Four Cultural Narratives for Managing Social-ecological Complexity in Public Natural Resource Management

This is the final version. Available on open access from Springer via the DOI in this recordData availability: The data that comprised this research is stored at the UK Data Service but safeguarded due to its sensitive nature.Public Natural Resource Management (NRM) agencies operate in complex social-ecological domains. These complexities proliferate unpredictably therefore investigating and supporting the ability of public agencies to respond effectively is increasingly important. However, understanding how public NRM agencies innovate and restructure to negotiate the range of particular complexities they face is an under researched field. One particular conceptualisation of the social-ecological complexities facing NRM agencies that is of growing influence is the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus. Yet, as a tool to frame and understand those complexities it has limitations. Specifically, it overlooks how NRMs respond institutionally to these social-ecological complexities in the context of economic and organisational challenges-thus creating a gap in the literature. Current debates in public administration can be brought to bear here. Using an organisational cultures approach, this paper reports on a case study with a national NRM agency to investigate how they are attempting to transform institutionally to respond to complexity in challenging times. The research involved 12 elite interviews with senior leaders from Natural Resources Wales, (NRW) and investigated how cultural narratives are being explicitly and implicitly constructed and mobilised to this end. The research identified four distinct and sequential cultural narratives: collaboration, communication, trust, and empowerment where each narrative supported the delivery of different dimensions of NRW's social-ecological complexity mandate. Counter to the current managerialist approaches in public administration, these results suggest that the empowerment of expert bureaucrats is important in responding effectively to complexity.Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)Natural Resources Wale

Valuing beyond economics : a pluralistic evaluation framework for participatory policymaking

The sustainability challenges facing societies call for policies and governance systems that are attuned to the diversity of goods that support and enrich human life via ecological, technical and other kinds of systems, and to the plurality of values that people hold across diverse cultures and belief systems. A pluralistic evaluation framework (PEF) is here presented as a tool for considering diverse kinds of goodness as perceived by diverse stakeholders in the design and evaluation of policies or projects. It arises from considering a suite of aspects of meaning (biotic, economic, aesthetic, etc.) at each of three stages, namely: identifying relevant stakeholders, mapping real-world systems and assessing modes of valuing. This framework, drawing on the philosophical work of Herman Dooyeweerd and Dirk Vollenhoven, offers a joined-up, participatory approach to policymaking. We report pilot trials of the PEF with groups of policymakers at a series of workshops, demonstrating that it provides additional perspectives and unification of core issues and can be used in a wide range of areas of policymaking and project assessment. We also illustrate its potential application to a controversial environmental project and outline how a pluralistic evaluation framework can be used in tandem with existing frameworks

Ten principles for transforming economics in a time of global crises

Transformation of economic systems is widely regarded as essential for tackling interacting global crises. Unconventional economic approaches seeking holistic human and planetary well-being have transformative potential, but mainstreaming them is hampered by vested interests and intellectual lock-ins. They are also diffuse and struggle to develop sufficient discursive power to gain more widespread traction in policy. To bring coherence, we undertake a qualitative content analysis of 238 document sources from science and practice. We identify ten ecological, social, political economy and holistic principles cutting across 38 economic approaches. They include: (1) social–ecological embeddedness and holistic well-being; (2) interdisciplinarity and complexity thinking; (3) limits to growth; (4) limited substitutability of natural capital; (5) regenerative design; (6) holistic perspectives of people and values; (7) equity, equality and justice; (8) relationality and social enfranchisement; (9) participation, deliberation and cooperation and (10) post-capitalism and decolonization. We also consider opportunities and barriers to applying these principles in the context of global crises. Our results can help consolidate transformative economic approaches and support future efforts to synthesize conceptual models, methodologies and policy solutions and to validate the identified principles more explicitly within global south contexts

Exploring the benefits and dis-benefits of climate migration as an adaptive strategy along the rural-peri-urban continuum in Namibia

The scale of climate migration across the Global South is expected to increase during this century. By 2050, millions of Africans are likely to consider, or be pushed into, migration because of climate hazards contributing to agricultural disruption, water and food scarcity, desertification, flooding, drought, coastal erosion, and heat waves. However, the migration-climate nexus is complex, as is the question of whether migration can be considered a climate change adaptation strategy across both the rural and urban space. Combining data from household surveys, key informant interviews, and secondary sources related to regional disaster, demographic, resource, and economic trends between 1990 and 2020 from north central and central dryland Namibia, we investigate (i) human migration flows and the influence of climate hazards on these flows and (ii) the benefits and dis-benefits of migration in supporting climate change adaptation, from the perspective of migrants (personal factors and intervening obstacles), areas of origin, and areas of destination. Our analysis suggests an increase in climate-related push factors that could be driving rural out-migration from the north central region to peri-urban settlements in the central region of the country. While push factors play a role in rural-urban migration, there are also several pull factors (many of which have been long-term drivers of urban migration) such as perceived higher wages, diversity of livelihoods, water, health and energy provisioning, remittances, better education opportunities, and the exchange of non-marketed products. Migration to peri-urban settlements can reduce some risks (e.g. loss of crops and income due to climate extremes) but amplify others (e.g. heat stress and insecure land tenure). Adaptation at both ends of the rural–urban continuum is supported by deeply embedded linkages in a model of circular rural–urban-rural migration and interdependencies. Results empirically inform current and future policy debates around climate mobilities in Namibia, with wider implications across Africa

Why nature matters: A systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values

\ua9 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. In this article, we present results from a literature review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values of nature conducted for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, as part of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuations of Nature. We identify the most frequently recurring meanings in the heterogeneous use of different value types and their association with worldviews and other key concepts. From frequent uses, we determine a core meaning for each value type, which is sufficiently inclusive to serve as an umbrella over different understandings in the literature and specific enough to help highlight its difference from the other types of values. Finally, we discuss convergences, overlapping areas, and fuzzy boundaries between different value types to facilitate dialogue, reduce misunderstandings, and improve the methods for valuation of nature\u27s contributions to people, including ecosystem services, to inform policy and direct future research

Reform or transform? A spectrum of stances towards the economic status quo within ‘new economics’ discourses

Data availability statement: The authors take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the analysis, although errors in data extracted directly from Scopus and Google may be beyond our control. See Supplementary data (available on figshare) for access to the literature sample data, or contact the corresponding author.Key messages: • New economics ‘discourse coalitions’ are needed to replace neoliberalism and transcend global crises. • New economics discourses show variation in the depth of change advocated. • Most authors align with the SDGs and against neoliberalism. Stances diverge on economic growth. • There is a general lack of explicit mentions of key aspects of the economic status quo.‘New economics’ discourses – comprising diverse approaches advocated as more just and sustainable replacements of dominant neoclassical and neoliberal economic perspectives – have been criticised as insufficiently coherent to form the ‘discourse coalitions’ necessary to enter the mainstream. To date there has been little systematic exploration of the agreement or divergence in new economics discourses. Here, we conduct a qualitative systematised review of new economics literature in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to analyse stances towards the economic status quo and the depth of change advocated in it, such as fundamental and systemic transformation or more superficial reformist or accepting types of change that mostly maintain current economic systems. We interpreted authors’ stances towards six key status quo themes: capitalism; neoliberalism; GDP-based economic growth; debt-based money; globalisation; and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the 525 documents analysed, there was relative consensus that neoliberalism needed transforming, stances towards GDP-based growth substantially diverged (from transformative to reformist/accepting), and stances towards the SDGs were mostly accepting, although the status quo themes tended to be infrequently mentioned overall. Different new economics approaches were associated with diverging stances. We suggest that alignment against neoliberalism and towards the SDGs may provide strategic coalescing points for new economics. Because stances towards core problematised aspects of mainstream economics were often not articulated, we encourage new economics scholars and practitioners to remain explicit, aware and reflexive with regard to the economic status quo, as well as strategic in their approach to seeking economic transformation.This work is part of the Global Assessment for a New Economics (GANE) project supported by the Leverhulme Trust-funded Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity under Grant RC-2018-021, the Laudes Foundation, the University of York and Ecologos Research Ltd

Ten principles for transforming economics in a time of global crises

Data availability: The dataset generated by the survey research is available via figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28615724 (ref. 67).Supplementary information is available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-025-01562-4#Sec12 .Transformation of economic systems is widely regarded as essential for tackling interacting global crises. Unconventional economic approaches seeking holistic human and planetary well-being have transformative potential, but mainstreaming them is hampered by vested interests and intellectual lock-ins. They are also diffuse and struggle to develop sufficient discursive power to gain more widespread traction in policy. To bring coherence, we undertake a qualitative content analysis of 238 document sources from science and practice. We identify ten ecological, social, political economy and holistic principles cutting across 38 economic approaches. They include: (1) social–ecological embeddedness and holistic well-being; (2) interdisciplinarity and complexity thinking; (3) limits to growth; (4) limited substitutability of natural capital; (5) regenerative design; (6) holistic perspectives of people and values; (7) equity, equality and justice; (8) relationality and social enfranchisement; (9) participation, deliberation and cooperation and (10) post-capitalism and decolonization. We also consider opportunities and barriers to applying these principles in the context of global crises. Our results can help consolidate transformative economic approaches and support future efforts to synthesize conceptual models, methodologies and policy solutions and to validate the identified principles more explicitly within global south contexts.This research was supported by the Leverhulme Trust-funded Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity (RC-2018-021), the University of York (United Kingdom), Ecologos Research Ltd (United Kingdom) and the United Kingdom Natural Environment Research Council (NE/X002276/1)

Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world

Language matters in shaping perceptions and guiding behaviour. The term stakeholder is widely used, yet little attention is paid to the possibility that its use may inadvertently perpetuate colonial narratives and reinforce systemic inequities. In this article, we critically examine the limitations of the stakeholder concept and its ambiguity, normativity, and exclusionary implications. We emphasise the importance of using language that gives a voice to marginalised groups, promotes inclusion and equity, and fosters meaningful and reflexive participation in decision-making processes. In critiquing the use of the term and calling for alternative practices, we aim to contribute to the decolonisation of research norms and the creation of more inclusive and equitable societies. Therefore, rather than advocating a single alternative term, we suggest a focus on the people, places, and species affected by decisions, interventions, projects, and issues