Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there Ioan Fazey a,⁎ , Niko Schäpke b , Guido Caniglia c , Anthony Hodgson d , Ian Kendrick d , Christopher Lyon e , Glenn Page f , James Patterson g , Chris Riedy h , Tim Strasser i , Stephan Verveen j , David Adams k , Bruce Goldstein l , Matthias Klaes m , Graham Leicester n , Alison Linyard o , Adrienne McCurdy p , Paul Ryan q , Bill Sharpe r , Giorgia Silvestri s , Ali Yansyah Abdurrahim t , David Abson u , Olufemi Samson Adetunji v , Paulina Aldunce w , Carlos Alvarez-Pereira x , Jennifer Marie Amparo y , Helene Amundsen z , Lakin Anderson aa , Lotta Andersson ab , Michael Asquith ac , Karoline Augenstein ad , Jack Barrie ae , David Bent af , Julia Bentz ag , Arvid Bergsten ah , Carol Berzonsky ai , Olivia Bina aj , Kirsty Blackstock ak , Joanna Boehnert al , Hilary Bradbury am , Christine Brand an , Jessica Böhme (born Sangmeister) ao , Marianne Mille Bøjer ap , Esther Carmen aq , Lakshmi Charli-Joseph ar , Sarah Choudhury as , Supot Chunhachoti-ananta at , Jessica Cockburn au , John Colvin av , Irena L.C. Connon aw , Rosalind Cornforth ax , Robin S. Cox ay , Nicholas Cradock-Henry az , Laura Cramer ba , Almendra Cremaschi bb , Halvor Dannevig bc , Catherine T. Day bd , Cathel de Lima Hutchison be , Anke de Vrieze bf , Vikas Desai bg , Jonathan Dolley bh , Dominic Duckett bi , Rachael Amy Durrant bj , Markus Egermann bk , Emily Elsner (Adams) bl , Chris Fremantle bm , Jessica Fullwood-Thomas bn , Diego Galafassi bo , Jen Gobby bp , Ami Golland bq , Shiara Kirana González-Padrón br , Irmelin Gram-Hanssen bs , Jakob Grandin bt , Sara Grenni bu , Jade Lauren Gunnell bv , Felipe Gusmao bw , Maike Hamann bx,1 , Brian Harding by , Gavin Harper bz , Mia Hesselgren ca , Dina Hestad cb , Cheryl Anne Heykoop cc , Johan Holmén cd , Kirsty Holstead ce , Claire Hoolohan cf , Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu cg , Lummina Geertruida Horlings ch , Stuart Mark Howden ci , Rachel Angharad Howell cj , Sarah Insia Huque ck , Mirna Liz Inturias Canedo cl , Chidinma Yvonne Iro cm , Christopher D. Ives cn , Beatrice John co , Rajiv Joshi cp , Sadhbh Juarez-Bourke cq , Dauglas Wafula Juma cr , Bea Cecilie Karlsen cs , Lea Kliem ct , Andreas Kläy cu , Petra Kuenkel cv , Iris Kunze cw , David Patrick Michael Lam cx , Daniel J. Lang cy , Alice Larkin cz , Ann Light da , Christopher Luederitz db , Tobias Luthe dc , Cathy Maguire dd , Ana-Maria Mahecha-Groot de , Jackie Malcolm df , Fiona Marshall dg , Yiheyis Maru dh , Carly McLachlan dj , Peter Mmbando dk , Subhakanta Mohapatra dl , Michele-Lee Moore dm , Angela Moriggi dn , Mark Morley-Fletcher do , Susanne Moser dp , Konstanze Marion Mueller dq , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (I. Fazey), [email protected] (N. Schäpke), [email protected] (G. Caniglia), [email protected] (A. Hodgson), [email protected] (I. Kendrick), [email protected] (C. Lyon), [email protected] (G. Page), [email protected] (J. Patterson), [email protected] (C. Riedy), [email protected] (T. Strasser), [email protected] (S. Verveen), [email protected] (D. Adams), [email protected] (B. Goldstein), [email protected] (M. Klaes), [email protected] (G. Leicester), [email protected] (A. Linyard), [email protected] (A. McCurdy), [email protected] (P. Ryan), [email protected] (B. Sharpe), [email protected] (G. Silvestri), [email protected] (A.Y. Abdurrahim), [email protected] (D. Abson), [email protected] (O.S. Adetunji), [email protected] (P. Aldunce), [email protected] (C. Alvarez-Pereira), [email protected] (J.M. Amparo), [email protected] (H. Amundsen), [email protected] (L. Anderson), [email protected] (L. Andersson), [email protected] (M. Asquith), [email protected] (K. Augenstein), [email protected] (J. Barrie), [email protected] (D. Bent), [email protected] (J. Bentz), [email protected] (A. Bergsten), [email protected] (C. Berzonsky), [email protected] (O. Bina), [email protected] (K. Blackstock), Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 Available online 25 September 2020 2214-6296/ © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/). T Mutizwa Mukute dr , Susan Mühlemeier ds , Lars Otto Naess dt , Marta Nieto-Romero du , Paula Novo dv , Karen O’Brien dw , Deborah Anne O'Connell dx , Kathleen O'Donnell dy , Per Olsson dz , Kelli Rose Pearson ea , Laura Pereira eb , Panos Petridis ec , Daniela Peukert ed , Nicky Phear ee , Siri Renée Pisters ef , Matt Polsky eg , Diana Pound eh , Rika Preiser ei , Md. Sajidur Rahman ej , Mark S. Reed ek , Philip Revell el , Iokiñe Rodriguez em , Briony Cathryn Rogers en , Jascha Rohr eo , Milda Nordbø Rosenberg ep , Helen Ross eq , Shona Russell er , Melanie Ryan es , Probal Saha et , Katharina Schleicher eu , Flurina Schneider ev , Morgan Scoville-Simonds ew , Beverley Searle ex , Samuel Petros Sebhatu ey , Elena Sesana ez , Howard Silverman fa , Chandni Singh fb , Eleanor Sterling fc , Sarah-Jane Stewart fd , J. David Tàbara fe , Douglas Taylor ff , Philip Thornton fg , Theresa Margarete Tribaldos fh , Petra Tschakert fi , Natalia Uribe-Calvo fj , Steve Waddell fk , Sandra Waddock fl , Liza van der Merwe fm , Barbara van Mierlo fn , Patrick van Zwanenberg fo , Sandra Judith Velarde fp , Carla-Leanne Washbourne fq , Kerry Waylen fr , Annika Weiser fs , Ian Wight ft , Stephen Williams fu , Mel Woods fv , Ruth Wolstenholme fw , Ness Wright fx , Stefanie Wunder fy , Alastair Wyllie fz , Hannah R. Young ga a Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, Wentworth Way, Heslington, York YO105NG, UK b Chalmers University of Technology, Division Physical Resource Theory, and University of Freiburg, Chalmers University, Chalmersplatsen 4, 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden c Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research and Leuphana University Lueneburg, Konrad Lorenz Institute, Martinstraße 12, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria d H3Uni, 18 North Street, Glenrothes KY7 5NA, The Netherlands e Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom f SustainaMetrix, LLC, 502 Deering Avenue, Portland, ME 04103, USA g Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands [email protected] (J. Boehnert), [email protected] (H. Bradbury), [email protected] (C. Brand), [email protected] (J. Böhme (born Sangmeister)), [email protected] (M.M. Bøjer), [email protected] (E. Carmen), [email protected] (L. Charli-Joseph), [email protected] (S. Choudhury), [email protected] (S. Chunhachoti-ananta), [email protected] (J. Cockburn), [email protected] (J. Colvin), [email protected] (I.L.C. Connon), [email protected] (R. Cornforth), [email protected] (R.S. Cox), [email protected] (N. Cradock-Henry), [email protected] (L. Cramer), [email protected] (A. Cremaschi), [email protected] (H. Dannevig), [email protected] (C.T. Day), [email protected] (C. de Lima Hutchison), [email protected] (A. de Vrieze), [email protected] (V. Desai), [email protected] (J. Dolley), [email protected] (D. Duckett), [email protected] (R.A. Durrant), [email protected] (M. Egermann), [email protected] (E. Elsner (Adams)), [email protected] (C. Fremantle), [email protected] (J. Fullwood-Thomas), [email protected] (D. Galafassi), [email protected] (J. Gobby), [email protected] (A. Golland), [email protected] (I. Gram-Hanssen), [email protected] (J. Grandin), [email protected] (S. Grenni), [email protected] (J. Lauren Gunnell), [email protected] (F. Gusmao), [email protected] (M. Hamann), [email protected] (B. Harding), [email protected] (G. Harper), [email protected] (M. Hesselgren), [email protected] (D. Hestad), [email protected] (C.A. Heykoop), [email protected] (J. Holmén), [email protected] (K. Holstead), [email protected] (C. Hoolohan), [email protected] (A.