Creating conditions for sustainability transformation through transformative governance – The case of plastic food packaging in Finland

Transformative governance is an emerging approach to addressing major sustainability challenges. Despite the mounting research on this topic, there is still limited understanding on how to create conditions for transformation in practice. Through an analytical frame of transformative governance, in this qualitative case study we investigate how policies and governance in Finland have created conditions for sustainability transformation in food packaging, a key source of plastics pollution, and how the joint implementation of different transformative approaches affects their power to induce systemic change. Our results, based on policy mapping and stakeholder interviews, show that applying principles of transformative governance is necessary but not yet effective enough for creating conditions that encourage and motivate key actors to advance in sustainability transformation. Joint implementation of different transformative approaches and modes of governance can be beneficial, but it is also challenging and may in the worst case even weaken the transformative power and slow down progress. The current governance has fostered packaging waste recycling but does not effectively solve the root cause of unsustainability: mounting consumption of single-use packaging, despite current policy targets and active use of transformative approaches. To reduce packaging consumption and create favourable conditions for packaging reuse, more emphasis is needed on transformative innovation policies, as well as setting more ambitious and proactive measures such as implementing tighter legislation and carrying out ex-ante impact evaluations when designing new policies and regulation. Integrative governance should also be strengthened to improve directionality and policy coherence

Hulevesien hallinnan ohjauskeinojen ja toimintamallien kehittämisen mahdollisuudet - kohti kestävää hulevesien hallintaa

Lait maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain sekä vesihuoltolain muuttamisesta tulivat voimaan syyskuussa 2014. Muutosten myötä hulevesien hallinta ei ole enää vesihuoltoa, vaan hulevesien hallintaan sovelletaan maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain 13 a luvun säännöksiä.Hulevesiä koskevat säädökset sisällytettiin maankäyttö- ja rakennuslakiin, koska kaavoituksen yhteydessä voidaan kehittää suunnitelmallista ja kokonaisvaltaista hulevesien hallintaa. Vesihuoltolakiin jäi säädöksiä ainoastaan hulevesien viemäröinnistä. Uudistuneen lainsäädännön tavoitteena on luonnonmukaisten hulevesien hallintamenetelmien edistäminen. Luonnonmukaisten hallintamenetelmien käyttöön otto on tärkeää, koska yhdyskuntarakenteen tiivistäminen lisää vettä läpäisemättömän pinnan määrää ja tämän lisäksi ilmastonmuutoksen oletetaan lisäävän rankkasateiden todennäköisyyttä ja intensiteettiä. Putkiviemäreiden mitoitus ja vanhojen viemäreiden saneeraaminen vastaamaan tulevaisuuden tarpeita ei useimmiten ole mahdollista tai taloudellisesti järkevää, jolloin tarvitaan viemäröinnistä poikkeavia hulevesirakenteita. Uudistuneen lainsäädännön mukaan kunta vastaa hulevesien hallinnan kokonaisuuden järjestämisestä asemakaava-alueella Lainsäädännössä on määritelty kunnalle tehtäviä, joista vastaavat tahot kunnan on ratkaistava. Kuntien tulee esimerkiksi päättää, huolehtiiko kunta vai vesihuoltolaitos hulevesien viemäröinnistä ja alkaako kunta periä maksuja hulevesien hallinnasta. Lainsäädännön muutosten myötä kunnissa on oivallinen tilaisuus kehittää hulevesien hallintaan liittyviä käytäntöjään. Tämän tutkielman tarkoituksena on analysoida, mitä eri tekijöitä kunnassa tulee ottaa huomioon, jotta hulevesien hallinta voidaan järjestää mahdollisimman juohevasti ja mitkä tekijät edistävät tai estävät kestävää hulevesien hallintaa. Lisäksi tavoitteenani on analysoida, mitä mahdollisia ristiriitoja eri toimijoiden näkemyksissä saattaa olla. Kunnalle asetettujen tehtävien lisäksi uudistunut lainsäädäntö täsmentää kiinteistön omistajan tai haltijan ensisijaista velvollisuutta vastata hulevesien hallinnasta kiinteistöllään. Kunta voi ohjata kiinteistöjä hulevesien hallinnassa mm. normien, informaation ja mahdollisesti taloudellisen ohjauksen avulla. Kunnan käytäntöjen analysoinnin lisäksi tutkielmani tavoitteena on analysoida eri ohjauskeinojen mahdollisuuksia hulevesien hallinnan ohjaamisessa kestävämpään suuntaan

