To address increasingly pressing social–environmental challenges, the transformative strand of sustainability science seeks to move beyond a descriptive-analytical stance in order to explore and contribute to the implementation of radical alternatives to dominant and unsustainable paradigms, norms, and values. However, in many cases, academia is not currently structured to support and reward inter-/trans-disciplinary and transformative endeavors. This paper introduces a theory of change for the Future Earth Pathways Initiative, and similar initiatives, to help leverage the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in transformative research.

The increasing body of descriptive-analytical knowledge produced by sustainability science over the last two decades has largely failed to trigger the transformation of policies, norms, and behaviors it was aiming to inform. The emergent transformative strand of sustainability science is a proactive alternative approach seeking to play an active role in processes of societal change by developing knowledge about options, solutions, and pathways, and by participating in their implementation. In principle, scientists can enhance their contribution to more sustainable futures by engaging in transformative research. However, a lack of skills and competencies, relatively unmatured transformative methods and concepts, and an institutional landscape still geared toward disciplinary and descriptive-analytical research, still hinders the sustainability science community from engaging more widely in transformative research. In this paper, the Future Earth Pathways Initiative introduces a theory of change (ToC) for increasing the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in this type of research. This ToC ultimately aims to build a growing community of practitioners engaged in transformative research, to advance concepts, methods, and paradigms to foster ‘fit-for-purpose transformative research’, and to shape institutions to nurture transformative research-friendly contexts.

What would a theory of change for leveraging the transformative capacity of sustainability science look like?

Enabling local adoption of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is important to accelerate global efforts to achieve sustainable development. However, local governments have plural perspectives on how to engage with the SDGs. In this paper, we identify three perspectives on how to enable local SDGs based on cases of nine local governments in Australia. We emphasize the need for seeing local SDG adoption as contextualized and actor-driven processes.

Local governments worldwide are taking the initiative to engage with sustainable development goals (SDGs) despite the absence of a globally coordinated guideline on local SDGs actions. With less than a decade until its 2030 deadline, a more targeted and nuanced approach to enabling local SDG actions is needed. In this paper, we argue that there is a need to look at local SDG actions as an actor-driven process where agency, contexts, purpose, and dynamics co-evolve and shape the outcome of the process. Using Q-methodology, we explore different perspectives on what enables local SDGs actions in nine local governments in Australia. Three perspectives in enabling local SDG actions emerged from the study: (1) ‘Enablers should support institutional embeddedness of the SDGs’, (2) ‘Enablers should support stakeholder coordination for the SDGs’, and (3) ‘Enablers should support community engagement for the SDGs’. Each perspective has preferred enablers, contextualized within certain ways of engaging with the SDGs, certain views of the SDGs, and specific local contexts and capacities. This study provides insights to contextualize knowledge in current literature to enable local SDG actions.

Many understand that the local adoption of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is not a one-shoe-fits-all process, but what are some of the plurality in local SDG adoptions? In this paper, we identify three perspectives on enabling the SDGs based on nine local governments in Australia.

Agricultural research is vital for sustainable food production, amid changing challenges. To address these challenges effectively and achieve sustainable food systems, researchers and funding bodies have to prioritize research efforts. We conducted horizon scanning to determine how rice systems might change by 2050 and to identify key research gaps. The study involved 101 rice experts from 31 countries who rated the research gaps based on novelty and relevance. The top 25 research gaps encompass sustainability, agricultural development, rice crop science (including genetics, breeding, and physiology), and policies. Addressing these research gaps will contribute toward the sustainability of rice systems.

Agricultural research and development (AgR&D) is crucial for increasing productivity while preserving natural capital and ensuring sustainable food security. Traditional AgR&D approaches along monodisciplinary lines often have unintended consequences and trade-offs, which can be avoided through integrated and interdisciplinary approaches. One such approach is horizon scanning. We conducted a horizon-scanning activity to identify research gaps to be prioritized for sustainable rice systems by 2050. The horizon scan involved a global and diverse panel of rice experts (101 from 31 countries). The panel responded to questionnaires on the drivers, projections, and research needs for rice AgR&D. Afterward, research gaps were rated on their relevance and novelty to sustainable rice systems. We identified the top 25 research gaps under four themes: sustainability interactions, agricultural development, genetics, breeding and crop physiology, and governance and policies. These gaps highlight research that needs to be prioritized to achieve sustainable rice systems that enhance resilience, conserve biodiversity, and promote socio-economic well-being.

Rice experts select top rice research gaps for achieving sustainable rice systems by 2050.

In decision-making, especially for sustainability, choosing the right assessment tools is crucial but challenging due to the abundance of options. A new method is introduced to streamline this process, aiding policymakers and managers. This method involves four phases: scoping, cataloging, selection, and validation, combining data analysis with stakeholder engagement. Using the food system as an example, the approach demonstrates how practitioners can select tools effectively based on input variables and desired outcomes to address sustainability risks. This method can be applied across various sectors, offering a systematic way to enhance decision-making and manage sustainability effectively.

Decision making frequently entails the selection and application of assessment tools. For sustainability decisions there are a plethora of tools available for environmental assessment, yet no established and clear approach to determine which tools are appropriate and resource efficient for application. Here we present an extensive inventory of tools and a novel taxonomic method which enables efficient, effective tool selection to improve decision making for policymakers and managers. The tool selection methodology follows four main phases based on the divergence-convergence logic; a scoping phase, cataloging phase, selection phase and validation phase. This approach combines elements of data-driven analysis with participatory techniques for stakeholder engagement to achieve buy-in and to ensure efficient management of progress and agile course correction when needed. It builds on the current limited range and scope of approaches to tool selection, and is flexible and Artificial Intelligence-ready in order to facilitate more rapid integration and uptake. Using the food system as a case study, we demonstrate how practitioners can use available input variables and desired output metrics to select the most appropriate tools to manage sustainability risks, with the approach having wide applicability to other sectors.

New method simplifies tool selection for sustainable decisions, aiding policymakers & managers. #Sustainability #DecisionMaking

There is a need to develop tools that facilitate knowledge sharing and cooperation among researchers, institutions, and countries around the world, especially concerning global, transboundary, and long-term climate impacts. The IPCC report aims to achieve this goal, and emphasizes that digitization of global maps, centralization of multidisciplinary results, and further sorting and simplification of data products are necessary to make the immense amount of information accessible to broader communities. To this end, we build a new digital atlas useful for training the future generation of climate scientists, for academic collaboration, and as a first stop in intergovernmental conversations.

Climate change is a significant threat to humanity, and its impacts on natural and human systems have already been observed. Climate action requires both global and local cooperation and needs to be approached together with other world crises in a transformative, systemic, and holistic way, prioritizing long-term human and ecological well-being and short-term targeted action. Bridging the gap between climate scientists, educators, and decision-makers is crucial, which requires a multidisciplinary approach, meaningful collaboration tools, practical simplification, and visualization of research output data, and more effective communication. To address some of these challenges in communication for decision-making, as well as challenges in multidisciplinary climate teaching and research, we built a new digital atlas called the Perry World House Global Climate Security Atlas. Researchers, teachers, and policymakers are encouraged to use the Atlas to visualize global information on physical climate projections, environmental, and ecological data, as well as information on human, social, and political systems. In this paper, we motivate the need for the Atlas and summarize its potential uses, provide a summary description of the datasets, and offer suggestions on how to bridge the gap between science and policymaking.

A new interactive Atlas that brings together global, transboundary, multidisciplinary, and long-term climate impacts.