-I. Horcea-Milcu), [email protected] (L.G. Horlings), [email protected] (S.M. Howden), [email protected] (R.A. Howell), [email protected] (S.I. Huque), [email protected] (M.L. Inturias Canedo), [email protected] (C.Y. Iro), [email protected] (C.D. Ives), [email protected] (B. John), [email protected] (R. Joshi), [email protected] (S. Juarez-Bourke), [email protected] (D.W. Juma), [email protected] (B.C. Karlsen), [email protected] (L. Kliem), [email protected] (A. Kläy), [email protected] (P. Kuenkel), [email protected] (I. Kunze), [email protected] (D.P.M. Lam), [email protected] (D.J. Lang), [email protected] (A. Larkin), [email protected] (A. Light), [email protected] (C. Luederitz), [email protected] (T. Luthe), [email protected] (C. Maguire), [email protected] (A.-M. Mahecha-Groot), [email protected] (J. Malcolm), [email protected] (F. Marshall), [email protected] (Y. Maru), [email protected] (C. McLachlan), [email protected] (P. Mmbando), [email protected] (S. Mohapatra), [email protected] (M.-L. Moore), [email protected] (A. Moriggi), [email protected] (M. Morley-Fletcher), [email protected] (S. Moser), [email protected] (K.M. Mueller), [email protected] (M. Mukute), [email protected] (S. Mühlemeier), [email protected] (L.O. Naess), [email protected] (M. Nieto-Romero), [email protected] (P. Novo), [email protected] (K. O’Brien), Deborah.O'[email protected] (D.A. O'Connell), [email protected] (K. O'Donnell), [email protected] (P. Olsson), [email protected] (K.R. Pearson), [email protected] (L. Pereira), [email protected] (P. Petridis), [email protected] (D. Peukert), [email protected] (N. Phear), [email protected] (S.R. Pisters), [email protected] (M. Polsky), [email protected] (D. Pound), [email protected] (R. Preiser), [email protected] (Md. S. Rahman), [email protected] (M.S. Reed), [email protected] (P. Revell), [email protected] (I. Rodriguez), [email protected] (B.C. Rogers), [email protected] (J. Rohr), [email protected] (M. Nordbø Rosenberg), [email protected] (H. Ross), [email protected] (S. Russell), [email protected] (M. Ryan), [email protected] (P. Saha), [email protected] (K. Schleicher), [email protected] (F. Schneider), [email protected] (M. Scoville-Simonds), [email protected] (B. Searle), [email protected] (S.P. Sebhatu), [email protected] (E. Sesana), [email protected] (H. Silverman), [email protected] (C. Singh), [email protected] (E. Sterling), [email protected] (S.-J. Stewart), [email protected] (J.D. Tàbara), [email protected] (D. Taylor), [email protected] (P. Thornton), [email protected] (T.M. Tribaldos), [email protected] (P. Tschakert), [email protected] (N. Uribe-Calvo), [email protected] (S. Waddell), [email protected] (S. Waddock), [email protected] (L. van der Merwe), [email protected] (B. van Mierlo), [email protected] (P. van Zwanenberg), [email protected] (S.J. Velarde), [email protected] (C.-L. Washbourne), [email protected] (K. Waylen), [email protected] (A. Weiser), [email protected] (I. Wight), [email protected] (S. Williams), [email protected] (M. Woods), [email protected] (R. Wolstenholme), [email protected] (N. Wright), [email protected] (S. Wunder), [email protected] (A. Wyllie), [email protected] (H.R. Young). I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 2 h Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia i Maastricht Sustainability Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands j H3Uni, Geertebolwerk 30, 3511 XA Utrecht, The Netherlands k H3Uni, 18 North Street, Glenrothes, Fife KY7 5NA, Scotland, UK l University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA m Vinson Centre, University of Buckingham, Hunter St, Buckingham MK18 1EG, UK n International Futures Forum, The Boathouse, Silversands, Hawkcraig Road, Aberdour, Fife KY3 0TZ, UK o International Futures Forum, The Boathouse, Silversands, Hawkcraig Road, Aberdour, Fife KY3 0TZ, UK p H3Uni, 18 North Street, Glenrothes, Fife KY7 5NA, Scotland, UK q Australian Resilience Centre, Australia r International Futures Forum, The Boathouse, Silversands, Hawkcraig Road, Aberdour, Fife KY3 0TZ, UK s DRIFT (Dutch Research Institute for Transitions), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands t Research Center for Population - Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia u Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Universitätsallee, 1 21335 Lüneburg, Germany v School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, University Dr, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia w Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Chile, Center for Disasters and Risk Reduction CITRID, Center for Climate and Resilience Research CR2, Av. Santa Rosa 11.315, La Pintana, Santiago, Chile x Club of Rome, Lagerhausstrasse 9, CH-8400 Winterthur, Switzerland y Department of Social Development Services, College of Human Ecology, University of the Philippines Los Baños/Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Los Baños, Laguna Philippines 4031/Canberra, Australia z CICERO Centre for International Climate Research, P.O. Box 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway aa Uppsala University, Dept. Business Administration, Ekonomikum, Kyrkogårdsgatan 10 C, 753 13 Uppsala, Sweden ab Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SE-601 76 Norrköping, Sweden ac European Environment Agency, Kongens Nytorv 6, 1050 Copenhagen, Denmark ad Center for Transformation Research and Sustainability (TransZent), University of Wuppertal, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany ae University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond St, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK af Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London, Floor 7, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7NF, UK ag Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon, Bldg. C1/Room 1.4.38, Campo Grande 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal ah Independent Consultant, Stockholm, Sweden ai Independent, 4 Kozera Ave, Hadley, MA, USA aj Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon (ICS-UL), and Geography & Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, University of Lisbon, Av. Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9, 1600-189 Lisboa, Portugal ak Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK al Loughborough University, 30 Sweyn Road, Flat One, UK am Action Research Plus AR+ Foundation, 8819 SE 12th Ave. Portland, OR 97202, USA an North East London Hospital Foundation Trust, NELFT, CEME Centre, West Wing, Marsh Way, Rainham, Essex RM13 8GQ, UK ao Leuphana University, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany ap Reos Partners, Avenue de Secheron 15, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland aq Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5NG, UK ar Laboratorio Nacional de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (LANCIS-IE-UNAM), Circuito Exterior S/N anexo Jardín Botánico exterior, Ciudad Universitaria. CP 04500 Ciudad de México, Mexico as The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia at International College for Sustainability Studies, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand au Environmental Learning Research Centre, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Makhanda (Grahamstown) 6139, South Africa av Emerald Network Ltd, Stroud, Glos GL6 0PH, UK aw Discipline of Geography, School of Social Science, University of Dundee, Tower Building, Main Campus, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN, UK ax Walker Institute, University of Reading, Agriculture Building, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AR, UK ay ResiliencebyDesign Research Lab, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, British