Search

Human societies face significant difficulties in the governance of environmental land-use problems. The challenges involved must be thoroughly understood to develop effective and legitimate governance of these often inherently wicked problems. However, in environmental governance literature, governance challenges have been described rather generally, and the characteristic features of different types of problems have not been specified. Drawing on this literature, this paper presents an analytical framework for governance challenges typical of a "wicked problem" and a "creeping crisis". We empirically illustrate the combined framework by applying it to the environmental land-use problem of land subsidence in the Dutch peatlands. Land subsidence exemplifies a wicked problem because it is neither definable nor solvable. Due to the lack of effective governance, the problem has allowed threats with crisis potential to develop. However, land subsidence represents a "creeping" crisis because, despite the increasing risk of damage, there is little sense of urgency. The case study illustrates that governance challenges posed by such problems often originate from a lack of comprehensive sense-making of these problems' complexity and that responses, therefore, tend to be counterproductive. Hence, the paper empirically substantiates the need for governance approaches that help achieve the systemic change that is arguably needed to address environmental land-use problems adequately. • Environmental land-use problems are typical wicked problems and creeping crises. • Our analytical framework includes governance challenges typical to these problems. • Challenges often originate from a lack of comprehensive sense-making of complexity. • Counterproductive governance responses are simplification, silo-mentality, paralysis. • Responsibilization, mainstreaming and experimentation are more suitable approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic and non-academic societal actors alike are seeking to optimize the ways in which scientific research may contribute to sustainable development, for which a diverse range of research uptake strategies have been developed. Yet, while the literature emphasizes that the appropriateness of research uptake strategies depends on the context in which they are applied, designing appropriate research uptake strategies to fit a specific context remains a challenging decision-making task for many researchers. In this paper, we conceptualize appropriate research uptake strategies to be those that align with the research and societal sustainability contexts in which they are applied and account for the interactions that emerge between these two contexts. With the aim of supporting researchers in designing more appropriate research uptake strategies in a wide range of contexts, we then build on this conceptualization to propose an appropriateness-typology distinguishing between four broad research uptake approaches: the knowledge transfer approach; the commissioned research approach; the direct engagement approach; and the co-production approach. The typology matches each approach to the dynamic research and societal sustainability contexts in which it is most likely to be appropriate, while seeking to accommodate nuanced understandings of how researchers may approach uptake given different contexts and at the same time aiming at parsimony. By explicitly conceptualizing the role of context in research uptake decision-making and taking a first step towards an appropriateness-typology of research uptake, we hope to empower researchers to design more context-appropriate research uptake strategies such as to better contribute to sustainable development. • Before research can impact society, it must be taken up (i.e., considered, used, or applied) by non-academic societal actors • Research uptake by non-academic societal actors is an intricate, dynamic, context-dependent and non-linear process • The appropriateness of research uptake strategies depends on the contexts in which they are applied • Decision tools, like typologies, can support researchers to design more context-appropriate research uptake strategies • We propose a typology matching 4 broad research uptake approaches to dynamic research- and societal sustainability contexts [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conspicuous interdisciplinary effort has been spent on addressing the consequences of climate change in a forward-looking way. The concept of solution space is a recent contribution to help decision-makers identify feasible and effective adaptation solutions and to provide guidance on when they should be implemented and by whom. Although the current conceptualization of solution space already considers multiple disciplines, it remains dominated by biophysical ones and has not yet fully integrated legal and governance dimensions. This article first reflects on the current solution space framework through the lenses of law and governance and then proposes approaches to enrich legal and governance dimensions in the solution space concept. We argue that the legal and governance dimensions of the current concept of solution space can be improved by taking into account four aspects: 1) understanding the institutional and legal systems in a context-specific way; 2) embracing the dynamics and reflexivity of law and governance in the episteme of path dependency; 3) applying more diverse analytical methods (qualitative, qualitative/ quantitative, value-oriented) and/or assessments on a case-by-case basis; and 4) adding a normative perspective that includes the principles of legitimacy, transparency, accountability, equity, and distributive justice to measure the appropriateness of a certain adaptation strategy. The article concludes with suggestions for future research on how to implement the enriched solution space concept. • Conceptualization of solution space for climate adaptation has not yet fully integrated legal and governance dimensions. • Understanding the institutional and legal systems in a context-specific way can help to enrich solution space concept. • Embracing the dynamics and reflexivity of law and governance can help to enrich solution space concept. • Applying more diverse analytical and case by case assessments can enrich solution space concept. • Normative perspectives can help to measure the appropriateness of adaptation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address the increase in the amount of Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment in Europe (WEEE), in 2003 the European Commission issued its WEEE Directive, introducing an extended producer responsibility (EPR). While there is arguably a relationship between modes of e-waste governance and the successful handling of e-waste, the empirical evidence explaining the performance of different modes of e-waste governance is limited. We address this knowledge gap by proposing a framework for analysing and evaluating e-waste governance, inspired by literature on WEEE, reverse logistics and environmental governance. This framework distinguishes between four success conditions that are seen as indicators for the performance of e-waste governance: inclusion of all stakeholders, overall strategic collaboration, an adequate rule system and knowledge sharing/performance management. In addition, the framework distinguishes between different modes of e-waste governance which are assumed to influence the extent to which the success conditions are met. We applied the framework to the case of Dutch e-waste governance to test its usefulness and derive initial lessons and good practices from it. Our findings show that the Dutch e-waste governance arrangement is performing relatively well in terms of meeting the success conditions. We identified some concrete local (pilot) approaches that added an interactive twist to the Dutch e-waste system, which appears to be conducive to the fulfilment of success conditions. These findings suggest that a combination of ‘hard’ public-private and ‘soft’ interactive modes of governance – combining the strong points of formal rules and voluntary action taking – is desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past few years, we have seen growing calls for a transformation in global food systems in response to multiple challenges, including climate change. Food systems are responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and agricultural yields are at risk due to climate change impacts. Although many proposals have been made, there are fewer insights on what these imply for knowledge and innovation systems. We seek to advance the literature on transforming food systems under a changing climate, by identifying concrete next steps for scientists and practitioners. We do this by adapting a theory of change proposed by Campbell et al. (2018). We used the adapted theory of change to design the 5th Global Science Conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture, which brought together different stakeholders within global food systems. Through conference sessions and a survey with 262 of the participants, we validate elements of the Campbell et al. framework, identify additional elements, and offer further nuance. The findings point at nine priority areas for a transformation in food systems under climate change: (1) Empowering farmer and consumer organizations, women and youth; (2) Digitally enabled climate-informed services; (3) Climate-resilient and low-emission practices and technologies; (4) Innovative finance to leverage public and private sector investments; (5) Reshaping supply chains, food retail, marketing and procurement; (6) Fostering enabling policies and institutions; (7) Knowledge transfer; (8) Addressing fragmentation in the knowledge and innovation systems; (9) Ensuring food security. We have identified three types of scholarly insights from innovation, transition and sustainability transformations studies that may inform the next steps: these relate to stimulating novelty across the priority areas, ensuring participation in knowledge production, and reconfiguring incumbent systems to enable implementation of the theory of change. • A theory of change (ToC) approach can help catalyse a transformation in food systems. • A ToC also needs to consider underpinning knowledge and innovation systems. • Need to actively create novelty in technologies and practices across priority areas. • Reconfigure incumbent knowledge and innovation systems to accelerate transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]