Sustainable regional development: Reconciling global and local dynamics and stakes in the Swiss Alps

This article explores how global and local dynamics and stakes can be brought together when trying to combine conservation and regional development. For this purpose we analyse a series of studies carried out in the area of the Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch World Heritage Site (WHS). The approaches used in these studies to analyse the diversity and development of the region included data collection and evaluation of indicators such as population development, number of working places, occupation rates in various economic sectors and commuter balance, as well as interviews with key informants and assessment of existing planning tools. The major challenge of the newly declared World Heritage Region is that it is neither a political or administrative nor a cultural unit but constitutes a completely new type of space that breaks up and crosses traditional boundaries. The studies revealed an economic tertiarisation process and migration of the population from remote areas to regional centres. Tourism was identified as the key economic sector in the region. Regarding regional sustainability, the studies identified a need for quality dialogue and negotiation of interests and stakes. It was shown that in dealing with sustainability at the local level, many key issues cannot be resolved on the ground, as they depend on regional or national decisions, e.g. the conditions for tourism promotion in the region or economic validation of agricultural activity. We conclude from these findings that national or even international factors do not provide a basis for location-specific solutions, as they are often too general, and that the global label does not ensure sustainability in a designated WHS region; this depends entirely on local and regional dynamics.

Promoting research-user collaboration: an assessment of funding schemes: Fifth NCCR North-South Report on Effectiveness

Donors increasingly require that the research they fund be of benefit for society and the environment. To this end, researchers addressing complex and uncertain problems should work together with research users. This is not always easy: researchers are expected to collaborate with non-academic partners, but are not funded for the additional work. Collaborative research projects often cannot tap the full potential of user engagement. Therefore, specific institutional and organisational conditions are necessary that foresee or even foster research–user engagement; funding schemes are one possible solution. Right from the start, the NCCR North-South programme introduced Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change (PAMS). This evaluation assesses the types of collaboration supported by PAMS, as well as the value of PAMS as a funding scheme for collaboration. It compares PAMS with similar funding schemes of other universities, research programmes, or projects, and contains recommendations.

Research partnerships: the benefits of North-South collaboration

Partnerships between Northern and Southern researchers are a powerful tool for studying problems of global change and for shaping development policies. North–South partnerships enable teams of researchers to focus on specific problems and to strengthen research capacities in developing countries. They also enable Southern researchers to contribute to their home countries as part of an international network. This issue of evidence for policy draws on recent publications from the NCCR North-South to illustrate how partnership benefits science and sustainable development.

Humane Orientation as a New Cultural Dimension of the GLOBE Project: A Validation Study of the GLOBE Scale and Out-Group Humane Orientation in 25 Countries

We validate, extend, and empirically and theoretically criticize the cultural dimension of humane orientation of the project GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program). Theoretically, humane orientation is not just a one-dimensionally positive concept about being caring, altruistic, and kind to others as discussed by Kabasakal and Bodur (2004), but there is also a certain ambivalence to this concept. We suggest differentiating humane orientation toward in-group members from humane orientation toward out-group members. A multicountry construct validation study used student samples from 25 countries that were either high or low in humane orientation (N = 876) and studied their relation to the traditional GLOBE scale and other cultural-level measures (agreeableness, religiosity, authoritarianism, and welfare state score). Findings revealed a strong correlation between humane orientation and agreeableness, welfare state score, and religiosity. Out-group humane orientation proved to be the more relevant subfacet of the original humane orientation construct, suggesting that future research on humane orientation should make use of this measure instead of the vague original scale. The ambivalent character of out-group humane orientation is displayed in its positive correlation to high authoritarianism. Patriotism was used as a control variable for noncritical acceptance of one’s society but did not change the correlations. Our findings are discussed as an example of how rigid expectations and a lack of tolerance for diversity may help explain the ambivalent nature of humane orientation

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Plant diversity drives soil microbial biomass carbon in grasslands irrespective of global environmental change factors

