1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 45, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 45, 2020

Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis

Abstract

This review synthesizes diverse approaches that researchers have brought to bear on the challenge of sustainable development. We construct an integrated framework highlighting the union set of elements and relationships that those approaches have shown to be useful in explaining nature–society interactions in multiple contexts. Compelling evidence has accumulated that those interactions should be viewed as a globally interconnected, complex adaptive system in which heterogeneity, nonlinearity, and innovation play formative roles. The long-term evolution of that system cannot be predicted but can be understood and partially guided through dynamic interventions. Research has identified six capacities necessary to support such interventions in guiding development pathways toward sustainability. These are capacities to () measure sustainable development, () promote equity, () adapt to shocks and surprises, () transform the system into more sustainable development pathways, () link knowledge with action, and () devise governance arrangements that allow people to work together in exercising the other capacities.

Keyword(s): adaptation, co-production, complexity, equity, governance, inclusive wealth, innovation, nature–society interactions, power, transformation
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621
2020-10-17
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/45/1/annurev-environ-012420-043621.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J. 2011. Evolution and structure of sustainability science. PNAS 108:4919540–45
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Kates RW. 2011. What kind of a science is sustainability science. PNAS 108:4919449–50
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    The World Commission on Environment and Development 1987. Our Common Future Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Rev. ed.
  4. 4. 
    Stiglitz JE, Fitoussi J-P, Durand M 2019. Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-Being New York: New Press
  5. 5. 
    Sen A. 2013. The ends and means of sustainability. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 14:16–20
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Wing S, Zalasiewicz J, Waters C, McNeill J, Steffen W et al. 2019. Letters: ‘The Anthropocene epoch is not hubris. .’ The Atlantic Oct. 11
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Deaton A. 2013. The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  8. 8. 
    United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2019. Human Development Report 2019: Beyond Income, Beyond Averages, Beyond Today: Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century New York: UNDP
  9. 9. 
    Roser M. 2019. Our world in data https://ourworldindata.org
  10. 10. 
    McNeill JR. 2016. The Great Acceleration: An Environmental History of the Anthropocene Since 1945 Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press Harv. Univ. Press
  11. 11. 
    United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2019. Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP
  12. 12. 
    Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv. (IPBES), Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio E, Ngo H et al. 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr.
  13. 13. 
    Intergov. Panel Clim. Change 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C Geneva/Nairobi: World Meteorol. Organ./UN Environ. Progr.
  14. 14. 
    Dryzek JS, Pickering J. 2018. The Politics of the Anthropocene Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  15. 15. 
    Stokes DE. 1997. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
  16. 16. 
    Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Schellnhuber HJ, Dube OP et al. 2020. The emergence and evolution of Earth System Science. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1:154–63
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    SDSN Association 2019. Sustainable Development Solutions Network http://www.unsdsn.org
  18. 18. 
    Enqvist JP, West S, Masterson VA, Haider LJ, Svedin U, Tengö M 2018. Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: linking care, knowledge and agency. Landsc. Urban Plan. 179:17–37
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Ostrom E. 2011. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud. J. 39:17–27
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Levin S, Xepapadeas T, Crépin A-S, Norberg J, de Zeeuw A et al. 2012. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environ. Dev. Econ. 18:2111–32
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Preiser R, Biggs R, De Vos A, Folke C 2018. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecol. Soc. 23:446
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Hull V, Liu J. 2018. Telecoupling: a new frontier for global sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 23:441
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Moran EF. 2010. Environmental Social Science: Human-Environment Interactions and Sustainability Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
  24. 24. 
    Burch S, Gupta A, Inoue CYA, Kalfagianni A, Å Persson et al. 2019. New directions in Earth System Governance research. Earth Syst. Gov. 1:100006
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Peterson G, Harmáčková Z, Meacham M, Queiroz C, Jiménez-Aceituno A et al. 2018. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature's contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services. .” Ecol. Soc. 23:139
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Bennett EM. 2017. Research frontiers in ecosystem service science. Ecosyst. N. Y. 20:131–37
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Agyeman J, Schlosberg D, Craven L, Matthews C 2016. Trends and directions in environmental justice: from inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41:1321–40
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Menton M, Larrea C, Latorre S, Martinez-Alier J, Peck M et al. 2020. Environmental justice and the SDGs: from synergies to gaps and contradictions. Sustain Sci https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00789-8
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D, Pauliuk S, Krausmann F, Müller DB, Fischer-Kowalski M 2019. Contributions of sociometabolic research to sustainability science. Nat. Sustain. 2:3173–84
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Loste N, Roldán E, Giner B 2019. Is Green Chemistry a feasible tool for the implementation of a circular economy?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27:6215–27
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Zimmerman JB, Anastas PT, Erythropel HC, Leitner W 2020. Designing for a green chemistry future. Science 367:6476397–400
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT et al. 2018. Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science 359:6373270–72
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Scoones I. 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J. Peasant Stud. 36:1171–96
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Leach M, Scoones I, Stirling A 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice London/Washington, DC: Earthscan
  35. 35. 
    Reyers B, Folke C, Moore M-L, Biggs R, Galaz V 2018. Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43:1267–89
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Turner BL, Esler KJ, Bridgewater P, Tewksbury J, Sitas N et al. 2016. Socio-Environmental Systems (SES) Research: what have we learned and how can we use this information in future research programs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 19:160–68
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    McGinnis MD, Ostrom E. 2014. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 19:230
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F 2017. Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42:1599–626
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Markard J, Geels F, Raven R 2020. Challenges in the acceleration of sustainability transitions. Environ. Res. Lett. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Geels FW, McMeekin A, Mylan J, Southerton D 2015. A critical appraisal of sustainable consumption and production research: the reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions. Glob. Environ. Change 34:1–12
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Schröder P, Vergragt P, Brown HS, Dendler L, Gorenflo N et al. 2019. Advancing sustainable consumption and production in cities—a transdisciplinary research and stakeholder engagement framework to address consumption-based emissions and impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 213:114–25
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Irwin EG, Gopalakrishnan S, Randall A 2016. Welfare, wealth, and sustainability. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 8:177–98
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Dasgupta PS. 2018. Foreword to the Inclusive Wealth Report 2018. See Ref. 107 xxi–xxviii
  44. 44. 
    Meyfroidt P, Roy Chowdhury R, de Bremond A, Ellis EC, Erb K-H et al. 2018. Middle-range theories of land system change. Glob. Environ. Change 53:52–67
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    United Nations (UN) 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Rep. A/RES/70/1, UN New York:
  46. 46. 
    Barbier EB. 2019. The concept of natural capital. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 35:114–36
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 14:1–16
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Ruggie JG. 2014. Global governance and “new governance theory”: lessons from business and human rights. Glob. Gov. 20:15–17
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Betsill M, Benney TM, Gerlak AK 2020. Agency in Earth System Governance Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  50. 50. 
    Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  51. 51. 
    Stiglitz JE. 2019. Addressing climate change through price and non-price interventions. Eur. Econ. Rev. 119:594–612
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Hicks CC, Levine A, Agrawal A, Basurto X, Breslow SJ et al. 2016. Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science 352:628138–40
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Gerlak AK, Eimer TR, Brisbois M-C, Mills-Novoa LS, Jorrit L, Paivi A 2020. Power(ful) and power(less): a review of power in the ESG-agency scholarship. See Ref 49:65–72
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Levin S. 2003. Complex adaptive systems: exploring the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 40:13–19
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Arrow KJ, Ehrlich PR, Levin SA 2014. Some perspectives on linked ecosystems and socioeconomic systems. Environment and Development Economics S Barrett, K-G Mäler, ES Maskin 95–116 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Arthur WB. 2015. Complexity economics: a different framework for economic thought. Complexity and the Economy WB Arthur 1–29 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Hagstrom GI, Levin SA. 2017. Marine ecosystems as complex adaptive systems: emergent patterns, critical transitions, and public goods. Ecosystems 20:3458–76
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Geels FW. 2020. Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 152:119894
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Dasgupta PS, Ehrlich PR. 2013. Pervasive externalities at the population, consumption, and environment nexus. Science 340:6130324–28
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    May RM, Levin SA, Sugihara G 2008. Complex systems: ecology for bankers. Nat. Lond. 451:7181893–95
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Rogge KS, Kern F, Howlett M 2017. Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33:1–10
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Gilarranz LJ, Rayfield B, Liñán-Cembrano G, Bascompte J, Gonzalez A 2017. Effects of network modularity on the spread of perturbation impact in experimental metapopulations. Science 357:6347199–201
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Sayles JS, Garcia MM, Hamilton M, Alexander SM, Baggio JA et al. 2019. Social-ecological network analysis for sustainability sciences: a systematic review and innovative research agenda for the future. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:9093003
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Dietz T. 2017. Drivers of human stress on the environment in the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42:1189–213
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Seto KC, Davis SJ, Mitchell RB, Stokes EC, Unruh G, Ürge-Vorsatz D 2016. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41:1425–52
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Biggs R, Gordon L, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Schlüter M, Walker B 2015. Principle 3—manage slow variables and feedbacks. See Ref. 357 105–41
  67. 67. 
    Tu C, Suweis S, D'Odorico P 2019. Impact of globalization on the resilience and sustainability of natural resources. Nat. Sustain. 2:4283–89
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Martín-López B, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Norström A, Peterson G et al. 2019. A novel telecoupling framework to assess social relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services research. J. Environ. Manag. 241:251–63
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Oberlack C, Boillat S, Brönnimann S, Gerber J-D, Heinimann A et al. 2018. Polycentric governance in telecoupled resource systems. Ecol. Soc. 23:116
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Biggs R, Peterson GD, Rocha JC 2018. The Regime Shifts Database: a framework for analyzing regime shifts in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 23:39
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Fuenfschilling L, Binz C. 2018. Global socio-technical regimes. Res. Policy 47:4735–49
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Otto IM, Donges JF, Cremades R, Bhowmik A, Hewitt RJ et al. 2020. Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth's climate by 2050. PNAS 117:2354–65
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Scheffer M. 2009. Critical Transitions in Nature and Society Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  74. 74. 
    Milkoreit M, Hodbod J, Baggio J, Benessaiah K, Calderón-Contreras R et al. 2018. Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship—an interdisciplinary literature review. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:3033005
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Young OR. 2011. Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. PNAS 108:5019853–60
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Rocha JC, Peterson G, Bodin Ö, Levin S 2018. Cascading regime shifts within and across scales. Science 362:64211379–83
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, Lenton TM, Folke C et al. 2018. Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. PNAS 115:8252–59
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Agrawal A. 2003. Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: context, methods, and politics. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 32:1243–62
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Bebbington A, Abdulai A-G, Humphreys Bebbington D, Hinfelaar M, Sanborn C 2018. Governing Extractive Industries: Politics, Histories, Ideas Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  80. 80. 
    Schlüter M, Haider L, Lade S, Lindkvist E, Martin R et al. 2019. Capturing emergent phenomena in social-ecological systems: an analytical framework. Ecol. Soc. 24:311
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Boyd R, Richerson PJ, Meinzen-Dick R, Moor TD, Jackson MO et al. 2018. Tragedy revisited. Science 362:64201236–41
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Barbier EB, Hochard JP. 2019. Poverty-environment traps. Environ. Resour. Econ. 74:31239–71
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Chen B, Xiong R, Li H, Sun Q, Yang J 2019. Pathways for sustainable energy transition. J. Clean. Prod. 228:1564–71
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Seto KC, Golden JS, Alberti M, Turner BL 2017. Sustainability in an urbanizing planet. PNAS 114:348935–38
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Wang C, Ghadimi P, Lim MK, Tseng M-L 2019. A literature review of sustainable consumption and production: a comparative analysis in developed and developing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 206:741–54
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    LeBlanc D. 2015. Towards integration at last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a network of targets. Sustain Dev 23:3176–87
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Bengtsson M, Alfredsson E, Cohen M, Lorek S, Schroeder P 2018. Transforming systems of consumption and production for achieving the sustainable development goals: moving beyond efficiency. Sustain Sci 13:61533–47
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A 2018. How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178:703–22
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Galaitsi S, Veysey J, Huber-Lee A 2018. Where is the added value? A review of the water-energy-food nexus literature Work. Pap., Stockh. Environ. Inst., Stockh Sweden:
  90. 90. 
    Liu J, Hull V, Godfray HCJ, Tilman D, Gleick P et al. 2018. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 1:9466–76
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Dasgupta P. 2004. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  92. 92. 
    Laurent É 2018. Measuring Tomorrow: Accounting for Well-Being, Resilience, and Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  93. 93. 
    Dasgupta P. 2014. Measuring the wealth of nations. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6:117–31
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Polasky S, Bryant B, Hawthorne P, Johnson J, Keeler B, Pennington D 2015. Inclusive wealth as a metric of sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40:1445–66
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Siddiqi A, Collins RD. 2017. Sociotechnical systems and sustainability: current and future perspectives for inclusive development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 24:7–13
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Ekins P, Gupta J, Boileau P 2019. Global Environment Outlook 6 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  97. 97. 
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2018. Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060—Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences Paris: OECD
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Weisz H, Suh S, Graedel TE 2015. Industrial ecology: the role of manufactured capital in sustainability. PNAS 112:206260–64
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Nordin M, Rooth DO. 2018. The intergenerational transmission of human capital: the role of skills and health. J. Popul. Econ. 31:41035–65
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Hamilton KE, Helliwell JF, Woolcock M 2016. Social capital, trust, and well-being in the evaluation of wealth Rep. WPS7707, World Bank Washington, DC:
  101. 101. 