Columbia V9B5Y2, Canada az Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, 54 Gerald Street, Lincoln 7608, New Zealand ba International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Nairobi, Kenya bb CENIT (Centro de Investigación para la transformación), Roque Sáenz Peña 832, 2do piso – (CP 1035), Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina bc Western Norway Research Institute, P.O. Box 183, 6851 Sogndal, Norway bd Stetson University, 421 N Woodland Blvd, DeLand, FL 32723, USA be University of Dundee, Urban Planning and Architecture, University of Dundee, 13 Perth Rd, Dundee DD1 4HT, UK bf Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands bg Urban Health and Climate Resilience Center of Excellence, Surat, Gujarat, India bh Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QE, UK bi Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH Scotland, UK bj Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QE, UK bk Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany bl Elsner Research and Consulting, Allmannstrasse 36, 8052 Zürich, Switzerland bm Gray’s School of Art, Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7QD Scotland, UK bn Oxfam GB, Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Oxford OX4 2JY, UK bo Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies LUCSUS, LUCSUS P.O. Box 170, SE-222 70 Lund, Sweden bp McGill University, 845 Sherbrooke St W, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada bq Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B SE-10691, Sweden br Laboratorio Nacional de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (LANCIS-IE-UNAM), Av. Universidad 3000, Mexico City, Mexico bs Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Moltke Moes vei 31, 0851 Oslo, Norway bt SpaceLab, Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway bu Natural Resources Institute Finland - Luonnonvarakeskus (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland bv University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN, UK bw Federal University of Sao Paulo, Rua Dr. Carvalho de Mendonça 144, Santos CEP: 11070-101, Brazil bx Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA by Center for Governance and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA bz Birmingham Centre for Strategic Elements & Critical Materials, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, UK ca KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvagen 83, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden cb Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK cc Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC V9B 5Y2, Canada I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 3 cd Chalmers University of Technology, Division Physical Resource Theory, Maskingränd, 2 SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden ce The University of St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9RJ, Scotland, UK cf Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK cg Helsinki Institute for Sustainability Science (HELSUS), University of Helsinki, Ecosystems and Environment Research Program, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Yliopistonkatu 3, Viikinkaari 1, 00014 Helsinki, Finland ch Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, University of Groningen, Landleven 1, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands ci Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia cj The University of Edinburgh, School of Social and Political Science, Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15a George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LD, Scotland, UK ck University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland KY16 9AJ, UK cl Nur University, Santa Cruz, Bolivia cm University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK cn School of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK co Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany cp The B Team, 115 5th Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10014, USA cq Methods Center, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany cr Department of Geography & Planning, Macquarie University. Australia, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia cs University of Dundee, Scotland, Nethergate DD1 4HN, UK ct Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Potsdamer Str. 105, 10785 Berlin, Germany cu Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland cv International Club of Rome, Collective Leadership Institute, Lagerhausstrasse 9, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland Kurfürstenstr. 1, 14467 Potsdam, Germany cw Center for Global Change and Sustainability, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Peter-Jordan-Straße 76/I, 1190 Vienna, Austria cx Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany cy Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21339 Lüneburg, Germany cz Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK da University of Sussex, Falmer, East Sussex BN1 9RH, United Kingdom db SPROUT Lab, Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada dc ETH Zürich, Planning of Landscape and Urban Systems (PLUS), Institut für Raumund Landschaftsentwicklung (IRL), Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland dd European Environment Agency, Kongens Nytorv 6, 1050 Copenhagen, Denmark de Rutgers University, 54 Joyce Kilmer Ave., Department of Geography, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA df University of Dundee, Perth Road, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HT, UK dg Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9HR, UK dh Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Land and Water Business Unit, Black Mountain, Canberra, Building 101, Clunies Ross St, ACT 2601, Australia dj Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK dk Epikaizo Care Initiative, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania dl Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Room No. 9, Block 15J, School of Sciences, IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi 110068, India dm Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden dn Natural Resources Institute Finland – Luke, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland do Independent Consultant, Edinburgh, EH9 2NN, United Kingdom dp Susanne Moser Research and Consulting, 4 Kozera Ave., Hadley, MA 01035, USA dq Independent Researcher, Erfurt 99089, Germany dr Social Learning and Innovation Ltd, 2261 Lavenham Drive, Bluffhill, Harare, Zimbabwe ds Laboratory for Human-Environment Relations in Urban Systems (HERUS), Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), EPFL-ENAC-IIE-HERUS, Station 2, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland dt Institute of Development Studies, Library Road, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK du University of Aveiro, Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, Portugal dv Rural Economy, Environment and Society Department, Scotland’s Rural College, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland, United Kingdom dw University of Oslo, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, P.O box 1096, Blindern 0317 OSLO, Norway dx CSIRO Land and Water, PO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia dy Works_OS, 8 Cranham Terrace, Oxford OX2 6DG, UK dz Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden ea Education and Learning Sciences (ELS) Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands eb Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University, The Stables, STIAS, 19 Jonkershoek rd, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa ec Institute of Social Ecology (SEC), University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Schottenfeldgasse 29, 1070 Vienna, Austria ed Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lueneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany ee University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59802, USA ef Natural Resource Institute Finland/Wageningen School of Social Sciences, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland / Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands eg Erasmus University, PhD Program in Cleaner Production, Cleaner Products, Industrial Ecology and Sustainability, Rotterdam, The Netherlands eh Dialogue Matters, UK ei Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa ej Centre for Climate Change and Environmental Research (C3ER), BRAC University, 46 Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh ek Thriving Natural Economy Challenge Centre, Department of Rural Economies, Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Peter Wilson Building, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG el Scottish Communities Climate Action Network, 27 High Street, Dunbar EH42 1EN, UK em School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Research Park, Norwich, UK en School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Vic 3800, Australia eo Institut für Partizipatives Gestalten, Moltkestrasse 6a, 26122 Oldenburg, Germany ep University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1072 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway eq The University of Queensland, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia er School of Management, University of St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9RJ, UK es Luc Hoffmann Institute, IUCN Conservation Centre, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland et University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37919, USA eu Center for Transformation Research and Sustainability, University of Wuppertal, Döppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany ev Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland ew Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Moltke Moes vei 31, 0851 Oslo, Norway ex University of Dundee, Scotland, UK ey CTF - Service Research Centre, Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden ez School of Engineering and Computing, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, PA1 2BE Scotland, United Kingdom I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 4 fa Pacific Northwest College of Art, 511 NW Broadway, Portland, OR 97209, USA fb Indian Institute for Human Settlements, IIHS City Campus, 197/36 Sadashivanagar, Bangalore, India fc Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, 200 Central Park West, NY, NY 10024, USA fd SNC-Lavalin, 455 René-Lévesque Boulevard West, Montréal, Quebec H2Z 1Z3, Canada fe Autonomous University of Barcelona & Global Climate Forum, Campus UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallés (Barcelona), Catalonia, Spain ff Wits Business School, 2 St David’s Place, Parktown, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa fg CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), ILRI, PO Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya fh Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland fi Department of Geography and Planning, University of Western Australia, Crawley, 6009 WA, Australia fj EUCO S.A.S., 15-23, Street 87, Bogotá D.C., Colombia fk SDG Transformations Forum, 14 Upton St., Boston, MA, 02118, USA fl Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Fulton Hall, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3809, USA fm SE Enterprise Resilience, Risk & Sustainability, Eskom, Megawatt Park, Sunninghill, South Africa fn Wageningen University and Research; Knowledge, Technology and Innovation, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands fo CENIT, Escuela de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Av. Pres. Roque Sáenz Peña 832, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina fp Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.), 49 Sala St., Rotorua, New Zealand fq Department of Science, Technology Engineering and Public Policy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK fr Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH Scotland, UK fs Leuphana University Lüneburg, Faculty of Sustainability, Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany ft City Planning, Faculty of Architecture, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada fu Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Berliner Str. 130, 14467 Potsdam, Germany fv Social Digital, Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art & Design, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN, UK fw Sniffer, ECCI, Infirmary Street, Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 1LZ, UK fx Centre for Alternative Technology, Llwyngwern Quarry, Pantperthog, Machynlleth SY20 9AZ, UK fy Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany fz Ashridge Executive Education at Hult International Business School, Ashridge House, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire HP4 1NS, UK ga Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6BB, UK ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Sustainability science Epistemology Transformation Social-technical transitions Knowledge Climate and energy research ABSTRACT 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. 1. Introduction The world has entered a new era of rapid and major change. Significant shifts are occurring in global economic power, technology, urban growth and through environmental changes that pose existential threats to humanity, such as climate change and the destabilization of the ecosystems on which human life depends [1,2]. Given current trajectories, transformation of human societies in some form is inevitable. It is, however, not clear whether global transformations can be navigated to avoid catastrophic environmental change and ensure more desirable trajectories of human and non-human life on our planet [3,4]. Such navigation requires active stewarding of systemic societal and technological change across diverse sectors of society and challenging deeply held assumptions underpinning unequal and environmentally degenerative patterns [4,5]. Financing transformations, for example, requires transformations in financial systems [6] while narratives to support transformations require transformations in the way narratives are conceptualized, produced and applied [7]. Knowledge, and the systems supporting its production, are no exception. Knowledge systems include the practices, routines, structures, mindsets, values and cultures affecting what and how knowledge is produced and used, and by whom. Such systems include elements (institutions, structures, assumptions, values, standards); functions (generation, validation, communication and application of knowledge); and contexts (organizational, operational, political) [8]. Formalised knowledge systems can be taken to include the elements, functions, and contexts associated with universities, research institutes, non-government and government organizations. These systems produce knowledge and technology developed through the sciences, social sciences, humanities, the arts, industry and commerce. Formalised knowledge systems (herein knowledge systems) are closely intertwined with society, economies and cultures and are integral to shaping the way societies develop, function and mobilise resources [9]. While they are extremely important [10–13], they may also reinforce current patterns of thinking and action, limiting ability of societies to develop capacities for