Soil microbial biomass is a key determinant of carbon dynamics in the soil. Several studies have shown that soil microbial biomass significantly increases with plant species diversity, but it remains unclear whether plant species diversity can also stabilize soil microbial biomass in a changing environment. This question is particularly relevant as many global environmental change (GEC) factors, such as drought and nutrient enrichment, have been shown to reduce soil microbial biomass. Experiments with orthogonal manipulations of plant diversity and GEC factors can provide insights whether plant diversity can attenuate such detrimental effects on soil microbial biomass. Here, we present the analysis of 12 different studies with 14 unique orthogonal plant diversity × GEC manipulations in grasslands, where plant diversity and at least one GEC factor (elevated CO2, nutrient enrichment, drought, earthworm presence, or warming) were manipulated. Our results show that higher plant diversity significantly enhances soil microbial biomass with the strongest effects in long-term field experiments. In contrast, GEC factors had inconsistent effects with only drought having a significant negative effect. Importantly, we report consistent non-significant effects for all 14 interactions between plant diversity and GEC factors, which indicates a limited potential of plant diversity to attenuate the effects of GEC factors on soil microbial biomass. We highlight that plant diversity is a major determinant of soil microbial biomass in experimental grasslands that can influence soil carbon dynamics irrespective of GEC.

Mitigating the syndromes of desertification: The requirements for transdisciplinary research and information exchange

In developing meaningful mitigation strategies to combat desertification, it is important to address the complex constellation of desertification under different bio-physical, social, demographic, political and economic conditions. In particular, desertification can be described as a cluster of key processes of global change which together form a typical syndrome. A critical reflection on the potential of research to help mitigate desertification will be a useful first step, before addressing the requirements for research partnerships between institutions at local levels and beyond. A practical example from Eritrea, an ecoregion which has been plagued by desertification for many centuries, is given at the end of the paper. It illustrates options for generating the necessary data and developing useful information in order to enhance the impact of research on sustainable development.

Diagnosing institutional barriers and opportunities for adaptation to climate change

Institutions are one of the decisive factors which enable, constrain and shape adaptation to the impacts of climate change, variability and extreme events. However, current understanding of institutions in adaptation situations is fragmented across the scientific community, evidence diverges, and cumulative learning beyond single studies is limited. This study adopts a diagnostic approach to elaborate a nuanced understanding of institutional barriers and opportunities in climate adaptation by means of a model-centred meta-analysis of 52 case studies of public climate adaptation in Europe. The first result is a novel taxonomy of institutional attributes in adaptation situations. It conceptually organises and decomposes the many details of institutions that empirical research has shown to shape climate adaptation. In the second step, the paper identifies archetypical patterns of institutional traps and trade-offs which hamper adaptation. Thirdly, corresponding opportunities are identified that enable actors to alleviate, prevent or overcome specific institutional traps or trade-offs. These results cast doubt on the validity of general institutional design principles for successful adaptation. In contrast to generic principles, the identified opportunities provide leverage to match institutions to specific governance problems that are encountered in specific contexts. Taken together, the results may contribute to more coherence and integration of adaptation research that we need if we are to foster learning about the role of institutions in adaptation situations in a cumulative fashion.

The benefits and pitfalls of language change – The case of gender-fair language use

Gender-fair language (GFL) is a symmetric linguistic treatment of women and men. To create GFL two principle strategies can be deployed. Neutralization means that gender-unmarked forms (police officer) are used to substitute the male-biased (policeman). Feminization, implies that feminine forms of nouns are used systematically to make female referents visible. The results of a comprehensive European research program provide evidence in support of a non-discrimination policy in language, yet identify the potential setbacks preventing linguistic reforms to be effective. In general, studies indicate positive effects of GFL. In an applied context, for example women feel more motivated to apply for the position if a job advertisement is formulated in a GFL. However, negative effects of reformed usage were also reported specifically when GFL is novel. For example, a woman referred to as a chairperson was evaluated lower in occupational status than a woman referred to as a chairman.

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base: Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis.