Advertisement

Innovation as Transformation: Integrating the Socio-ecological Perspectives of Resilience and Sustainability

  • Karl Bruckmeier
  • Iva PiresEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Innovation is a context-dependent and institutionally steered process. The problems that require innovations are today often complex environmental problems. Socially seen, environmental problems are solved through the development of resilient and sustainable social and economic systems. We integrate the controversially discussed ideas of resilience and sustainability in the broader framework of coupled social-ecological systems for the analysis of special forms of agriculture in urban areas. Technical innovations need to be matched with political, economic or civil society action of many actors, institutions or social groups. The social processes of development and change show that innovations require change or transformation of social behaviour of certain social groups and actors with different interests and aims. We analyse the social components of innovation processes, based on case studies of peri-urban agriculture and urban gardening, to show behaviour changes and social transformation processes required for the solution of environmental problems.

Keywords

Innovation Environmental problems Resilience Sustainability Peri-urban agriculture Urban gardening 

References

  1. Adger, N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage, D., & Plummer, R. (Eds.). (2010). Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Asara, V., Otero, I., Demaria, F., & Corbera, E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a social-ecological transformation: Repoliticizing sustainability. Sustainability Science.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine Andere Moderne. Frankfurt a M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  5. Bernardo, J. M. (2013). Campo na Cidade: As Hortas e os Hortelões de Lisboa, In Paisagem e Património - Aproximações Multidisciplinares. Equações de Arquitectura, Dafne Editora.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdin, D., Gertz, A., Réviron, S., & Siegenthaler, M. (2015). Sub-urban food production in a Swiss agglomeration. Case Study Report, Rethink-project, AGRIDEA – Swiss Association for the Development of Agriculture and Rural Areas, Lausanne/Lindau.Google Scholar
  7. Bruckmeier, K. (2013). Natural resource use and global change: New perspectives in social Ecolog. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruckmeier, K. (2016). Social-ecological transformation: Reconnecting society and nature. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruckmeier, K., & Olsson, G. (2014). An attempt to clarify the resilience concept for renewed strategies of farm modernization. In A. T. Aenis et al. (Eds.), 11th European IFSA Symposium, Farming Systems Facing Global Challenges: Capacities and Strategies, Berlin, Germany, 2–4 April 2014, Proceedings.Google Scholar
  10. Bryant, C., Carvajal Sánchez, N., Delusca, K., Daouda, O., & Sarr, A. (2013). Metropolitan vulnerability and strategic roles for Periurban agricultural territories in the context of climate change and variability. Cuadernos de Geografia, Revista Colombiana de Geografia, 22(2), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabannes, Y., & Raposo, I. (2013). Peri-urban agriculture, social inclusion of migrant population, and right to the City. City, 17(2), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cabell, J. F., & Oelofse, M. (2012). An Indicator system for assessing Agroecosystem resilience. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cabral, M. I. (2014). Urban Gardening in Leipzig and Lisbon. Scientific Report COST ACTION TU1201. Retrieved from http://www.urbanallotments.eu/fileadmin/uag/media/STSM/STSM_report_Cabral_Leipzig_Lisbon_dec_2014.pdf
  14. Calori, A., & Magarini, A. (2015). Food and the cities: Food policy for sustainable cities. Milano: Edizioni Ambiente.Google Scholar
  15. Chapin, F. S., III, Kofinas, G. P., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2009). Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource Management in a Changing World. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. CML. (2016). Parques Hortícolas Municipais. Retrieved February 2016, from http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/viver/ambiente/parques-horticolas-municipais.
  17. Collier, D., Hidalgo, F. D., & Maciuceanu, A. O. (2006). Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(13), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cornell, S. (2012). ‘O’ the system properties of the planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 2.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04731-1701r02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2001). Umweltsoziologie. Eine Einführung. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological transitions and global change. Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Conceptualizing, observing, and influencing social-ecological transitions. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 3. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss2/art3/
  23. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analysis. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Füssel, H. M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Weisz, H., & Winiwarter, V. (2004). Progress towards sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Policy, 21, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haberl, H., Erb, K. H., & Krausmann, F. (2013). Global human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP). The Encyclopedia of Earth. Retrieved from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153031.
  29. Hall, C. A. S., Lambert, J. G., & Balogh, S. B. (2014). EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energy Policy, 64, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holz, G., Brugnach, M., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2005). Specifying “regime”: A framework for defining and describing regimes in transition research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(5), 623–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King, C. A. (2008). Community resilience and contemporary Agri-ecological systems: Reconnecting people and food, and people with people. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 25, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston: Hart.Google Scholar
  33. Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Schandl, H., & Eisenmenger, N. (2009). The global socio-metabolic transition: Past and present metabolic profiles and their future trajectories. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(5–6), 637–656.Google Scholar
  34. Leach, M. J., Rockström, P., Raskin, I., Scoones, A. C., Stirling, A., Smith, J., et al. (2012). Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 11.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04933-170211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lloyd, M. G., Peel, D., & Duck, R. W. (2013). Towards a social-ecological resilience framework for coastal planning. Land Use Policy, 30, 925–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luhmann, N. (1991). Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Lundgren, L., & Jonsson, A. (2012). Assessment of social vulnerability: A literature review of vulnerability related to climate change and natural hazards (CSPR briefing 9). Linköping: Linköping University Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research.Google Scholar
  38. Luz, A., & Pires, I. (2014). Regularização das Hortas Urbanas na Cidade de Lisboa - as Hortas Sociais do Vale de Chelas. In I. C. da Silva, M. Pignatelli & S. de M. Viegas (coord.), Livro de Atas do 1° Congresso da Associação Internacional de Ciências Sociais e Humanas em Língua Portuguesa, 6935–6952. ISBN: 978–989–99357-0-9.Google Scholar
  39. Markard, J., Raven, B., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41, 955–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matos, R., & Batista, D. (2013). Urban agriculture: The allotment gardens. In Advances in landscape architecture. Rijeka: INTECH open science/open minds.Google Scholar
  41. Mol, A. P. J., Sonnenfeld, D. A., & Spaargaren, G. (Eds.). (2009). The ecological modernisation reader: Environment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/
  43. Olsson, G. A., Bruckmeier, K., & Wästfelt, A. (2015). Peri-urban agricultural transformations in Gothenburg, Sweden. Case study report, RETHINK-project. Gothenburg, Sweden: Gothenburg University, School of Global Studies.Google Scholar
  44. Paavola, J., & Hubacek, K. (2013). Ecosystem services, governance, and stakeholder participation: An introduction. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raskin, P. D., Electris, C., & Rosen, R. A. (2010). The century ahead: Searching for sustainability. Sustainability, 3(8), 2626–2651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2004). systemic risks: A new challenge for risk management. EMBO Reports, 5(suppl. 1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Renting, H., Rossing, W. A. H., Groot, J. C. J., Van der Ploeg, J. D., Laurent, C., Perraud, D., et al. (2009). Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. British Columbia: Gabriola Press New Society Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Zasada, I. (2012). Peri-urban Agriculture and Multifunctionality: Urban Influence, Farm Adaptation Behaviour and Development Perspective. Dissertation, Technical University Munich.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyNational Research University – Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation
  2. 2.Faculty of Social Sciences and HumanitiesNew University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations