We reviewed published research on natural hazards and community disaster resilience to identify how relationships between people and their experiences of disaster interact to shape possibilities for positive transformative change. Research commonly analyzes processes within and across individual and collective or structural spheres of a social system, but rarely investigates interactions across all three. We present a framework focused on ‘spheres of influence’ to address this. The Framework shows how positive relationships that prioritize restoring shared, meaningful and purposeful identities can lead to expansive and incremental capacity for transformative outcomes for sustainability: a process we liken to the butterfly effect.

Sustainability and disaster resilience frameworks commonly neglect the role of agentive social processes in influencing wider structural transformation for sustainability. We applied relational agency and social practice theory to conceptualize transformative pathways for enhanced sustainability through a review of peer-reviewed literature relating to natural hazards and community disaster resilience. We sought to answer two questions: 1. What are the social practices that influence transformative change for disaster resilience in the context of individual, collective and structural spheres of influence? 2. What are the social influencing processes involved, identified through relational agency? We found that empirical studies tend to focus on individual and collective or structural spheres but rarely offer a relational analysis across all three. Our findings highlight that positive relationships that prioritize restoring shared, meaningful and purposeful identities can act as a resource, which can lead to expansive and incremental transformative outcomes for sustainability: a process we liken to the butterfly effect. We present a Sphere of Influence Framework that highlights socialized practices influenced by relationality, which can be applied as a strategic planning tool to increase capacity for resilience. Future research should explore how socio-political practices (the structural sphere) influence distributed power within collective and individual spheres.

Disasters can generate extraordinary social dynamics. So, how can we optimize these dynamics for enhanced sustainability?

To address increasingly pressing social–environmental challenges, the transformative strand of sustainability science seeks to move beyond a descriptive-analytical stance in order to explore and contribute to the implementation of radical alternatives to dominant and unsustainable paradigms, norms, and values. However, in many cases, academia is not currently structured to support and reward inter-/trans-disciplinary and transformative endeavors. This paper introduces a theory of change for the Future Earth Pathways Initiative, and similar initiatives, to help leverage the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in transformative research.

The increasing body of descriptive-analytical knowledge produced by sustainability science over the last two decades has largely failed to trigger the transformation of policies, norms, and behaviors it was aiming to inform. The emergent transformative strand of sustainability science is a proactive alternative approach seeking to play an active role in processes of societal change by developing knowledge about options, solutions, and pathways, and by participating in their implementation. In principle, scientists can enhance their contribution to more sustainable futures by engaging in transformative research. However, a lack of skills and competencies, relatively unmatured transformative methods and concepts, and an institutional landscape still geared toward disciplinary and descriptive-analytical research, still hinders the sustainability science community from engaging more widely in transformative research. In this paper, the Future Earth Pathways Initiative introduces a theory of change (ToC) for increasing the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in this type of research. This ToC ultimately aims to build a growing community of practitioners engaged in transformative research, to advance concepts, methods, and paradigms to foster ‘fit-for-purpose transformative research’, and to shape institutions to nurture transformative research-friendly contexts.

What would a theory of change for leveraging the transformative capacity of sustainability science look like?

Many conservation initiatives call for ‘transformative change’ to counter biodiversity loss, climate change, and injustice. The term connotes fundamental, broad, and durable changes to human relationships with nature. However, if oversimplified or overcomplicated, or not focused enough on power and the political action necessary for change, associated initiatives can perpetuate or exacerbate existing crises. This article aims to help practitioners deliberately catalyze and steer transformation processes. It provides a theoretically and practically grounded definition of ‘transformative conservation’, along with six strategic, interlocking recommendations. These cover systems pedagogy, political mobilization, inner transformation, as well as planning, action, and continual adjustment.

Calls for ‘transformative change’ point to the fundamental reorganization necessary for global conservation initiatives to stem ecological catastrophe. However, the concept risks being oversimplified or overcomplicated, and focusing too little on power and the political action necessary for change. Accordingly, its intersection with contemporary biodiversity and climate change mitigation initiatives needs explicit deliberation and clarification. This article advances the praxis of ‘transformative conservation’ as both (1) a desired process that rethinks the relationships between individuals, society, and nature, and restructures systems accordingly, and (2) a desired outcome that conserves biodiversity while justly transitioning to net zero emission economies and securing the sustainable and regenerative use of natural resources. It first reviews criticisms of area-based conservation targets, natural climate solutions, and nature-based solutions that are framed as transformative, including issues of ecological integrity, livelihoods, gender, equity, growth, power, participation, knowledge, and governance. It then substantiates six strategic recommendations designed to help practitioners deliberately steer transformation processes. These include taking a systems approach; partnering with political movements to achieve equitable and just transformation; linking societal with personal (‘inner’) transformation; updating how we plan; facilitating shifts from diagnosis and planning to action; and improving our ability to adjust to transformation as it occurs.

Curious about stemming the global biodiversity and climate crises? Browse this article on transformative conservation!