    National Research Council 2014. Civic Engagement and Social Cohesion: Measuring Dimensions of Social Capital to Inform Policy Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press
  102. 102. 
    Hess C, Ostrom E 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  103. 103. 
    Hess C. 2012. The unfolding of the knowledge commons. St. Antony's Int. Rev. 8:13–24
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Tzvetkova S, Hepburn C. 2018. The missing economic measure: wealth. Our World in Data March 26. https://ourworldindata.org/the-missing-economic-measure-wealth
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Arrow KJ, Dasgupta P, Goulder LH, Mumford KJ, Oleson K 2012. Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environ. Dev. Econ. 17:3317–53
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Lintsen H, Veraart F, Smits J-P, Grin J 2018. Well-being, Sustainability and Social Development: The Netherlands1850–2050 Cham, Switz: Springer Int. Publ.
  107. 107. 
    Managi S, Kumar P. 2018., eds. Inclusive Wealth Report 2018: Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability London: Routledge. , 1st ed..
  108. 108. 
    Lange G-M, Wodon Q, Carey K 2018. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future Washington, DC: World Bank
  109. 109. 
    Yoshida Y, Matsuda H, Fukushi K, Ikeda S, Managi S, Takeuchi K 2018. Assessing local-scale inclusive wealth: a case study of Sado Island, Japan. Sustain Sci 13:51399–414
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Agarwal P, Sawhney A. 2020. Sustainability and comprehensive wealth accounting: the case of India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00743-9. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Ikeda S, Managi S 2019. Future inclusive wealth and human well-being in regional Japan: projections of sustainability indices based on shared socioeconomic pathways. Sustain Sci 14:1147–58
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Collins RD, Selin NE, de Weck OL, Clark WC 2017. Using inclusive wealth for policy evaluation: application to electricity infrastructure planning in oil-exporting countries. Ecol. Econ. 133:23–34
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Cohen F, Hepburn CJ, Teytelboym A 2019. Is natural capital really substitutable. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44:1425–48
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Nordhaus W. 2019. Economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet. PNAS 116:201814990
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Dryzek JS, Stevenson H. 2014. Democratizing Global Climate Governance Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  116. 116. 
    Yamaguchi R, Managi S. 2019. Backward- and forward-looking shadow prices in inclusive wealth accounting: an example of renewable energy capital. Ecol. Econ. 156:337–49
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Jumbri IA, Managi S. 2020. Inclusive wealth with total factor productivity: global sustainability measurement. Glob. Sustain 3:e5
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Weiss EB. 1988. In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity Tokyo, Japan/Dobbs Ferry, NY: UN Univ./Transnat. Publ.
  119. 119. 
    Tessum CW, Apte JS, Goodkind AL, Muller NZ, Mullins KA et al. 2019. Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial-ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure. PNAS 116:136001–6
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Williams TG, Guikema SD, Brown DG, Agrawal A 2020. Resilience and equity: quantifying the distributional effects of resilience-enhancing strategies in a smallholder agricultural system. Agric. Syst. 182:102832
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Lim M, Søgaard Jørgensen P, Wyborn C 2018. Reframing the sustainable development goals to achieve sustainable development in the Anthropocene—a systems approach. Ecol. Soc. 23:322
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Ribas A, Lucena AFP, Schaeffer R 2017. Bridging the energy divide and securing higher collective well-being in a climate-constrained world. Energy Policy 108:435–50
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Hamann M, Berry K, Chaigneau T, Curry T, Heilmayr R et al. 2018. Inequality and the biosphere. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43:161–83
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Caney S. 2018. Justice and future generations. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 21:1475–93
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Zucman G. 2019. Global wealth inequality. Annu. Rev. Econ. 11:1109–38
     [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Kashwan P, MacLean LM, García-López GA 2019. Rethinking power and institutions in the shadows of neoliberalism: (an introduction to a special issue of World Development). World Dev 120:133–46
     [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Scheffer M, van Bavel B, van de Leemput IA, van Nes EH 2017. Inequality in nature and society. PNAS 114:5013154–57
     [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Collins PH. 2015. Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41:11–20
     [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Piketty T. 2020. Capital and Ideology Cambridge, MA: Harv. Univ. Press
  130. 130. 
    Milanovic B. 2018. Towards an explanation of inequality in premodern societies: the role of colonies, urbanization, and high population density. Econ. Hist. Rev. 71:41029–47
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    Pierson P, Lamont M 2019. Inequality as a multidimensional process. Spec. Issue Daedalus J. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 148:35–190
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Banzhaf HS, Ma L, Timmins C 2019. Environmental justice: establishing causal relationships. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 11:1377–98
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Scheve K, Stasavage D. 2017. Wealth inequality and democracy. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 20:1451–68
     [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Benhabib J, Bisin A. 2018. Skewed wealth distributions: theory and empirics. J. Econ. Lit. 56:41261–91
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Scheidel W. 2017. The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  136. 136. 
    Mazzucato M. 2018. The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy. New York: PublicAffairs. , 1st US ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Ahlquist JS. 2017. Labor unions, political representation, and economic inequality. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 20:1409–32
     [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Stiglitz JE. 2012. The Price of Inequality New York: W.W. Norton. , 1st ed..
  139. 139. 
    Milfont TL, Bain PG, Kashima Y, Corral-Verdugo V, Pasquali C et al. 2018. On the relation between social dominance orientation and environmentalism: a 25-nation study. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 9:7802–14
     [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Kabeer N. 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. Dev. Change 30:3435–64
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Pedde S, Kok K, Hölscher K, Frantzeskaki N, Holman I et al. 2019. Advancing the use of scenarios to understand society's capacity to achieve the 1.5 degree target. Glob. Environ. Change 56:75–85
     [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Mann M. 2012. The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 3: Global Empires and Revolution, 1890–1945 Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 143. 
    Boonstra WJ. 2016. Conceptualizing power to study social-ecological interactions. Ecol. Soc. 21:121
     [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Brisbois MC, Morris M, de Loë R 2019. Augmenting the IAD framework to reveal power in collaborative governance—an illustrative application to resource industry dominated processes. World Dev 120:159–68
     [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    Avelino F. 2017. Power in sustainability transitions: analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability: power in sustainability transitions. Environ. Policy Gov. 27:6505–20
     [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Lukes S. 1974. Power: A Radical View Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan
  147. 147. 
    Michaels D. 2020. The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  148. 148. 
    Stirling A. 2019. How deep is incumbency? A ‘configuring fields’ approach to redistributing and reorienting power in socio-material change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 58:101239
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 149. 
    Sheely R. 2015. Mobilization, participatory planning institutions, and elite capture: evidence from a field experiment in rural Kenya. World Dev 67:251–66
     [Google Scholar]
  150. 150. 
    Torpey-Saboe N, Andersson K, Mwangi E, Persha L, Salk C, Wright G 2015. Benefit sharing among local resource users: the role of property rights. World Dev 72:408–18
     [Google Scholar]
  151. 151. 
    Casey K. 2018. Radical decentralization: Does community-driven development work. Annu. Rev. Econ. 10:1139–63
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 152. 
    Villamayor-Tomas S, García-López G. 2018. Social movements as key actors in governing the commons: evidence from community-based resource management cases across the world. Glob. Environ. Change 53:114–26
     [Google Scholar]
  153. 153. 
    McGee R, Pettit J 2019. Power, Empowerment and Social Change London: Routledge
  154. 154. 
    Gaventa J. 2019. Applying power analysis: using the “Powercube” to explore forms, levels and spaces. See Ref. 153 117–38
  155. 155. 
    Gaventa J. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
  156. 156. 
    Evans A. 2018. Politicising inequality: the power of ideas. World Dev 110:360–72
     [Google Scholar]
  157. 157. 
    Boston J. 2017. Governing for the Future: Designing Democratic Institutions for a Better Tomorrow Bingley, UK: Emerald. , 1st ed..
  158. 158. 
    Wittmayer JM, Avelino F, van Steenbergen F, Loorbach D 2017. Actor roles in transition: insights from sociological perspectives. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 24:45–56
     [Google Scholar]
  159. 159. 
    Perry A, Rothwell J, Harshbarger D 2018. The devaluation of assets in black neighborhoods: the case of residential property Rep., Brookings Metrop. Policy Progr Washington, DC:
  160. 160. 
    Ganz M. 2009. Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  161. 161. 
    Rudel TK, Hernandez M. 2017. Land tenure transitions in the Global South: trends, drivers, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42:1489–507
     [Google Scholar]
  162. 162. 
    McKibben B. 2019. Money is the oxygen on which the fire of global warming burns. New Yorker Sep 17
     [Google Scholar]
  163. 163. 
    Gollier C, Hammitt JK. 2014. The long-run discount rate controversy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6:1273–95
     [Google Scholar]
  164. 164. 
    Keys PW, Galaz V, Dyer M, Matthews N, Folke C et al. 2019. Anthropocene risk. Nat. Sustain. 2:667–673
     [Google Scholar]
  165. 165. 
    Adger WN. 2006. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16:3268–81
     [Google Scholar]
  166. 166. 
    Folke C. 2016. Resilience (republished). Ecol. Soc. 21:444
     [Google Scholar]
  167. 167. 
    Binz C, Truffer B. 2017. Global innovation systems—a conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts. Res. Policy 46:71284–98
     [Google Scholar]
  168. 168. 
    Elsner W. 2017. Complexity economics as heterodoxy: theory and policy. J. Econ. Issues 51:4939–78
     [Google Scholar]
  169. 169. 
    Anderies J, Folke C, Walker B, Ostrom E 2013. Aligning key concepts for global change policy: robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 18:28
     [Google Scholar]
  170. 170. 
    Eriksen SH, Nightingale AJ, Eakin H 2015. Reframing adaptation: the political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 35:523–33
     [Google Scholar]
  171. 171. 
    Nelson DR, Adger WN, Brown K 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32:1395–419
     [Google Scholar]
  172. 172. 
    Polasky S, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Keeler B 2011. Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26:8398–404
     [Google Scholar]
  173. 173. 
    Wise RM, Fazey I, Stafford Smith M, Park SE, Eakin HC et al. 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Change 28:325–36
     [Google Scholar]
  174. 174. 
    Tellman B, Bausch J, Eakin H, Anderies J, Mazari-Hiriart M et al. 2018. Adaptive pathways and coupled infrastructure: seven centuries of adaptation to water risk and the production of vulnerability in Mexico City. Ecol. Soc. 23:11
     [Google Scholar]
  175. 175. 
    Adger WN. 2016. Place, well-being, and fairness shape priorities for adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 38:A1–3
     [Google Scholar]
  176. 176. 
    Homayounfar M, Muneepeerakul R, Anderies JM, Muneepeerakul CP 2018. Linking resilience and robustness and uncovering their trade-offs in coupled infrastructure systems. Earth Syst. Dyn. 9:41159–68
     [Google Scholar]
  177. 177. 
    Carpenter SR, Brock WA, Folke C, van Nes EH, Scheffer M 2015. Allowing variance may enlarge the safe operating space for exploited ecosystems. PNAS 112:4614384–89
     [Google Scholar]
  178. 178. 
    Mikulewicz M. 2020. The discursive politics of adaptation to climate change. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1736981. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  179. 179. 
    Brown K, Westaway E. 2011. Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36:1321–42
     [Google Scholar]
  180. 180. 
    Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S et al. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37:1421–48
     [Google Scholar]
  181. 181. 
    de Bruijn K, Buurman J, Mens M, Dahm R, Klijn F 2017. Resilience in practice: five principles to enable societies to cope with extreme weather events. Environ. Sci. Policy. 70:21–30
     [Google Scholar]
  182. 182. 
    Wildavsky A. 1980. Richer is safer. Public Interest 60:23–39
     [Google Scholar]
  183. 183. 
    Baird J, Plummer R, Schultz L, Armitage D, Bodin Ö 2019. How does socio-institutional diversity affect collaborative governance of social-ecological systems in practice. Environ. Manag. 63:2200–214
     [Google Scholar]
  184. 184. 
    Tilman D, Isbell F, Cowles JM 2014. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45:1471–93
     [Google Scholar]
  185. 185. 
    Renard D, Tilman D. 2019. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571:257–60
     [Google Scholar]
  186. 186. 
    Dakos V, Quinlan A, Baggio JA, Bennett E, Bodin Ö, BurnSilver S 2015. Principle 2—manage connectivity. See Ref. 357 80–104
  187. 187. 
    Henry AD, Vollan B. 2014. Networks and the challenge of sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39:1583–610
     [Google Scholar]
  188. 188. 
    Bodin Ö, Alexander SM, Baggio J, Barnes ML, Berardo R et al. 2019. Improving network approaches to the study of complex social-ecological interdependencies. Nat. Sustain. 2:7551–59
     [Google Scholar]
  189. 189. 
    Pershing AJ, Record NR, Franklin BS, Kennedy BT, McClenachan L et al. 2019. Challenges to natural and human communities from surprising ocean temperatures. PNAS 116:3718378–83
     [Google Scholar]
  190. 190. 
    Bohensky EL, Evans LS, Anderies JM, Biggs D, Fabricius C 2015. Principle 4—foster complex adaptive systems thinking. See Ref. 357 142–73
  191. 191. 
    Downing AS, Bhowmik A, Collste D, Cornell SE, Donges J et al. 2019. Matching scope, purpose and uses of planetary boundaries science. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:7073005
     [Google Scholar]
  192. 192. 