Environmental impact bonds as a transformative policy innovation: : frames and frictions in the construction process of the Nutrient-EIB

Impact bonds have emerged as a policy innovation with the potential to change public policies towards being more outcome-based and pre-emptive – and more effective in answering sustainability challenges. This financial instrument has been used for social problems and only recently for environmental issues. One example is the Nutrient-EIB (environmental impact bond) which is in preparation to be implemented in Southwest Finland. We study involved stakeholders’ framings of the Nutrient-EIB's potential for solving problems of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea and the lock-in situation of recycled fertiliser development. Based on stakeholder interviews, we identify three interpretative frames: applying the impact investing logic, challenging agri-environmental policy, and extending experimental policy-making. We recognise frictions between the frames regarding the required knowledge base and scale. We discuss how visions of transformative outcomes may challenge each other and what kinds of barriers transformative policy innovations may face.Impact bonds have emerged as a policy innovation with the potential to change public policies towards being more outcome-based and pre-emptive – and more effective in answering sustainability challenges. This financial instrument has been used for social problems and only recently for environmental issues. One example is the Nutrient-EIB (environmental impact bond) which is in preparation to be implemented in Southwest Finland. We study involved stakeholders’ framings of the Nutrient-EIB's potential for solving problems of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea and the lock-in situation of recycled fertiliser development. Based on stakeholder interviews, we identify three interpretative frames: applying the impact investing logic, challenging agri-environmental policy, and extending experimental policy-making. We recognise frictions between the frames regarding the required knowledge base and scale. We discuss how visions of transformative outcomes may challenge each other and what kinds of barriers transformative policy innovations may face.Peer reviewe

Expertise and Its Tensions

Non peer reviewe

How Open Is the Maker Movement?:Integrative Literature Review of the Openness Practices in the Global Maker Movement

This article explores the multiple meanings of the concept of openness in the global maker movement. Openness is viewed as one of the key principles of the maker movement. As the global maker movement is a bricolage of diverse and situated practices and traditions, there are also many different interpretations and ways of practicing openness. We have explored this diversity with an integrative literature review, relying on the Web of Science™ database. We identified three interrelated but also, in part, mutually contested approaches to openness. Firstly, openness often refers to applying open hardware. Secondly, it is in many cases related to the inclusion and empowerment of various groups in making. Thirdly, openness appears to be seen as a means to pursue economic growth through increasing innovation activity and entrepreneurship. Our results also highlight the substantial barriers encountered by makers while aiming to open up their practices. These barriers include: value conflicts in which openness is overridden by other important values; exclusion of lower income groups from making due to a lack of resources; and difficulties in maintaining long-term activities. The different meanings of openness together with the barriers create tensions within the maker movement while implementing openness. We propose that engaging in a reflexive futures dialogue on the consequences of these tensions can enhance the maker movement to become more open, inclusive and resilient

How Open Is the Maker Movement?:Integrative Literature Review of the Openness Practices in the Global Maker Movement

This article explores the multiple meanings of the concept of openness in the global maker movement. Openness is viewed as one of the key principles of the maker movement. As the global maker movement is a bricolage of diverse and situated practices and traditions, there are also many different interpretations and ways of practicing openness. We have explored this diversity with an integrative literature review, relying on the Web of Science™ database. We identified three interrelated but also, in part, mutually contested approaches to openness. Firstly, openness often refers to applying open hardware. Secondly, it is in many cases related to the inclusion and empowerment of various groups in making. Thirdly, openness appears to be seen as a means to pursue economic growth through increasing innovation activity and entrepreneurship. Our results also highlight the substantial barriers encountered by makers while aiming to open up their practices. These barriers include: value conflicts in which openness is overridden by other important values; exclusion of lower income groups from making due to a lack of resources; and difficulties in maintaining long-term activities. The different meanings of openness together with the barriers create tensions within the maker movement while implementing openness. We propose that engaging in a reflexive futures dialogue on the consequences of these tensions can enhance the maker movement to become more open, inclusive and resilient.EC/H2020/101006285/EU/Critical Making: Studying RRI Principles in the Maker Community/Critical Makin