more creative responses to challenges like climate change and energy transitions [14,15]. There have been many critiques of the relationship of knowledge systems to society and how they reinforce power structures, political ideals and economies [14,16–23]. There are also many examples of innovative approaches that seek to find new ways of working with knowledge creation from which many lessons can be learned [24–27]. As yet, however, there has been limited analysis of how system level 1 Address: Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University, 19 Jonkershoek Road, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa. I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 5 transformations might be encouraged towards new knowledge systems that are more viable in a rapidly changing world. This paper begins to address this gap by exploring how transformations in knowledge systems might be stewarded. This includes examining the challenges inhibiting the ability of current knowledge systems to help navigate global transformations, exploring what a more viable future transformed knowledge system might look like and some of the domains of action needed to help facilitate systemic change. The findings are based on an extensive and innovative participatory, futures and systems-oriented approach which elicited knowledge of 340 delegates of the Transformations to Sustainability conference in Scotland in 2017. The paper first explains the need for knowledge system change, followed by the methods, results and discussion. Overall, the paper makes a novel contribution by going beyond critiquing existing systems and identifying what is needed to also examining how change in knowledge systems could be facilitated. 1.1. Knowledge systems and societal transformations Over the last 300 years knowledge systems have generated many benefits and have transformed the human condition [28]. Despite this, scholars from diverse fields have questioned the ability of current knowledge systems to work effectively with current societal challenges [14,15,20,29]. This includes fields such as energy, buildings, transportation, sustainability, the life sciences and geography which have called for greater involvement of the social sciences [30–32], greater rigor (depth), interdisciplinary reach (breadth), and policy-relevance [33–37]. In climate and energy research the field has been criticized for being marked by ‘disciplinary chauvinism’ [38], with authorship tending to be male and western [38,39] implying hierarchical and exclusionary tendencies that reflect broader societal and transnational socio-economic and political inequalities. Energy research scholars have also called for substantial change of knowledge production patterns to improve their societal contribution and relevance [36,38,40–42] such as through greater integration of disciplines [43] and co-creation of knowledge by diverse actors [44–46]. Such work highlights the need to strengthen critical-reflexive and qualitative studies [47–49] and increase both pragmatic studies of what can be done and ethical considerations of what should be done [50,51]. This requires greater attention to asking how research affects the researched [52,53] and embracing non-traditional researcher roles [54]. While such critiques are important they tend towards recommending changes in research methodology rather than towards more fundamental critiques about knowledge systems as a whole. Importantly, critiques tend to overlook the problem that while current knowledge systems have led to major advances, they have also generated phenomenal capacity for humanity to create harm, such as by enabling war and annihilation of biodiversity, cultures, and languages [55]. Many contemporary challenges have themselves emerged from scientific and technological advances that current knowledge systems have produced, such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, obesity, smoking, premature deaths from air pollution [15] and the ethical dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence and automation [56]. Our current knowledge systems are thus arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made towards the deep and rapid societal changes needed to avoid existential threats from global environmental change [57]. Fundamental shifts will thus be needed if knowledge systems are to transcend the thinking and approaches that have led to many contemporary challenges like climate change and ensure knowledge systems can more effectively support wider societal transformations. There are some helpful shifts in knowledge systems that are already occurring. Comprehensive studies have highlighted emerging paradigmatic shifts in science-society relations [16,20,28,58], albeit through largely descriptive research of past and current trends rather than explicitly on how transformation of those systems might be achieved. There have also been many important developments in new scientific disciplines and fields of research, such as sustainability science [10], integration and implementation science [59], transformative science [60], resilience [61] and sustainability transitions research [62]. New collaborative practices, for example, are gaining wider acceptance and prominence such as transdisciplinary, participatory-action, citizen science, co-creative and transformational research [24–26,63–65] and new arenas for knowledge creation are emerging [66]. A growth in methodological pluralism is leading to new core research questions, strategies, innovations and understanding of the kinds of infrastructures needed for wider change in knowledge systems to occur [28,67–69]. Considerable insights also already exist about the kinds of new systems we may need, such as for those that attend more directly to how science is shaped by society [14], for new underlying assumptions [28], and the need to integrate the production of knowledge also with considerations of what is ‘good’, ‘right’ and ‘beautiful’ [15]. There is also a need for new kinds of knowledge systems that are much more open and democratic with some broad suggestions of how this might be achieved [67]. Yet, while such work is promising and shifts are beginning to occur, we are still a long way from enacting the ideas involved. Thus, while knowledge systems have always been evolving, there is now a need to go beyond the ‘what’ to examining ‘how’ new knowledge systems might be encouraged. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Approach This research asks how changes in knowledge systems could be facilitated to support societal transformations. To achieve this, and in accordance with guidelines for rigor in qualitative social science [36], we outline our broad approach, our epistemology (our position on what counts as knowledge and knowing) and specific methods used. Our work was broadly framed as second order science, which rejects the commonly held assumption in science and research that an observer can or should be independent to what is observed [28,57]. Observerindependence is largely a fallacy, as all research is in some way influenced by society. For instance, through researchers being influenced by the cultures, norms, mindsets, motivations, systems and structures that affect what is funded or which questions receive attention [28,70]. A second order science approach shifts focus away from studying a system as if looking in from the outside to conducting research as if from within. This includes reflexively examining one’s own role in the way a system is reproduced. This opens space for inclusion of more diverse forms of knowledge and knowing, such as practical, experiential and embodied forms of knowledge [57]. The approach taken corresponds to