Urban agriculture depends on insect pollination, but knowledge gaps persist due to difficulties accessing diverse growing spaces. We developed a citizen science approach for monitoring insect visits to crops and compared grower-collected data to that of a trained researcher while also gathering participant feedback. Although trends in crop attractiveness were similar, discrepancies highlighted limitations in the reliability of citizen-collected data alone. This work shows that grower involvement can enhance ecological monitoring and awareness, but methodological support and ongoing dialogue are essential to improve data quality and engagement, both key considerations for future urban food policy and practice.

Fifty years ago, innovation studies researchers were critical towards the pioneering ‘Limits to Growth’ analysis of world economy–environment relations. Whilst criticism took distinct forms, their arguments shared hope in the ability of technology to decouple economic growth from environmental collapse. This idea has remained prominent in policy ever since. In revisiting that debate, however, this article recalls how critics’ hope was conditional upon a radical restructuring of political and economic relations at the international level. This was a period when Third World solidarity was pushing the United Nations towards an equitable economic order for post-colonial justice—including a global redistribution of technological capabilities and self-reliance. These hopes crumbled in the face of the neoliberal counter-revolution, and today, green growth frames technology as a device for evading, not enabling, radical political and economic change. Given the alarming fact that Limits to Growth scenarios appear more prescient than ever, what lessons can post-growth approaches to technology draw from this history?

There is a significant knowledge gap regarding the pollination needs of urban farming, partly because accessing urban growing spaces requires permission from multiple different landowners and growers, which can be laborious. Involving growers in data collection offers a potential solution but presents other challenges in terms of data accuracy and participant retention. We developed a citizen science methodology for monitoring plant-pollinator interactions in urban food systems and evaluated the accuracy of data collected by growers by comparison to data collected by a professionally trained researcher. We also collected feedback from participants at the mid- and endpoints of the project regarding their experiences of taking part. While there was some agreement between the datasets in terms of the crops most (raspberries and squash) and least attractive (tomatoes) to insects, relying only on the dataset collected by growers themselves would lead to an overestimation of the generality of relationships between crops and pollinating insects in urban food production. Possible reasons for discrepancies between the datasets include species misidentification and non-reporting of surveys where no insects were observed by citizen scientists. Citizen scientists reported lack of time, concerns about data accuracy and too complex methods as barriers to participation. Implementation of their suggestions for improvements led to a 66% increase in participation in the following year, demonstrating the importance of maintaining a two-way dialogue between participants and project organisers. Citizen scientists reported an increased appreciation and understanding of insect pollinations following participation, highlighting additional benefits of involving urban growers in data collection.

In research and policy there is a dominant style of reasoning about the contribution agricultural biotechnologies can make to resolving major global challenges. In this reasoning, consumer scepticism is a major hindrance to deploying biotechnology and there is a significant focus on understanding consumer opinion in order to manipulate it. Analysing the historical role given to publics in public opinion research, and within technology research and policy, demonstrates that the framing of publics is largley shaped by economics. A review of academic publications on agricultural biotechnology and publics between 1995 and 2021 reveals some of the core tenets of this style of reasoning. The dominant framing of publics as individual consumers confines attention to concerns with end products on supermarket shelves. Theories and methods are focused on understanding individual perceptions, and fixed response questions reify the expert/public divide. This obscures broader public concerns with agricultural biotechnologies, such as issues of social justice or governance of uncertainty. A broader framing of different publics and their opinions of technology development and deployment would improve understanding of the issues that concern people as citizens, and enable more meaningful public engagement with agricultural biotechnologies.

Comparative studies of agricultural biotechnology regulation have highlighted differences in the roles that science and politics play in decision-making. Drawing on documentary and interview evidence in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, we consider how the "regulatory cultures" that guided national responses to earlier generations of agricultural biotechnology have developed, alongside the emergence of genome editing in food crops. We find that aspects of the "product-based" regulatory approach have largely been maintained in US biosafety frameworks and that the British and German approaches have at different stages combined "process-based" and "programmatic" elements that address the scientific and sociopolitical novelty of genome editing to varying degrees. We seek to explain these patterns of stability and change by exploring how changing opportunity structures in each jurisdiction have enabled or constrained public reasoning around emerging agricultural biotechnologies. By showing how opportunity structures and regulatory cultures interact over the long-term, we provide insights that help us to interpret current and evolving dynamics in the governance of genome editing and the longer-term development of agricultural biotechnology.

How is the promise of crop genome editing viewed by scientists working with or aspiring to work with the technology, by development experts seeking to mold public perceptions and policy attitudes toward genome editing, and by donors that provide funds for genome-editing research for agricultural applications in sub-Saharan Africa? In this article, we present data from interviews with these stakeholders to shed light on their aspirations, concerns, and expectations. Previous scholarship on genome editing in relation to African agriculture has focused on the technical capabilities of genome editing techniques and surveys of current research and development activities in this field. This article contextualizes and reflects critically on expectations that genome editing can or will deliver benefits for African scientists and farmers. The interviews reveal excitement around genome editing and anticipation for what it could achieve, but also a sober realism and frustration regarding the political-economic hurdles that constrain African scientists and research institutions and the generation of public goods for African farmers and societies. These insights, we show, challenge extant narratives related to genome editing and accessibility. As such, we center and interrogate the politics of knowledge surrounding the emergence of genome editing in Africa.

Gene editing technologies are emerging as powerful tools for agricultural development, spurring both hopes and concerns in society. To understand emerging discourses and coalitions around the role of CRISPR gene editing in food and agriculture we map the main actors and themes emerging from English-speaking Twitter networks over the course of one year (2021). Scientific actors are the most active and best networked in the debate. They promote a positive image of CRISPR gene editing and actively work to strengthen their network. A smaller but equally distinct group comprises civil society actors, who voice skepticism towards the technology and sometimes questions scientists’ claims, but without eliciting responses from the scientists. We conclude that emerging discourse coalitions forming around the topic of CRISPR in food and agriculture on Twitter are siloed, with limited interaction between contrasting perspectives.

Recognising the limited consideration of administrative aspects in sustainability transitions research, this article investigates the governing entities behind China's policy mix for electric vehicles (EVs), and their interactions from 2001 to 2020. Based on a social network analysis of policy documents we find that as the e-mobility transition unfolds, a complex and evolving network of governing entities has appeared in designing China's EV policy mix. Specifically, a small group of highly interactive governing entities has played a critical role in coordinating and mobilising system resources, while some new entrants have also come to the fore in response to recent socio-technical changes. Moreover, our community detection analysis distinguishes various groups of governing entities, each performing different policy functions. Based on our empirical case, we discuss factors that influence changes to administrative arrangements for policy mixes. We conclude that the deliberate acceleration of sustainability transitions calls for further research on the administration of the associated policy mixes.

ABSTRACTGenome editing — a plant‐breeding technology that facilitates the manipulation of genetic traits within living organisms — has captured the imagination of scholars and professionals working on agricultural development in Africa. Echoing the arrival of genetically modified (GM) crops decades ago, genome editing is being heralded as a technology with the potential to revolutionize breeding based on enhanced precision, reduced cost and increased speed. This article makes two interventions. First, it identifies the discursive continuity linking genome editing and the earlier technology of genetic modification. Second, it offers a suite of recommendations regarding how lessons learned from GM crops might be integrated into future breeding programmes focused on genome editing. Ultimately, the authors argue that donors, policy makers and scientists should move beyond the genome towards systems‐level thinking by prioritizing the co‐development of technologies with farmers; using plant material that is unencumbered by intellectual property restrictions and therefore accessible to resource‐poor farmers; and acknowledging that seeds are components of complex and dynamic agroecological production systems. If these lessons are not heeded, genome‐editing projects are in danger of repeating mistakes of the past.

Growing concerns about the impacts of food systems have led to fierce debate over the pros and cons of different modes of production. In parallel, conservationists have debated "land-sparing" versus "land-sharing" as competing rationales for a land use policy that aims to halt biodiversity loss. As a contribution to these debates, we share research conducted in the South-East of England where contrasting practices for managing land and livestock coexist in close proximity and approximate a land-sparing versus-sharing gradient. The research used an Ecosystem Services (ES) framework to explore the social, ecological and health outcomes of these practices, as understood from different perspectives. In this paper we analyse and interpret both qualitative and quantitative data generated through a participatory deliberative appraisal exercise that formed part of the research. Despite demonstrating the relevance of ES for appraising land use and management practices, we uncover a lack of sensitivity of conventional ES frameworks to the specific concerns, priorities and ambiguities of agroecological practices; an inability to encompass multiple scales and localities; limitations to incorporating site-specific considerations; and a polarising effect on the perspectives of conservationists and farmers. We conclude by offering an approach that may help to bridge between divergent perspectives and engage both on their own terms.

