Action research for transformative change

被引:0
作者
Thami Croeser
Sarah Clement
Marta Fernandez
Georgia E. Garrard
Ian Mell
Sarah A. Bekessy
机构
[1] RMIT University,Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Lab, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies
[2] Australian National University,Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Science
[3] University of Liverpool,Department of Geography and Planning, School of Environmental Science
[4] RMIT Europe,School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences
[5] The University of Melbourne,Department of Planning and Environmental Management, School of Environment, Education and Development
[6] University of Manchester,undefined
来源
Sustainability Science | 2024年 / 19卷
关键词
Demonstration projects; Living labs; Innovation; Replication; Mainstreaming; Transformative change; Action research;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
As major policy actors (e.g. governments, global organisations) grapple with 'wicked’ sustainability challenges, the use of demonstration projects or ‘living labs’ has promise in showcasing potential solutions. However, these projects can struggle to realise enduring change, with initial experimental deliverables tending not to be replicated and remaining as once-offs. As well as demonstrating solutions, projects also need to overcome the considerable inertia in the complex systems of organisations and institutions that govern (or indeed generate) sustainability problems. Here we argue that demonstration projects, while initially impactful, could be more likely to realise transformative change if they were designed more thoroughly as action research projects, working with partners to not only deliver and measure demonstrations of solutions, but also demonstrate changes to organisations and institutions to remove barriers and facilitate replication. We note the important role of both engaged leadership and explicitly-stated theories of change in maximising the potential of projects designed in this way.
引用
收藏
页码:665 / 670
页数:5
相关论文
共 64 条
  • [1] Archibald T(2016)Assumptions, conjectures, and other miracles: the application of evaluative thinking to theory of change models in community development Eval Program Plan 59 119-127
  • [2] Arnouts R(2012)Analysing governance modes and shifts—governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy Forest Policy Econ 16 43-50
  • [3] van der Zouwen M(2009)Power in transition: an interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change Eur J Soc Theory 12 543-569
  • [4] Arts B(2021)Transdisciplinary sustainability research in real-world labs: success factors and methods for change Sustain Sci 16 541-564
  • [5] Avelino F(2022)Scaling up nature-based solutions for climate-change adaptation: potential and benefits in three European cities Urban for Urban Green 105 9483-9488
  • [6] Rotmans J(2008)An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 65 171-181
  • [7] Bergmann M(2021)Choosing the right nature-based solutions to meet diverse urban challenges Urban for Urban Green 203 1-16
  • [8] Cortinovis C(2021)Diagnosing delivery capabilities on a large international nature-based solutions project NPJ Urban Sustain 10 88-102
  • [9] Cowling RM(2021)The European Union roadmap for implementing nature-based solutions: a review Environ Sci Policy 155 1257-1274
  • [10] Croeser T(2017)Managing urban stormwater for urban sustainability: barriers and policy solutions for green infrastructure application J Environ Manag 51 291-306