Soil Functions & Ecosystem Services

In order to fulfil RECARE’s aim to quantify in a harmonized, spatially explicit way impacts of degradation and conservation on soil functions and ecosystem services, it is important to understand the concept and review the current scientific debate. This will lay the foundation for the development and selection of appropriate methods to measure, evaluate, communicate and negotiate the services we obtain from soils with stakeholders in order to improve land management. Despite various research activities in the last decades across the world, many challenges remain to integrate the concept of ecosystem services (ES) in decision-making, and a coherent approach to assess and value ES is still lacking (de Groot et al., 2010). There are many different, often context-specific, ES frameworks with their own definitions and understanding of terms. This chapter therefore aims to identify the state of the art and knowledge gaps in order to develop an operational framework of the ES concept for the RECARE project. It will provide an overview on existing soil functions and ES frameworks and on approaches to monitor and value ES, with a special focus on soil aspects. Furthermore, it will address the question how the ES concept is operationalized in research projects and land management in Europe so far. Based on this review, the chapter concludes with a suggestion of an adapted ES framework for RECARE and on how to operationalize it for practical application in preventing and remediating degradation of soils in Europe

Soil Functions & Ecosystem Services

In order to fulfil RECARE’s aim to quantify in a harmonized, spatially explicit way impacts of degradation and conservation on soil functions and ecosystem services, it is important to understand the concept and review the current scientific debate. This will lay the foundation for the development and selection of appropriate methods to measure, evaluate, communicate and negotiate the services we obtain from soils with stakeholders in order to improve land management. Despite various research activities in the last decades across the world, many challenges remain to integrate the concept of ecosystem services (ES) in decision-making, and a coherent approach to assess and value ES is still lacking (de Groot et al., 2010). There are many different, often context-specific, ES frameworks with their own definitions and understanding of terms. This chapter therefore aims to identify the state of the art and knowledge gaps in order to develop an operational framework of the ES concept for the RECARE project. It will provide an overview on existing soil functions and ES frameworks and on approaches to monitor and value ES, with a special focus on soil aspects. Furthermore, it will address the question how the ES concept is operationalized in research projects and land management in Europe so far. Based on this review, the chapter concludes with a suggestion of an adapted ES framework for RECARE and on how to operationalize it for practical application in preventing and remediating degradation of soils in Europe

Transformative research for sustainability: characteristics, tensions, and moving forward

Technical summary The question of how science can become a lever in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals permeates most recent sustainability research. Wide-ranging literature calling for a transformative approach has emerged in recent years. This 'transformative turn' is fueled by publications from fields such as sustainability science, social-ecological research, conservation science, sustainability transitions, or sustainability governance studies. However, there is a lack of a shared understanding specifically of what is meant for research to be transformative in this developing discourse around doing science differently to tackle sustainability problems. We aim to advance transformative research for sustainability. We define transformative research and outline six of its characteristics: (1) interventional nature and a theory of change focus; (2) collaborative modes of knowledge production, experimentation and learning; (3) systems thinking literacy and contextualization; (4) reflexivity, normative and inner dimensions; (5) local agency, decolonization, and reshaping power; (6) new quality criteria and rethinking impact. We highlight three tensions between transformative research and traditional paradigms of academic research: (1) process- and output-orientation; (2) accountability toward society and toward science; (3) methodologies rooted in scientific traditions and post-normal methodologies. We conclude with future directions on how academia could reconcile these tensions to support and promote transformative research. Non-technical summary Dominant ways of doing research are not enough to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The typical response of science to dealing with the current local and global sustainability crises is to produce and accumulate more knowledge. Transformative research seeks to couple knowledge production with co-creating change. This paper defines the transformative way of doing research to pro-actively support society's fight against pressing societal and environmental problems. We present six characteristics of transformative research. We reflect on the challenges related to implementing these characteristics in scientific practice and on how academia can play its part

An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research

In this paper we present a novel methodology for identifying stakeholders for the purpose of engaging with them in transdisciplinary, sustainability research projects. In transdisciplinary research, it is important to identify a range of stakeholders prior to the problem-focussed stages of research. Early engagement with diverse stakeholders creates space for them to influence the research process, including problem definition, from the start. However, current stakeholder analysis approaches ignore this initial identification process, or position it within the subsequent content-focussed stages of research. Our methodology was designed as part of a research project into a range of soil threats in seventeen case study locations throughout Europe. Our methodology was designed to be systematic across all sites. It is based on a snowball sampling approach that can be implemented by researchers with no prior experience of stakeholder research, and without requiring significant financial or time resources. It therefore fosters transdisciplinarity by empowering physical scientists to identify stakeholders and understand their roles. We describe the design process and outcomes, and consider their applicability to other research projects. Our methodology therefore consists of a two-phase process of design and implementation of an identification questionnaire. By explicitly including a design phase into the process, it is possible to tailor our methodology to other research projects