This chapter provides a chronological and thematic account of the work carried out in the UK, reflecting on the lessons these experiences bring to sustainability transformations and some of the concepts covered in the earlier chapters. It describes the identification and framing of the sustainability challenge (a sustainable agri-food system in Brighton and Hove), the theoretical approach adopted and the way various methods (e.g. participatory continuum methods such as Evaluation H) were applied. The chapter outlines key moments in the transformation laboratory (T-Lab) process and the lessons that were learnt as a result. Learning from innovative examples from elsewhere in the UK and the importance of strategic alliances are highlighted. The role of the researchers and other stakeholders in reframing the role of the Brighton and Hove Downland Estate (which became the focus of the work) is discussed in depth, and the implications for new pathways are explored.

One possible response to the growing problem of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in pathogenic infections is the development of new types of antibiotics. However, the pharmaceutical companies that have traditionally led such innovation face a lack of incentives at the present time due to high levels of market uncertainty and low expected returns. Mission oriented innovation with coordinated investment and market-shaping policies may offer an approach to accelerating antibiotic innovation. This paper aims to evaluate whether preCovid-19 Chinese policies concerning AMR can be seen as constituting a mission-oriented approach and whether these policies have influenced antibiotics innovation in China. It adopts a mixed method approach to deliver several insights. By using historical event analysis based on data collected from interviews, public and commercial databases as well as policy documents, the paper finds that China’s recent actions concerning AMR since 2008 comprise many elements of mission-oriented innovation policy. The National Action Plan to Contain AMR has provided a clear mission since 2016 to tackle the problem of AMR and provides the opportunity to coordinate and integrate these policies into a more coherent and evolving mission-oriented innovation approach. Analysis of relevant research grants and publications suggest that these policies (including the 2016 National Action Plan) have drawn the scientific community towards antibiotics research and provided more support to this area. Case studies following the development of new antibiotics are used to illustrate how the established elements of mission oriented innovation policy have or have not contributed to antibiotics innovation in China. Further research is required to more comprehensively analyse R&D investments, and to understand the effects of recent policies, especially after 2016.

Transformations to sustainability are increasingly the focus of research and policy discussions around the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the different roles played by transdisciplinary research in contributing to social transformations across diverse settings have been neglected in the literature. Transformative Pathways to Sustainability responds to this gap by presenting a set of coherent, theoretically informed and methodologically innovative experiments from around the world that offer important insights for this growing field. The book draws on content and cases from across the ‘Pathways’ Transformative Knowledge Network, an international group of six regional hubs working on sustainability challenges in their own local or national contexts. Each of these hubs reports on their experiences of ‘transformation laboratory’ processes in the following areas: sustainable agricultural and food systems for healthy livelihoods, with a focus on sustainable agri-food systems in the UK and open-source seeds in Argentina; low carbon energy and industrial transformations, focussing on mobile-enabled solar home systems in Kenya and social aspects of the green transformation in China; and water and waste for sustainable cities, looking at Xochimilco wetland in Mexico and Gurgaon in India. The book combines new empirical data from these processes with a novel analysis that represents both theoretical and methodological contributions. It is especially international in its scope, drawing inputs from North and South, mirroring the universality of the Sustainable Development Goals. The book is of vital interest to academics, action researchers and funders, policy makers and civil-society organisations working on transformations to sustainability.

This concluding chapter summarises the key findings of the ‘Pathways’ transformative knowledge network (TKN), its contributions to the ‘sustainability transformations’ literature and the lessons and implications for internationally networked, transdisciplinary research projects in the future. It revisits the theoretical anchors and methodological anchors introduced in Chapters 2–4, and draws on insights from the TKN from individual hubs in each of these areas, pointing to experiences both during the project and after its formal conclusion. It discusses the approaches used to foster cross-learning and evaluation in the project, and describes the single-, double- and triple-loop learning that this enabled. The chapter provides a deeper understanding of ‘transformative pathways to sustainability’ and the role that science and research can play in fostering them, not only through formal research outputs but also the tacit and experiential knowledge and the relationships that they can foster. The chapter closes by offering lessons and recommendations for researchers, funders, policy-makers, managers and practitioners with an interest in enhancing the contribution of social science and transdisciplinary research to the transformative agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals.

'Framing' is a key concept in the pathways approach which was developed and applied in the design and implementation of the project. This chapter draws on various hub case studies and explains how each of them contributes to our understanding of reframing as an element of transformations to sustainability. Referring specifically to the Argentina, Mexico and UK case studies, the chapter discusses how each of the T-lab processes helped to reframe understandings of the systems under investigation and their associated problems, reframe the values and meanings associated with those systems and reframe the solutions to the sustainability challenges that had been identified. The chapter discusses the interactions between reframing, alliance building and innovation and concludes by considering how cognitive lock-ins that resist transformative change can themselves be addressed by reframing processes.

