seemingly intractable social and environmental challenges, many scholars and practitioners are increasingly interested in understanding how to actively engage and transform the existing systems holding such problems in place. Although a variety of analytical models have emerged in recent years, most emphasize either the social or ecological elements of such transformations rather than their coupled nature. To address this, first we have presented a definition of the core elements of a socialecological system (SES) that could potentially be altered in a transformation. Second, we drew on insights about transformation from three branches of literature focused on radical change, i.e., social movements, socio-technical transitions, and social innovation, and gave consideration to the similarities and differences with the current studies by resilience scholars. Drawing on these findings, we have proposed a framework that outlines the process and phases of transformative change in an SES. Future research will be able to utilize the framework as a tool for analyzing the alteration of social-ecological feedbacks, identifying critical barriers and leverage points and assessing the outcome of social-ecological transformations.

Defining transformative climate science to address high-end climate change

“…4) Assumptions about the future attainability of existing systems goals: Many advocates who believe that technological solutions (including geoengineering) would suffice to cope with climate change tend to assume that the existing institutional, production, and consumption systems can continue functioning without major fundamental transformations in their configuration. This view contrasts with a position in which research is focused on exploring and supporting alternative ways of socioecological system reconfigurations based on the assumption that their goals are no longer attainable or no longer viable in the future as they are now constituted (Moore et al 2014;Pelling, O'Brien and Matyas 2015). 5) Role of visions and normative futures: The development of climate assessment processes in TCS needs to integrate the role of explicit normative visions (the future we want) and subjective judgments on transformative futures in reorienting policy strategies at various scales of action.…”

Social innovation in question: The theoretical and practical implications of a contested concept

“…If SI research can achieve greater clarity and make a stronger statement about its potential to make innovative contributions, it will be well positioned to address topical and timely research areas such as climate change (Eriksen and Selboe, 2012;Scott-Cato and Hillier, 2010), ageing (Mulgan, 2006) or poverty reduction (Kumar et al, 2013;Moore et al, 2014;. It can do this by drawing attention to the social dimension of technological progress and political change, and emphasising the importance of more inclusive solutions to pressing human needs.…”

“…This embedding suggests that all change within the regime is likely to be path-dependent, whereas radical change is likely to originate from the outside (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). Such considerations are extremely important in debates about climate change and about whether it can be addressed incrementally or only through a new technological regime (Moore et al, 2014;Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012).…”

“…According to this literature, there are different scales at which innovation activities are undertaken before they become dominant (Coenen et al, 2010;Moore et al, 2014). First, new ideas start out by operating at the niche level, where they are protected from market or political forces and have the freedom to develop and test new solutions.…”

Improving participatory resilience assessment by cross-fertilizing the Resilience Alliance and Transition Movement approaches

“…Previously, scholars applying Resilience Assessment in practice have found that it fails to provide guidance on how to manage the participatory learning process (Mitchell et al 2014, Sellberg et al 2015. Furthermore, although resilience scholars often emphasize transformational change for sustainable development (Gunderson and Holling 2002, Folke et al 2010, Olsson et al 2014, the practice of Resilience Assessment as of yet has failed to support transformations of social-ecological systems (Walkerden et al 2013, Sellberg et al 2015. Earlier work has addressed these issues by combining Resilience Assessment with ideas from adaptive management and collective learning (Walkerden et al 2013, Mitchell et al 2014.…”