Critical reflection on knowledge and narratives of conservation agriculture

In the context of contemporary concerns about climate change and food security, Conservation Agriculture (CA) has emerged as a well-supported and central component of the agricultural sector development strategy across sub-Saharan Africa, including in Zambia, which is the focus of this paper. A variety of narratives about the benefits of CA over conventional agricultural systems underpin endeavours towards ‘scaling up’ CA and increasing rates of adoption amongst smallholder farmers nationwide. However, there is a knowledge politics underlying the translation of a weak evidence base around CA into persuasive narratives and financial and political support. In this paper, we trace the evolution of five narratives around CA in Zambia in relation to changing political agendas and the involvement of new public and private sector actors, and review the development of evidence bases and knowledge that support and challenge each of these narratives. We discuss the potential to open up space within this knowledge politics to alternative narratives and the contestation of the pervasive CA scaling up agenda. Critical reflection is essential to ensure that national and local evidence is more effectively used to guide national climate and agricultural policy developments and international donor initiatives

Collaborative governance or state regulation? Endless efforts but little capacity for sustainability transformation of the German textile sector

Collaborative governance is increasingly demanded in multiple sectors and considered promising to address wicked sustainability challenges. Whether it meets these expectations remains uncertain, particularly as such initiatives take place within a broader landscape of public and private policies and projects. We explore how collaborative governance initiative is shaped by its broader landscape to deliver on its goals. To do so, we provide a framework for analysing governance modes and social interactions in collaborative governance. We use an exploratory case study of the German Partnership for Sustainable Textiles (hereafter: Textiles Partnership). The partnership is a multi‐stakeholder, collaborative governance initiative that links to a variety of different initiatives, and highlights barriers and transformation potential both within and outside its boundaries. Based on qualitative interviews, analysis of policy documents and a focus group discussion, we show that the complexity of the landscape field is accompanied by capacity constraints for all actors involved. Such complexity raises questions about whether this governance mode influences actual change on the ground, or diverts energies into navigating and proliferating complexity with low levels of meaningful outcomes. There is a growing call from actors within the partnership towards more state‐centred regulation, resulting in a Due Diligence Act in 2021, to regulate corporate action across national borders. The evidence we present shows the need to reconsider the balance between state regulation and collaborative governance arrangements

Nudging leverage points : influencing transformative policy change

For over 50 years governments, businesses and individuals have acted too slowly nor at sufficient scale to address anthropogenic climate change. To provide insight into addressing issues of timing, speed, scale and scope of government action, this chapter examines how behavioural science can be used to design interventions acting at leverage points in a system, points where relatively small-scale changes can lead to deeper systemic transformations. Having introduced Systems Theory, mental model leverage points and existing advice on how to intervene at them, we set out relevant biases, heuristics and choice architecture that can guide understanding and interventions, so that action at these places can be triggered and maintained. This chapter introduces the use of behavioural science at leverage points to ethical and responsible consumption research so addressing how to influence and enact systems change and to reorientate ‘nudge’ toward influencing policy makers as well as being used to design policy

What Is Sustainable Agriculture? A Systematic Review

The idea of a sustainable agriculture has gained prominence since the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987. Yet, the concept of sustainable agriculture is very vague and ambiguous in its meaning, which renders its use and implementation extremely difficult. In this systematic review paper, we aim to advance understandings of sustainable agriculture from a social science and governance perspective by identifying areas of complementarity and concern between emerging definitions of sustainable agriculture. For this purpose, we conducted a structured literature review in combination with a cluster analysis in order to (1) identify the overall ideas and aspects associated with sustainable agriculture; (2) detect patterns and differences in how these ideas and aspects are adopted or applied; (3) evaluate how the different ideas and aspects of sustainable agriculture are combined in the scientific debate, and assess whether these different conceptions match with those that have been claimed to exist in the debate. There are two valuable outcomes from this research. The first is a framework for understanding the components of sustainable agriculture. The second outcome is in highlighting ways for actors involved with sustainable agriculture to deal with the complexity and multiplicity of this concept in a constructive manner