PurposeThere are many pragmatic challenges and complex interactions in the reduction of systemic disaster risk. No single agency has the mandate, authority, legitimacy or resources to fully address the deeper socio-economic, cultural, regulatory or political forces that often drive the creation and transfer of risk. National leadership and co-ordination are key enablers. This paper shares Australia's progress in building an enabling environment for systemic disaster risk reduction, and specifically how a change in thinking and resolve to work differently is beginning to shape nation-wide reforms and national programs of work.Design/methodology/approachThe project and program of work adopted an inclusive, collaborative, co-design and co-production approach, working with diverse groups to create new knowledge, build trust, ongoing learning and collective ownership and action. Values- and systems-based approaches, and ethical leadership were core aspects of the approach.FindingsCo-creating a more comprehensive and shared understanding of systemic disaster risk, particularly the values at risk and tensions and trade-offs associated with the choices about how people prevent or respond, has contributed to a growing shift in the way disasters are conceptualised. New narratives about disasters as "unnatural" and the need for shared responsibilities are shaping dialogue spaces and policy frameworks. The authors' experience and ongoing learning acknowledge pragmatic challenges while also providing evidence-based ideas and guidance for more systems and transformative styles and competencies of leadership that are needed for convening in contested and complex environments.Practical implicationsThis work built networks, competencies and generated ongoing momentum and learning. The lessons, evidence and reports from the work continue to be accessed and influential in research, emergency management and disaster mitigation practices (e.g. engagement, communications, training) and policy. Most significantly, the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework provides the basis, justification and guidance for the nation's policy reform agenda around disaster risk reduction and is catalysing national efforts in developing a national action plan and systemic measurement, evaluation and learning to ensure the realisation of disaster risk reduction priorities.Originality/valueA practical example is offered of a nation actively learning to navigate the governance challenges and implement strategies to address the reduction of complex, systemic risks.
In: Stafford-Smith , M , Griggs , D , Gaffney , O , Ullah , F , Reyers , B , Kanie , N , Stigson , B , Shrivastava , P , Leach , M & O'Connell , D 2017 , ' Integration : The key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals ' , Sustainability Science , vol. 12 , no. 6 , pp. 911-919 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3
On 25 September, 2015, world leaders met at the United Nations in New York, where they adopted the Sustainable Development Goals. These 17 goals and 169 targets set out an agenda for sustainable development for all nations that embraces economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection. Now, the agenda moves from agreeing the goals to implementing and ultimately achieving them. Across the goals, 42 targets focus on means of implementation, and the final goal, Goal 17, is entirely devoted to means of implementation. However, these implementation targets are largely silent about interlinkages and interdependencies among goals. This leaves open the possibility of perverse outcomes and unrealised synergies. We demonstrate that there must be greater attention on interlinkages in three areas: across sectors (e.g., finance, agriculture, energy, and transport), across societal actors (local authorities, government agencies, private sector, and civil society), and between and among low, medium and high income countries. Drawing on a global sustainability science and practice perspective, we provide seven recommendations to improve these interlinkages at both global and national levels, in relation to the UN's categories of means of implementation: finance, technology, capacity building, trade, policy coherence, partnerships, and, finally, data, monitoring and accountability.
Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into 'knowing-that' and 'knowing-how.' We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining 'when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,' we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering 'where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,' we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring 'what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,' we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innova-tions, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent. ; Peer reviewed
In: Fazey , I , Schäpke , N , Caniglia , G , Hodgson , A , Kendrick , I , Lyon , C , Page , G , Patterson , J , Riedy , C , Strasser , T , Verveen , S , Adams , D , Goldstein , B , Klaes , M , Leicester , G , Linyard , A , McCurdy , A , Ryan , P , Sharpe , B , Silvestri , G , Abdurrahim , A Y , Abson , D , Adetunji , O S , Aldunce , P , Alvarez-Pereira , C , Amparo , J M , Amundsen , H , Anderson , L , Andersson , L , Asquith , M , Augenstein , K , Barrie , J , Bent , D , Bentz , J , Bergsten , A , Berzonsky , C , Bina , O , Blackstock , K , Boehnert , J , Bradbury , H , Brand , C , Böhme (born Sangmeister) , J , Bøjer , M M , Carmen , E , Charli-Joseph , L , Choudhury , S , Chunhachoti-ananta , S , Cockburn , J , Colvin , J , Connon , I L C , Cornforth , R , Cox , R S , Cradock-Henry , N , Cramer , L , Cremaschi , A , Dannevig , H , Day , C T , de Lima Hutchison , C , de Vrieze , A , Desai , V , Dolley , J , Duckett , D , Durrant , R A , Egermann , M , Elsner (Adams) , E , Fremantle , C , Fullwood-Thomas , J , Galafassi , D , Gobby , J , Golland , A , González-Padrón , S K , Gram-Hanssen , I , Grandin , J , Grenni , S , Lauren Gunnell , J , Gusmao , F , Hamann , M , Harding , B , Harper , G , Hesselgren , M , Hestad , D , Heykoop , C A , Holmén , J , Holstead , K , Hoolohan , C , Horcea-Milcu , A I , Horlings , L G , Howden , S M , Howell , R A , Huque , S I , Inturias Canedo , M L , Iro , C Y , Ives , C D , John , B , Joshi , R , Juarez-Bourke , S , Juma , D W , Karlsen , B C , Kliem , L , Kläy , A , Kuenkel , P , Kunze , I , Lam , D P M , Lang , D J , Larkin , A , Light , A , Luederitz , C , Luthe , T , Maguire , C , Mahecha-Groot , A M , Malcolm , J , Marshall , F , Maru , Y , McLachlan , C , Mmbando , P , Mohapatra , S , Moore , M L , Moriggi , A , Morley-Fletcher , M , Moser , S , Mueller , K M , Mukute , M , Mühlemeier , S , Naess , L O , Nieto-Romero , M , Novo , P , ÓBrien , K , O'Connell , D A , O'Donnell , K , Olsson , P , Pearson , K R , Pereira , L , Petridis , P , Peukert , D , Phear , N , Pisters , S R , Polsky , M , Pound , D , Preiser , R , Rahman , M S , Reed , M S , Revell , P , Rodriguez , I , Rogers , B C , Rohr , J , Nordbø Rosenberg , M , Ross , H , Russell , S , Ryan , M , Saha , P , Schleicher , K , Schneider , F , Scoville-Simonds , M , Searle , B , Sebhatu , S P , Sesana , E , Silverman , H , Singh , C , Sterling , E , Stewart , S J , Tàbara , J D , Taylor , D , Thornton , P , Tribaldos , T M , Tschakert , P , Uribe-Calvo , N , Waddell , S , Waddock , S , van der Merwe , L , van Mierlo , B , van Zwanenberg , P , Velarde , S J , Washbourne , C L , Waylen , K , Weiser , A , Wight , I , Williams , S , Woods , M , Wolstenholme , R , Wright , N , Wunder , S , Wyllie , A & Young , H R 2020 , ' Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth : Visions of future systems and how to get there ' , Energy Research and Social Science , vol. 70 , 101724 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.