As SDG7-related interventions seek to transform access to clean energy, this paper presents an analysis of both a previous transformative intervention (Lighting Africa) and a theoretical approach to understanding how such transformations can be achieved in the Global South (socio-technical innovation system, STIS, building). The paper makes four contributions. First, it tests the extent to which the STIS-building concept is useful in understanding and conceptualising how Lighting Africa transformed the market for solar lanterns in Kenya from an estimated market size of 29,000 lamps in 2009 to one where 680,000 Lighting Africa certified lamps were sold in Kenya by the end of the Programme in 2013. Second, it presents the most in-depth analysis of Lighting Africa that we are aware of to date. Third, it presents a conceptual framework that illustrates the Lighting Africa approach, providing a framework for future policy interventions aiming to transform access to clean energy technologies in the Global South. Fourth, it reflects on weaknesses in the STIS approach. In particular, these include a need to better attend to: the gendered implications of interventions (and social justice more broadly); implications of different scales of technologies; value accumulation and the extent to which interventions benefit indigenous actors and local economies; and the political and economic implications of any intervention and its distribution of benefits.

This chapter describes a reflexive approach to action research, recognising that individual/team contexts, structures and circumstances shape the way that transdisciplinary research is carried out. It builds upon earlier work and the previous two chapters to provide a detailed theoretical background to the concepts that are central to the book – the notion of transformations to sustainability (including structural, systemic and enabling approaches), transdisciplinary research, action research and coproduction; and concepts that are central to the STEPS Centre’s ‘pathways’ approach, including systems, framings and pathways. It draws on some of the documentation developed through the course of the project to explore the different relationships between the objectives, theories of transformation and action research approaches adopted by each of the hubs.

This chapter describes the 'Pathways' transformative knowledge network (from which the authors are drawn), one of three funded under the International Social Science Council's (now the International Council for Science) 'Transformations to Sustainability' programme. It discusses the origin of the network and the various stages in the design and implementation of the project by the different hubs in the UK, Argentina, Kenya, China, Mexico and India. It introduces the motivations for the action research (such as learning about transformative research across contexts) including the efforts that were made to foster cross-learning, including single-loop, double-loop and triple-loop learning. The chapter also introduces the theoretical anchors adopted by the project (systems, framings, pathways) and the idea of transformation laboratories (T-Labs), which are discussed again in more detail in Chapter 4.

Abstract In this exploratory study, we employ an interdisciplinary approach to explore potential synergies and trade‐offs between the needs of people and nature in the context of agroecological farming and nature conservation. Ecological field studies and management surveys from six sites were combined with a participatory‐deliberative appraisal exercise using the Multi‐Criteria Mapping (MCM) method. All six study sites and all four land use options in the appraisal were characterised by the use of large herbivores for agricultural and/or conservation purposes, to varying degrees, and were located in South‐East England. MCM participants identified habitat and species diversity, soil health, food production, provision of education and recreational access, as the principal benefits associated with successful management of such sites. Taken overall, their appraisals indicated that a combination of land uses may be best suited to delivering these diverse benefits, but with agroecological (While organic and biodynamic agriculture are subject to legal definition, agroecology offers a more flexible approach and can be viewed as ‘a development pathway from input‐intensive industrial systems through to highly sustainable, ecological systems’—see Laughton, R. (2017) ‘A Matter of Scale’, Land Workers Alliance and Centre for Agroecology, Coventry University) farming being perceived as a particularly effective multi‐purpose option. Five of the six sites were used for recreational purposes, and in total we recorded five times more humans than wild mammals. Ecological data from the sites indicated that the most conservation‐oriented sites performed best in terms of species richness and activity (birds, mammals, bats and invertebrates) and number of species of conservation concern. However, beta diversity metrics indicated important variation in the species assemblages recorded within and between sites. Whereas both agroecological farms in our study produced the greatest weight of saleable meat per unit area, the site that produced the most meat also demonstrated consistently strong performance across many biodiversity metrics. Overall, expert perspectives and the performance of our study sites suggests that combinations of diverse approaches to the management of large herbivores, within a ‘wildlife‐friendly’ envelope, are consistent with providing for the diverse needs of people and nature within shared landscapes. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.