    DeFries R, Ellis EC, Chapin FS III, Matson PA, Turner BL II et al. 2012. Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. Bioscience 62:6603–6
     [Google Scholar]
  193. 193. 
    Biermann F, Kim RE. 2020. The boundaries of the planetary boundary framework: a critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for humanity. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-080337. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  194. 194. 
    Scheffer M, Carpenter SR, Dakos V, van Nes EH 2015. Generic indicators of ecological resilience: inferring the chance of a critical transition. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46:1145–67
     [Google Scholar]
  195. 195. 
    Carpenter SR, Arrow KJ, Barrett S, Biggs R, Brock WA et al. 2012. General resilience to cope with extreme events. Sustainability 4:123248–59
     [Google Scholar]
  196. 196. 
    Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S 2017. Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357:63571242–44
     [Google Scholar]
  197. 197. 
    Lubchenco J, Cerny-Chipman EB, Reimer JN, Levin SA 2016. The right incentives enable ocean sustainability successes and provide hope for the future. PNAS 113:5114507–14
     [Google Scholar]
  198. 198. 
    Wibeck V, Linnér B-O, Alves M, Asplund T, Bohman A et al. 2019. Stories of transformation: a cross-country focus group study on sustainable development and societal change. Sustainability 11:82427
     [Google Scholar]
  199. 199. 
    National Research Council 1999. Our Common Journey : A Transition Toward Sustainability Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press
  200. 200. 
    Hölscher K, Wittmayer JM, Loorbach D 2018. Transition versus transformation: What's the difference. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 27:1–3
     [Google Scholar]
  201. 201. 
    Rudel TK, Meyfroidt P, Chazdon R, Bongers F, Sloan S et al. 2020. Whither the forest transition? Climate change, policy responses, and redistributed forests in the twenty-first century. Ambio 49:174–84
     [Google Scholar]
  202. 202. 
    Barnett J, Adger WN. 2018. Mobile worlds: choice at the intersection of demographic and environmental change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43:1245–65
     [Google Scholar]
  203. 203. 
    Evans G, Phelan L. 2016. Transition to a post-carbon society: linking environmental justice and just transition discourses. Energy Policy 99:329–39
     [Google Scholar]
  204. 204. 
    Schaffartzik A, Mayer A, Gingrich S, Eisenmenger N, Loy C, Krausmann F 2014. The global metabolic transition: regional patterns and trends of global material flows, 1950–2010. Glob. Environ. Change 26:87–97
     [Google Scholar]
  205. 205. 
    Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Wieczorek A et al. 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 31:1–32
     [Google Scholar]
  206. 206. 
    Scoones I. 2016. The politics of sustainability and development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41:1293–319
     [Google Scholar]
  207. 207. 
    Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41:6955–67
     [Google Scholar]
  208. 208. 
    Geels FW. 2019. Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 39:187–201
     [Google Scholar]
  209. 209. 
    Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J et al. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366:6471eaax3100
     [Google Scholar]
  210. 210. 
    Ahlborg H, Ruiz-Mercado I, Molander S, Masera O 2019. Bringing technology into social-ecological systems research—motivations for a socio-technical-ecological systems approach. Sustainability 11:7 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  211. 211. 
    Scoones I, Stirling A, Abrol D, Atela J, Charli-Joseph L et al. 2020. Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42:65–75
     [Google Scholar]
  212. 212. 
    Hansen UE, Nygaard I, Romijn H, Wieczorek A, Kamp LM, Klerkx L 2018. Sustainability transitions in developing countries: stocktaking, new contributions and a research agenda. Environ. Sci. Policy 84:198–203
     [Google Scholar]
  213. 213. 
    Kattel R, Mazzucato M. 2018. Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Ind. Corp. Change 27:5787–801
     [Google Scholar]
  214. 214. 
    Anadon LD, Chan G, Harley AG, Matus K, Moon S et al. 2016. Making technological innovation work for sustainable development. PNAS 113:359682–90
     [Google Scholar]
  215. 215. 
    Westley F, McGowan K, Tjörnbo O 2017. The Evolution of Social Innovation: Building Resilience Through Transitions Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
  216. 216. 
    Silvestre BS, Ţîrcă DM. 2019. Innovations for sustainable development: moving toward a sustainable future. J. Clean. Prod. 208:325–32
     [Google Scholar]
  217. 217. 
    Sengers F, Wieczorek AJ, Raven R 2019. Experimenting for sustainability transitions: a systematic literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 145:153–64
     [Google Scholar]
  218. 218. 
    Hausknost D, Haas W. 2019. The politics of selection: towards a transformative model of environmental innovation. Sustainability 11:2506
     [Google Scholar]
  219. 219. 
    Ghosh B, Schot J. 2019. Towards a novel regime change framework: studying mobility transitions in public transport regimes in an Indian megacity. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 51:82–95
     [Google Scholar]
  220. 220. 
    Schot J, Steinmueller WE. 2018. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Res. Policy 47:91554–67
     [Google Scholar]
  221. 221. 
    Fagerberg J. 2018. Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: a comment on transformative innovation policy. Res. Policy 47:91568–76
     [Google Scholar]
  222. 222. 
    Foxon TJ. 2011. A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. Ecol. Econ. 70:122258–67
     [Google Scholar]
  223. 223. 
    Bakker S. 2014. Actor rationales in sustainability transitions—interests and expectations regarding electric vehicle recharging. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 13:60–74
     [Google Scholar]
  224. 224. 
    Apajalahti E-L, Temmes A, Lempiälä T 2018. Incumbent organisations shaping emerging technological fields: cases of solar photovoltaic and electric vehicle charging. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 30:144–57
     [Google Scholar]
  225. 225. 
    Anderies JM, Mathias J-D, Janssen MA 2019. Knowledge infrastructure and safe operating spaces in social-ecological systems. PNAS 116:125277–84
     [Google Scholar]
  226. 226. 
    Mach KJ, Field CB. 2017. Toward the next generation of assessment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42:1569–97
     [Google Scholar]
  227. 227. 
    Cashore B, Bernstein S, Humphreys D, Visseren-Hamakers I, Rietig K 2019. Designing stakeholder learning dialogues for effective global governance. Policy Soc 38:1118–47
     [Google Scholar]
  228. 228. 
    Spangenberg JH. 2019. Scenarios and indicators for sustainable development: towards a critical assessment of achievements and challenges. Sustainability 11:4942
     [Google Scholar]
  229. 229. 
    Raskin P. 2016. Journey to Earthland: The Great Transition to Planetary Civilization Boston, MA: Tellus Inst.
  230. 230. 
    Sitas N, Harmáčková ZV, Anticamara JA, Arneth A, Badola R et al. 2019. Exploring the usefulness of scenario archetypes in science-policy processes: experience across IPBES assessments. Ecol. Soc. 24:335
     [Google Scholar]
  231. 231. 
    Pereira L, Sitas N, Ravera F, Jimenez-Aceituno A, Merrie A 2019. Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: imagination in intergovernmental science-policy scenario processes. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 7:135
     [Google Scholar]
  232. 232. 
    Narayan R, Tidström A. 2019. Circular economy inspired imaginaries for sustainable innovations. Innovation for Sustainability: Business Transformations Towards a Better World N Bocken, P Ritala, L Albareda, R Verburg 393–413 Cham, Switz: Springer Int. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  233. 233. 
    Hajer M, Versteeg W. 2019. Imagining the post-fossil city: Why is it so difficult to think of new possible worlds. Territ. Polit. Gov. 7:2122–34
     [Google Scholar]
  234. 234. 
    Jasanoff S, Kim S-H. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press
  235. 235. 
    Beckert J, Bronk R. 2018. Uncertain Futures: Imaginaries, Narratives, and Calculation in the Economy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , 1st ed..
  236. 236. 
    White D. 2020. Just transitions/design for transitions: preliminary notes on a design politics for a Green New Deal. Capital. Nat. Social. 31:220–39
     [Google Scholar]
  237. 237. 
    Ocasio-Cortez A. 2019. Recognizing the duty of the federal government to create a Green New Deal In 116th Congress, 1st session, H. Res 109
  238. 238. 
    Nepal S, Neupane N, Belbase D, Pandey VP, Mukherji A 2019. Achieving water security in Nepal through unravelling the water-energy-agriculture nexus. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2019.1694867. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  239. 239. 
    Shah T, Giordano M, Mukherji A 2012. Political economy of the energy-groundwater nexus in India: exploring issues and assessing policy options. Hydrogeol. J. 20:5995–1006
     [Google Scholar]
  240. 240. 
    Schot J, Boni A, Ramirez M, Steward F 2018. Addressing the Sustainable Development Goals through transformative innovation policy TIPC Res. Brief 2018–01, Transform Innov. Policy Consort Brighton, UK:
  241. 241. 
    Sachs JD, Schmidt-Traub G, Mazzucato M, Messner D, Nakicenovic N, Rockström J 2019. Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2:9805–14
     [Google Scholar]
  242. 242. 
    Jasanoff S. 2018. Just transitions: a humble approach to global energy futures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 35:11–14
     [Google Scholar]
  243. 243. 
    Kanger L, Schot J. 2019. Deep transitions: theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-technical change. Environ. Innov. Soc. Tranit. 32:7–21
     [Google Scholar]
  244. 244. 
    Int. Counc. Sci. (ICSU), Int. Soc. Sci. Counc. (ISSC) 2015. Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective Paris: ICSU
  245. 245. 
    Liu J, Bawa KS, Seager TP, Mao G, Ding D et al. 2019. On knowledge generation and use for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2:280
     [Google Scholar]
  246. 246. 
    Turnhout E, Tuinstra W, Halffman W 2019. Environmental Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy, and Society Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  247. 247. 
    Forsyth T. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science London/New York: Routledge
  248. 248. 
    Wyborn C, Datta A, Montana J, Ryan M, Leith P et al. 2019. Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44:1319–46
     [Google Scholar]
  249. 249. 
    Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E et al. 2017. Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 26–27:7–16
     [Google Scholar]
  250. 250. 
    Díaz-Reviriego I, Turnhout E, Beck S 2019. Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Nat. Sustain. 2:6457–64
     [Google Scholar]
  251. 251. 
    Fischhoff B. 2019. Evaluating science communication. PNAS 116:167670–75
     [Google Scholar]
  252. 252. 
    Daly M, Dilling L. 2019. The politics of “usable” knowledge: examining the development of climate services in Tanzania. Clim. Change 157:61–80
     [Google Scholar]
  253. 253. 
    Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D et al. 2016. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). PNAS 113:174615–22
     [Google Scholar]
  254. 254. 
    Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N 2019. The dark side of coproduction: Do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research. Health Res. Policy Syst. 17:133
     [Google Scholar]
  255. 255. 
    Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC 2016. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. PNAS 113:174570–78
     [Google Scholar]
  256. 256. 
    Grillos T. 2019. Deliberation improves collective decision making: experimental evidence from Kenya Paper presented at the 115th Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association Washington, DC: Aug 29–Sept. 1
  257. 257. 
    van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L 2015. Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecol. Soc. 20:114
     [Google Scholar]
  258. 258. 
    Evans T 2019. Competencies and pedagogies for sustainability education: a roadmap for sustainability studies program development in colleges and universities. Sustainability 11:195526
     [Google Scholar]
  259. 259. 
    West S, van Kerkhoff L, Wagenaar H 2019. Beyond “linking knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interventions. Policy Stud 40:5534–55
     [Google Scholar]
  260. 260. 
    Giangrande N, White RM, East M, Jackson R, Clarke T et al. 2019. A competency framework to assess and activate education for sustainable development: addressing the UN Sustainable Development Goals 4.7 Challenge. Sustainability 11:102832
     [Google Scholar]
  261. 261. 
    Social Learning Group, Clark WC, Jäger J, van Eijndhoven J, Dickson N 2001. Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, Vol 2: A Functional Analysis of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Acid Rain Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  262. 262. 
    de Kraker J. 2017. Social learning for resilience in social-ecological systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 28:100–107
     [Google Scholar]
  263. 263. 
    Suškevičs M, Hahn T, Rodela R, Macura B, Pahl-Wostl C 2018. Learning for social-ecological change: a qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature in natural resource management. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 61:71085–112
     [Google Scholar]
  264. 264. 
    Gerlak AK, Heikkila T, Smolinski SL, Huitema D, Armitage D 2018. Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship. Policy Sci 51:3335–71
     [Google Scholar]
  265. 265. 
    Kohler PM. 2020. Science Advice and Global Environmental Governance: Expert Institutions and the Implementation of International Environmental Treaties London: Anthem Press
  266. 266. 
    Clark WC, Matson PA, Dickson NM 2016. Knowledge systems for sustainable development: special feature based on a Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences. PNAS 113:174570–622
     [Google Scholar]
  267. 267. 
    Palutikof JP, Street RB, Gardiner EP 2019. Looking to the future: guidelines for decision support as adaptation practice matures. Clim. Change 153:643–55
     [Google Scholar]
  268. 268. 
    Webber S. 2019. Putting climate services in contexts: advancing multi-disciplinary understandings: introduction to the special issue. Clim. Change 157:1–8
     [Google Scholar]
  269. 269. 
    Weichselgartner J, Arheimer B. 2019. Evolving climate services into knowledge-action systems. Weather Clim. Soc. 11:2385–99
     [Google Scholar]
  270. 270. 
    Ferreira LLG, Andricopulo AD. 2019. Drugs and vaccines in the 21st century for neglected diseases. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19:2125–27
     [Google Scholar]
  271. 271. 
    Farrell J. 2019. The growth of climate change misinformation in US philanthropy: evidence from natural language processing. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:3034013
     [Google Scholar]
  272. 272. 
    Nestle M. 2016. Food industry funding of nutrition research: the relevance of history for current debates. JAMA Intern. Med. 176:111685–86
     [Google Scholar]
  273. 273. 
    Middeldorp N, Billon PL. 2019. Deadly environmental governance: authoritarianism, eco-populism, and the repression of environmental and land defenders. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2324–37
     [Google Scholar]
  274. 274. 
    Adger WN, Jordan A 2009. Governing Sustainability Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  275. 275. 
    Young OR. 2017. Governing Complex Systems: Social Capital for the Anthropocene Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  276. 276. 
    Hale T. 2020. Transnational actors and transnational governance in global environmental politics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 23:12.1–12.18
     [Google Scholar]
  277. 277. 
    Brondízio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR 2009. Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34:1253–78
     [Google Scholar]
  278. 278. 
    Pattberg P, Widerberg O. 2016. Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: conditions for success. Ambio 45:142–51
     [Google Scholar]
  279. 279. 
    Andonova LB. 2017. Governance Entrepreneurs: International Organizations and the Rise of Global Public-Private Partnerships Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  280. 280. 
    Henderson R. 2020. Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire New York: PublicAffairs
  281. 281. 
    Bleischwitz R, Spataru C, VanDeveer SD, Obersteiner M, van der Voet E et al. 2018. Resource nexus perspectives towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 1:12737–43
     [Google Scholar]
  282. 282. 
    Jordan A, Huitema D, Schoenefeld JJ, van Asselt H, Forster J 2018. Governing climate change polycentrically: setting the scene. Governing Climate Change A Jordan, D Huitema, H van Asselt, J Forster 359–83 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  283. 283. 
    Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D et al. 2019. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 57:101934
     [Google Scholar]
  284. 284. 
    Heilmayr R, Lambin EF. 2016. Impacts of nonstate, market-driven governance on Chilean forests. PNAS 113:112910–15
     [Google Scholar]
  285. 285. 
    Romsdahl R, Blue G, Kirilenko A 2018. Action on climate change requires deliberative framing at local governance level. Clim. Change 149:3–4277–87
     [Google Scholar]
  286. 286. 
    Bornemann B. 2019. Nudging to sustainability? Critical reflections on nudging from a theoretically informed sustainability perspective. Handbook of Behavioural Change and Public Policy H Straßheim, S Beck 209–26 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  287. 287. 
    Mitchell RB, Carpenter C. 2019. Norms for the Earth: changing the climate on “climate change. .” J. Glob. Secur. Stud. 4:413–29
     [Google Scholar]
  288. 288. 
    Sikkink K. 2020. The Hidden Face of Rights: Toward a Politics of Responsibilities New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  289. 289. 
    Kanie N, Biermann F. 2017. Governing Through Goals: Sustainable Development Goals as Governance Innovation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  290. 290. 
    Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM 2007. Going beyond panaceas. PNAS 104:3915176–78
     [Google Scholar]
  291. 291. 
    Epstein G, Pittman J, Alexander SM, Berdej S, Dyck T et al. 2015. Institutional fit and the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 14:34–40
     [Google Scholar]
  292. 292. 
    Brown K. 2009. Human development and environmental governance: a reality check. See Ref. 274 32–52
  293. 293. 
    Marshall NA, Park SE, Adger WN, Brown K, Howden SM 2012. Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environ. Res. Lett. 7:3034022
     [Google Scholar]
  294. 294. 
    Anderies JM. 2015. Managing variance: key policy challenges for the Anthropocene. PNAS 112:4714402–3
     [Google Scholar]
  295. 295. 
    Dasgupta P, Mitra T, Sorger G 2019. Harvesting the commons. Environ. Resour. Econ. 72:3613–36
     [Google Scholar]
  296. 296. 
    Moritz M, Behnke R, Beitl CM, Bliege Bird R, Chiaravalloti RM et al. 2018. Emergent sustainability in open property regimes. PNAS 115:5112859–67
     [Google Scholar]
  297. 297. 
    Agrawal A. 2014. Studying the commons, governing common-pool resource outcomes: some concluding thoughts. Environ. Sci. Policy 36:86–91
     [Google Scholar]
  298. 298. 
    Hajjar R, Oldekop JA. 2018. Research frontiers in community forest management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 32:119–25
     [Google Scholar]
  299. 299. 
    Österblom H, Jouffray J-B, Folke C, Rockström J 2017. Emergence of a global science-business initiative for ocean stewardship. PNAS 114:349038–43
     [Google Scholar]
  300. 300. 
    Miteva DA, Loucks CJ, Pattanayak SK 2015. Social and environmental impacts of forest management certification in Indonesia. PLOS ONE 10:7e0129675
     [Google Scholar]
  301. 301. 
    Quintana A, Campbell LM. 2019. Critical commons scholarship: a typology. Int. J. Commons 13:21112–27
     [Google Scholar]
  302. 302. 
    Keohane RO, Victor DG. 2016. Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change Lond. 6:6570–75
     [Google Scholar]
  303. 303. 
    Morrison TH. 2017. Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. PNAS 114:15E3013–21
     [Google Scholar]
  304. 304. 
    Young OR. 2018. Research strategies to assess the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Nat. Sustain. 1:9461–65
     [Google Scholar]
  305. 305. 
    Mitchell RB, Andonova LB, Axelrod M, Balsinger J, Brenauer T et al. 2020. What we know (and could know) about international environmental agreements. Glob. Environ. Polit. 20:1103–21
     [Google Scholar]
  306. 306. 
    Lambin EF, Thorlakson T. 2018. Sustainability standards: interactions between private actors, civil society, and governments. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43:1369–93
     [Google Scholar]
  307. 307. 
    Ocampo JA. 2016. Global Governance and Development Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  308. 308. 
    Galasso A, Mitchell M, Virag G 2018. A theory of grand innovation prizes. Res. Policy 47:2343–62
     [Google Scholar]
  309. 309. 
    Griffiths J. 2018. Financing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Development 61:162–67
     [Google Scholar]
  310. 310. 
    Liu T, Kahn T. 2017. Regional public goods cooperation: an inductive approach to measuring regional public goods. See Ref. 311 3–13
  311. 311. 
    Estevadeordal A, Goodman LW 2017. 21st Century Cooperation: Regional Public Goods, Global Governance, and Sustainable Development London/New York: Routledge
  312. 312. 
    Jabbour J, Flachsland C. 2017. 40 years of global environmental assessments: a retrospective analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 77:193–202
     [Google Scholar]
  313. 313. 
    Bodin Ö, García MM, Robins G 2020. Reconciling conflict and cooperation in environmental governance: a social network perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  314. 314. 
    Leiserowitz AA, Kates RW, Parris TM 2006. Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: a review of multinational and global trends. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:1413–44
     [Google Scholar]
  315. 315. 
    Brown K, Adger WN, Devine-Wright P, Anderies JM, Barr S et al. 2019. Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability. Glob. Environ. Change 56:11–17
     [Google Scholar]
  316. 316. 
    Venkataraman B. 2019. The Optimist's Telescope: Thinking Ahead in a Reckless Age New York: Riverhead Books
  317. 317. 
    Peattie K. 2010. Green consumption: behavior and norms. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35:1195–228
     [Google Scholar]
  318. 318. 
    March JG, Olsen JP. 2011. The logic of appropriateness. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science R Goodin 478–97 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  319. 319. 
    Ruggie JG. 2013. Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights New York: W.W. Norton. , 1st ed..
  320. 320. 
    Moon S. 2019. Power in global governance: an expanded typology from global health. Glob. Health 15:174
     [Google Scholar]
  321. 321. 
    Marquis C, Toffel MW, Zhou Y 2016. Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: a global study of greenwashing. Organ. Sci. 27:2483–504
     [Google Scholar]
  322. 322. 
    Sitaraman G, Ricks M, Serkin C 2020. Regulation and the geography of inequality. Duke Law J In press
    [Google Scholar]
  323. 323. 
    Chan G, Stavins R, Ji Z 2018. International climate change policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 10:335–60
     [Google Scholar]
  324. 324. 
    Pearce C. 2019. Guardians for future generations: bringing intergenerational justice into the heart of policy-making. Intergenerational Equity: Environmental and Cultural Concerns T Cottier, S Lalani, C Siziba 52–63 Leiden, Neth: Brill
     [Google Scholar]
  325. 325. 
    Sagarin RD, Turnipseed M. 2012. The public trust doctrine: where ecology meets natural resources management. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37:1473–96
     [Google Scholar]
  326. 326. 
    Blumm MC, Wood MC. 2017. No ordinary lawsuit: climate change, due process, and the public trust doctrine. Am. Univ. Law Rev. 67:11–88
     [Google Scholar]
  327. 327. 
    Sovacool BK, Brisbois M-C. 2019. Elite power in low-carbon transitions: a critical and interdisciplinary review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57:101242
     [Google Scholar]
  328. 328. 
    Amenta E, Polletta F. 2019. The cultural impacts of social movements. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 45:1279–99
     [Google Scholar]
  329. 329. 
    Veltmeyer H. 2020. Latin America in the vortex of social change: development and social movement dynamics. World Dev 130:104916
     [Google Scholar]
  330. 330. 
    Scoones I, Leach M, Newell P 2015. The Politics of Green Transformations London/New York: Routledge
  331. 331. 
    Farmer JD, Hepburn C, Ives MC, Hale T, Wetzer T et al. 2019. Sensitive intervention points in the post-carbon transition. Science 364:6436132–34
     [Google Scholar]
  332. 332. 
    Bobbio L. 2019. Designing effective public participation. Policy Soc 38:141–57
     [Google Scholar]
  333. 333. 
    Dryzek JS, Bächtiger A, Chambers S, Cohen J, Druckman JN et al. 2019. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science 363:64321144–46
     [Google Scholar]
  334. 334. 
    Biermann F, Kalfagianni A. 2020. Planetary justice: a research framework. Earth Syst. Gov. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100049. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  335. 335. 
    Underdal A, Wei T. 2015. Distributive fairness: a mutual recognition approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 51:35–44
     [Google Scholar]
  336. 336. 
    Johnson DR, Geldner NB. 2019. Contemporary decision methods for agricultural, environmental, and resource management and policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 11:119–41
     [Google Scholar]
  337. 337. 
    Wiebe K, Zurek M, Lord S, Brzezina N, Gabrielyan G et al. 2018. Scenario development and foresight analysis: exploring options to inform choices. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43:1545–70
     [Google Scholar]
  338. 338. 
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine; 2018. Understanding the Long-Term Evolution of the Coupled Natural-Human Coastal System: The Future of the U.S. Gulf Coast Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  339. 339. 
    Caldecott B. 2018. Stranded Assets and the Environment: Risk, Resilience and Opportunity Milton Park, UK: Routledge
  340. 340. 
    Kousky C. 2019. The role of natural disaster insurance in recovery and risk reduction. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ 11:399–418
     [Google Scholar]
  341. 341. 
    Chantarat S, Mude AG, Barrett CB, Turvey CG 2017. Welfare impacts of index insurance in the presence of a poverty trap. World Dev 94:119–38
     [Google Scholar]
  342. 342. 
    Read R, O'Riordan T. 2017. The precautionary principle under fire. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 59:54–15
     [Google Scholar]
  343. 343. 
    Slate Staff 2019. Cashing in on climate change. Slate Magazine Sept. 19
    [Google Scholar]
  344. 344. 
    Folke C, Österblom H, Jouffray J-B, Lambin EF, Adger WN et al. 2019. Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3:1396–403
     [Google Scholar]
  345. 345. 
    Stokes LC. 2020. Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  346. 346. 
    Hirsch SL, Long J. 2020. Adaptive epistemologies: conceptualizing adaptation to climate change in environmental science. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919898517. In press
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  347. 347. 
    Asokan VA, Yarime M, Esteban M 2017. Introducing flexibility to complex, resilient socio-ecological systems: a comparative analysis of economics, flexible manufacturing systems, evolutionary biology, and supply chain management. Sustainability 9:71091
     [Google Scholar]
  348. 348. 
    Trigeorgis L, Reuer JJ. 2017. Real options theory in strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 38:142–63
     [Google Scholar]
  349. 349. 
    O'Reilly CA, Tushman M. 2016. Lead and Disrupt: How to Solve the Innovator's Dilemma Stanford, CA: Stanf. Univ. Press
  350. 350. 
    Henderson R. 2015. Making the business case for environmental sustainability. Leading Sustainable Change: An Organizational Perspective R Henderson, R Gulati, ML Tushman 22–47 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  351. 351. 
    Abbott KW, Bernstein S. 2015. The high-level political forum on sustainable development: orchestration by default and design. Glob. Policy 6:3222–33
     [Google Scholar]
  352. 352. 
    Pereira L, Frantzeskaki N, Hebinck A, Charli-Joseph L, Drimie S et al. 2020. Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South. Sustain Sci 15:1161–78
     [Google Scholar]
  353. 353. 
    Hoekstra AY, Bredenhoff-Bijlsma R, Krol MS 2018. The control versus resilience rationale for managing systems under uncertainty. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:10103002
     [Google Scholar]
  354. 354. 
    Scott JC. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  355. 355. 
    Stirling A. 2009. Participation, precaution and reflexive governance for sustainable development. See Ref. 274 193–225
  356. 356. 
    Frye N. 1957. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  357. 357. 
    Biggs R, Schlüter M, Schoon ML 2015. Principles for Building Resilience Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621
Loading
Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45, 331 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error