Constructing a conceptual understanding of transformative change in the biodiversity nexus
Biodiversity loss, climate change and social injustices. All these major challenges require us to move beyond attempting to fix individual problems and fundamentally shift how we interact with the natural world. So, we need transformative change. But what really is a transformative change and what does it have to do with the biodiversity nexus?
In the BIONEXT project, we aim to answer this question and deepen the understanding of transformative change in the biodiversity nexus and strategic options for change to emerge.
Method
To gain insight into how transformative change is understood and how it suits the context of the biodiversity nexus, we mapped the different understandings and approaches of transformative change. The mapping was done as a literature review focusing on scientific communities working on the nexus elements of water, food, energy, transport, biodiversity, climate and/or health. A critical assessment of 118 scientific papers focusing on transformative change allowed us to identify the different understandings and approaches’ potential and shortcomings when it comes to applying them to the biodiversity nexus. We were able to extract 6 main findings from the review.
Main findings
Transformative change as a concept is quickly gaining popularity. More and more scholars, as well as practitioners, underscore the need for transformative change, recognising that ‘business-as-usual' has not been able to tackle sustainability crises. Yet, the term's popularity has also led to different interpretations and conceptual ‘elasticity’: ranging from whole-of-society systemic changes to more incremental changes within a sector or actor. Such conceptual elasticity carries the risk of the word becoming a buzzword that can be easily co-opted by actors or activities that prefer to maintain the status quo.
The necessity of transformative changes to address persistent unsustainability is often clearly acknowledged. Less clear and consistent are ideas of what needs to change and how these changes can take place or can be triggered. While some actors present guiding principles for what constitutes transformative change (e.g., inclusivity, reflexivity), this lack of concreteness illustrates that the field is still in development and in need of attention to processes and strategies of transformation.
Biodiversity is rarely the focal point of attention when it comes to transformative change. Instead, the focus often goes to transformative change to address climate change or sustainability in a broad sense with biodiversity sometimes mentioned as a side issue. This lack of focus results in understandings of transformative change that fail to take the root causes of biodiversity loss into account and that are unable to present solutions specific to restoring biodiversity.
Considering the nexus we observed that many articles look at the interlinkages and structures in society, but rarely address the nexus explicitly. Bringing in the nexus approach could help to understand the dynamics in society across sectors and nexus elements.
Research that does include biodiversity as a main focus often approaches the biodiversity crisis as a systemic outcome of human impacts. In this, they often overlook the active role of biodiversity, nature and ecosystems in creating social-ecological systems. Research that does approach nature as an active agent was labelled as human-nature relations and it focused on how societies value nature and how interrelations can be approached more holistically.
Justice and just transformations are frequently mentioned as important, and emphasis is often placed on the importance of inclusivity. However, most research fails to provide more detailed insight into what it means to take justice seriously. For example, what this might mean for the direction of transformations, the change strategies employed, and the ways to deal with competing justice or unforeseen consequences.
Key recommendations
From these findings, we distil four key recommendations that can support research in creating a more robust understanding of transformative change in the biodiversity nexus, able to generate actionable impact.
Transformative change for the biodiversity nexus requires a multi-system approach. This would enhance nexus thinking to effectively address interlinkages between different nexus elements and their underlying societal systems.
Provide concrete descriptions of what transformative change entails. To avoid co-option or hollowing out of the concept of transformative change, it is important to be clear about how you interpret the term, what systems need to change, and – if possible – even how these changes are to take place.
Empower and amplify a plurality of voices and perspectives. While the importance of plurality of voices and knowledge is echoed through the literature, many also underscore vested interests and persistent power dynamics as a wicked obstacle to having these diverse knowledges come to the fore. To overcome this stalemate and enable plurality, a shift away from power as something absolute is needed. Instead, power should be understood as plural itself to enable the empowerment of currently marginalized voices.
Acknowledge the needs and rights of non-human natures. To enable transformative change in the biodiversity nexus and overcome the human-centred focus currently common to transformative change, research must consider nature and biodiversity as actors with rights and needs in the human-nature coupled systems. Research can attribute this nature to such an active role through relational approaches, such as including practices of care.