recent calls for more relational, reflexive and co-creational methodologies, in energy and climate change research [44,45,53] and sustainability science more broadly [24,57,64] and wider shifts that are occurring towards more societally relevant research [28]. I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 6 The second order approach was delivered using a co-creative, participatory, futures and transformation oriented methodology called Three Horizon’s practice [71] which focused on understanding: (1) the challenges of current knowledge systems; (2) what future, more effective systems might look like; and (3) the domains of policy and practice needed to help facilitate shifts from the current to the future desired knowledge systems. Three Horizons uses a simple framework to structure dialogue about how such pattern shifts might be facilitated [71] (Fig. 1). In this framework, the future is imagined as emerging through three overlapping horizons with each representing the prevalence of particular ways of doing things (e.g. practices, approaches, technologies, values etc.). These aspects wax and wane over time as their viability changes in the face of a wider changing context (e.g. technology, climate or economic change). Some ways of doing things in the first horizon naturally decline because they are no longer relevant while new third horizon activities emerge and eventually become the new pattern in the future. Disruptive second horizon innovations are then key for creating space for third horizon patterns to emerge (Fig. 1). The Three Horizons approach is considered a practice because it is a facilitated process that helps convene conversations, such as about how actions in the second horizon space can help stimulate emergence of new patterns. It results in a ‘map’ of differences between current and desired future systems and ideas about the innovations that would help such a pattern shift occur. The approach is suited to working with uncertainty and enhancing agency to support transformative pattern shifts, such as towards new kinds of knowledge systems that can be more viable in a world of rapid change [71]. 2.2. Epistemology Three Horizons practice involves working with three different kinds of knowledge. First, expertise of current systems was elicited to answer the first question about challenges inhibiting the ability of current knowledge systems to support societal transformations. Expertise is an embodied form of knowledge, which is usually implicit or tacit, and difficult to make explicit and is particularly relevant for exploring and identifying patterns within systems [72]. In this part of the methodology the process was akin to an evidence-based approach with the ‘evidence’ being in the form of ‘expertise’ based on real experiences from the past about existing knowledge systems. Fig. 1. The Three Horizons framework used to convene dialogue about how to achieve transformation. Each horizon represents a combination of particular ways of doing things (e.g. approach, technology, actions, values, mindsets). The viability of these ways change over time as surrounding conditions change, with the third horizon dominated system eventually emerging as more viable. The framework helps to identify: (1) Challenges that dominate the present that inhibit progress towards a more viable way of doing things (Horizon 1); (2) Features of a desired future systems (Horizon 3) and the innovations needed for new systems to emerge (Horizon 2). For the latter, distinctions are made between innovations that help create forward momentum (H2+) and those likely to be captured by existing systems and which can reinforce the status quo (H2−). This framework is not a theory, but rather seeks to support the practice of identifying pathways for system change. I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 7 Relying on knowledge from the past to envision a new transformed future is not sufficient because it can constrain imaginations of what might be possible, analogous to driving forwards while looking through a rearview mirror [73]. Thus, to address the second question and identify envisioned future third horizon knowledge systems, anticipatory and imagined forms of knowledge were elicited. The goal here was to draw out intentionally visionary and normative aspirations of participants. Engagement with such normative dimensions is critical for shaping change [57,74] and providing inspiration, aspiration, and values based notions about what transformations might look like [15,74]. Rather than trying to represent a universal truth of what will be our goal was to elicit personalized truths about what participants desired the future to be in a wider context of a rapidly changing world and existential threats like climate change. Such futures oriented normative knowledge is still a truth in the sense that it is ‘true’ to those who express it but is not a truth in the way evidence is usually conceived. Finally, contrasts between current and future systems help orientate the development of actions best suited to facilitating a pattern shift [75]. It relies on contrasts between understandings of the current system versus visions of future desired systems which then enable identification of appropriate action in the intervening space to occur. Knowledge was thus also elicited about what needed to be implemented in the second horizon for the third horizon to emerge. This knowledge was a form of creative knowledge bridging experiential understandings of current systems and normative anticipatory knowledge of what was desired. Importantly, this required co-creating possible domains of action and avoiding actions that could be co-opted and used to prop up and improve existing systems. Overall, Three Horizons practice helped work with and combine collective expertise, anticipatory, and creative forms of knowledge to determine how possible re-patterning and transformations in knowledge systems could be encouraged and supported. In addition to eliciting knowledge and perspectives, the research also encouraged conference delegates to help validate integrated findings and shape the overall narrative of the paper through multiple phases (see below). As such delegates were considered to be participant-researchers – more than just participants from which knowledge was extracted – and invited to be co-authors. While this might be argued as reducing rigor, this would be a misunderstanding of the secondorder science approach being applied. In this case, validity of the work was considered to have been enhanced precisely because the participant-researchers had direct knowledge about the systems they were embedded in and the way they were included in the process of developing the paper as a whole. Thus, while the paper has limitations, its methodology is intended to be a challenge to existing assumptions and provide an example of an alternative way of approaching research as is likely needed in a new, more egalitarian knowledge system as highlighted in the results of this paper. 2.3. Data collection and analysis Three Horizons Practice provided the focus for eliciting the different kinds of knowledge from the 340 participants, who had diverse backgrounds relating to social and environmental change and sustainability. Approximately 70% of these had primarily academic backgrounds and 30% practice and policy professional backgrounds. Many participants actively worked across academic and practice domains and combined conceptual thinking and research with practice. Collectively, the expertise of participants spanned action-oriented and co-production research methodologies as well as more traditional scientific, social science and arts-based approaches and disciplines. This enabled coverage of empirical, pragmatic and ethical perspectives and, to a degree, the integration of social and natural science perspectives and experience, which are important for enhancing methodologies in energy and climate related research [43,54]. The deliberative process included ten parallel, three-hour workshops (Box 1). Each parallel workshop was professionally facilitated and included 4–6 focus groups of 4–6 individuals. Together this equated to: 45–50 discussion groups, 135–150 h of group discussions; and around 750 h of participant involvement. In each workshop groups consecutively discussed each of the three questions, identifying 4–6 points per question. After each group in a workshop discussing a question for 20-30 min, each group put forward 1–2 of the most important points, adding them to a three-horizon map on the wall. This resulted in a total of 754 ideas with 211 items identified as the most important. This included 61 challenges; 66 relating to future envisioned systems; and 84 to actions to help the future envisioned system emerge. Eleven analysts worked overnight at the conference and during the morning of the final day of the conference to integrate the 211 items from the ten different three Horizon maps. A generative approach, which focuses on creation of new representations [76] was used that involved coding items associated with each horizon to identify overarching themes. This included using Hexagon mapping (https:// resources.h3uni.org/) to help ensure the process took into consideration relations between items rather than just providing simple categories. The preliminary findings were then presented back to conference delegates on the final day. Preliminary results were refined by eight analysts through three stages that used robust qualitative methods to produce separate narratives for the results relating to each of the three horizons. The last iteration also involved identifying key emergent properties of the current and future envisioned systems (i.e. those aspects that were not a property of any single component of a system) to help make explicit the contrasting qualities of current and desired future systems. Finally, the three narratives were combined to create a coherent single narrative (a draft research paper). The draft paper was shared with all participants for their comments using a survey that collected answers to quantitative and qualitative questions about degrees of agreement relating to the work presented and suggestions for its improvement. 184 individuals opened and initialized the survey, with 156 completing it and agreeing to become coauthors. Following further contact with incomplete responders, four rejoined. Of those who responded to the survey, 86% were ‘extremely supportive’ of the results and narrative, and expressed a feeling the paper was either ‘ready’ or ‘close to being ready’ for submission. 14% were ‘somewhat’ supportive and/or felt that the narrative needed changing. The 500 comments from the survey mostly focused on details and overall narrative rather than questioning the results. Comments were sorted into key themes to be addressed and where possible specific comments were also dealt with. It is not fully known as to why other participants either did not respond or declined to be authors. Informal feedback from some did suggest, however, that it was because they felt they had not contributed sufficiently rather than because they had siginificant disagreements with what was presented. I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 8 Multiple checks and balances were used throughout the process to ensure the results and narrative reflected the views and perspectives of researcher-participants and reduce biases created by interactions of research-participants acting in different roles, such as facilitators, analyst and participants in accordance with suggestions for enhancing rigor [36]. This included: (1) Sharing and deliberation of ideas in the parallel workshops at the conference; (2) careful coding and preliminary analysis using multiple analysts who had been present in different workshops; (3) feeding back preliminary analysis to participants during the conference; (4) multiple iterations of cross-checking by multiple analysts post conference; (5) working with comments from the researcher-participants about the overall narrative; and (6) final approval of the narrative through participants by agreeing to be a coauthor before the paper was submitted. In this last stage, only one person declined to be an author, while four newly joined after email communication errors had been clarified. Combined with the facilitators and analysts, this led to the total of 183 authors on the paper. In conclusion, while a different group of participants may have led to different findings, our extensive attention to validation means the findings can be considered to be a robust representation of the knowledge of the diverse participants who were involved. 3. Results 3.1. Challenges of existing knowledge systems While current knowledge systems are important, diverse and significant challenges were identified that inhibit their ability to help navigate global transformations (Fig. 2, Table 1). Challenges identified included: tendencies for knowledge and knowing to be viewed in narrow ways, reducing opportunities for new kinds of thinking and learning; fragmented and compartmentalised knowledge production organised around powerful highly self-referential and disconnected disciplines which do not sufficiently take account of the highly interconnected nature of social and environmental issues; and tendencies to produce knowledge separately from practice, limiting opportunities for Box 1. The research methodology. I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 9 articulate and direct action rather than be one that shows all complexities [71]. The method is also meant to collate a diversity of perspectives in ways that show a set of emergent patterns about how a future vision might come about. For all its merits and limits, the map is thus a tool to help conceptualize and support maintenance of transformational intent. It is also intended to stimulate critical reflexivity amongst scientists, policymakers, practitioners and the public [106] about how knowledge systems can become more viable in the face of rapidly changing societal needs. In addition to the findings about ‘how’ to support systemic change in knowledge systems, the paper raises important implications for research. While there has been extensive critique about methodological advances and broadly on knowledge systems, there has been very little about how transformations in them might be achieved. We thus call for a new kind of reseach field that actively seeks to support emergence of more viable knowledge systems for our rapidly changing world. This field would include exploring and showcasing a wide diversity of epistemologies, ontologies and pedagogies well beyond those usually considered in western dominated science and which embody the goals and values of envisioned systems. It would, however, also need to go beyond focusing on innovation of methodologies to having an active focus on supporting the kinds of transformations in knowledge systems that are needed to support wider societal transformations. Such a resarch field will, in turn, need to be underpinned by a second order and action-oriented approach. 5. Conclusions Current knowledge systems are invaluable and many of the historical advances in knowledge production need to be retained. Yet, for all their brilliant success, they are not currently adequate for the new world in which we find ourselves. The philosophical challenge of learning how to generate knowledge has largely been solved [79]. The critical challenge now facing humanity is how to turn the enormous capacity of knowledge systems towards supporting development of wisdom about how to act in the world [76,107]. This represents a significant shift in goal orientation which to be achieved will most likely require the kinds of change of the scale and depth of the enlightenment. Importantly, such change is no longer a luxury or something that can be put off for others to deal with later. If knowledge systems are to meet the scale and urgency of global challenges and genuinely be a creative force for change for issues like climate change, then the pattern shift will probably need to occur at the pace of the scientific and technological revolution experienced during the second world war. While the speed, depth and scale of such a shift is daunting, our findings show that much is already known about what needs to be achieved and how it could be encouraged. A staunch defence of global access to, and creation and ownership of, knowledge will need to be accompanied by rapid scaling of new transdisciplinary methodological innovations and support systems that genuinely blur perceived disciplinary boundaries and between research and action. Support will also be needed to help those seeking to do things differently step out of existing paradigms while deep underlying assumptions about what counts as knowledge and knowing will need to be surfaced and challenged. Governments, scientists and wider civic society all have an important role to play in helping this occur and responsibility will need to be extended to wider education systems and other societal sectors. Change will clearly need to build on past advances and the baby does not need to be thrown out with the bathwater. Yet, at a time of the sixth planetary extinction and a critical climate juncture, transformational intent will be critical to ensure we go well beyond improving existing knowledge systems to rapidly advance capacities for the generation of wisdom that ensures longevity of human life and other species on our planet. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. References [1] IPBES, Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, in: M. Fischer, M. Rounsevell, A. Torre-Marin, A. Rando, A. Mader, A. Church, M. Elbakidze, V. Elias, T. Hahn, P.A. Harrison, J. Hauck, B. Martín-López, I. Ring, C. Sandström, I. Sousa, P. Pinto, P. Visconti, N.E. Zimmermann, M. Christie (Eds.) IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018, p. 48. [2] IPCC, Summary for policy makers: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, in: V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Portner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (Eds.) 2018. [3] D.G. Victor, F.W. Geels, S. Sharpe, Accelerating the Low Carbon Transition: The Case for Stronger, More Targeted and Coordinated International Action, UK Government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Manchester, and San Diego, London, 2019. [4] L. Kanger, J. Schot, Deep transitions: Theorizing the long-term patterns of sociotechnical change, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 32 (2019) 7–21. [5] K. O'Brien, L. Sygna, Responding to climate change: The three spheres of transformation, in: K. O'Brien, Sygna, L. (Ed.) Transformation in a Changing Climate, Oslo, Norway, 2013. [6] S. Lovink, S. Valentine, Imagining Philanthropy for Life: A While System Strategy to Transform Finance an d Show True Wealth, Transformation Books, York, PA, 2017. [7] K. O'Brien, A. El Khoury, N. Schafenacker, J. Rosenfeld, Our Entangled Future: Stories to Empower Quantum Social Change, Karen O'Brien, Oslo, Norway, 2019. [8] T.A. Muñoz-Erickson, C.A. Miller, T.R. Miller, How cities think: knowledge coproduction for urban sustainability and resilience, Forests 8 (6) (2017). [9] M. Bell, M. Albu, Knowledge systems and technological dynamism in industrial clusters in developing countries, World Dev. 27 (9) (1999) 1715–1734. [10] R.W. Kates, W.C. Clark, R. Corell, J.M. Hall, C.C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J.J. McCarthy, H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N.M. Dickson, S. Faucheux, G.C. Gallopin, A. Grubler, B. Huntley, J. Jager, N.S. Jodha, R.E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H. Mooney, B. Moore, T. O'Riordan, U. Svedin, Environment and development – sustainability science, Science 292 (5517) (2001) 641–642. [11] D.W. Cash, W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger, R.B. Mitchell, Knowledge systems for sustainable development, PNAS 100 (14) (2003) 8086–8091. [12] J.D. Tàbara, I. Chabay, Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems with social-ecological systems change: Reframing research, education, and policy for sustainability, Environ. Sci. Policy 28 (2013) 71–81. [13] L. Van Kerkhoff, N.A. Szlezák, The role of innovative global institutions in linking knowledge and action, PNAS 113 (17) (2016) 4603–4608. [14] A. Kläy, A.B. Zimmermann, F. Schneider, Rethinking science for sustainable development: reflexive interaction for a paradigm transformation, Futures 65 (2015) 72–85. [15] P. Hanlon, S. Carlisle, M. Hannah, A. Lyon, D. Reilly, A perspective on the future public health: an integrative and ecological framework, Perspectives in Public Health 132 (6) (2012) 313–319. [16] S.O. Funtowicz, J.R. Ravetz, Science for the post-normal age, Futures 25 (7) (1993) 739–755. [17] D. Haraway, Situated Knowledges, The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective, Feminist Studies 3 (1988) 575–599. [18] S. Cornell, F. Berkhout, W. Tuinstra, J.D. Tàbara, J. Jäger, I. Chabay, B. de Wit, R. Langlais, D. Mills, P. Moll, I.M. Otto, A. Petersen, C. Pohl, L. van Kerkhoff, Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change, Environ. Sci. Policy 28 (2013) 60–70. [19] M. Foucault, C. Gordon, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972/1977, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1980. [20] H. Nowotny, P. SCott, M. Gibbons, Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2001. [21] S. Jasanoff, States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order, Routledge, London, 2004, p. 332. [22] C. Walsh, Shifting the geopolitics of critical knowledge: decolonial thought and cultural studies 'others' in the Andes, Cultural Stud. 21 (2–3) (2007) 224–239. [23] E.J. Hackett, Academic Capitalism, Sci. Technol. Human Values 39 (5) (2014) 635–638. [24] D.J. Lang, A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, C.J. Thomas, Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges, Sustain. Sci. 7 (SUPPL. 1) (2012) 25–43. [25] P. Reason, H. Bradbury, The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London, 2008. I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 16 [26] A. Wiek, D.J. Lang, Transformational sustainability research methodology, in: H. Heinrichs, P. Martens, G. Michelsen, A. Wiek (Eds.), Sustainability Science – An Introduction, Springer, Berlin, New York, 2016, pp. 31–41. [27] D. Spreng, Transdisciplinary energy research – reflecting the context, Energy Res. Social Sci. 1 (2014) 65–73. [28] S.A. Umpleby, Second-order cybernetics as a fundamental revolution in science, Constructivist Found. 11 (3) (2016) 455–465. [29] J.P. Voß, J. Newig, B. Kastens, J. Monstadt, B. Nölting, Steering for sustainable development: a typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power, J. Environ. Plann. Policy Manage. 9 (3–4) (2007) 193–212. [30] D.G. Victor, Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy, Nature 520 (7545) (2015) 27–29. [31] G. Bosch, Train PhD Students to be Thinkers not Just Specialists, Nature, Nature Publishing Group, 2018, p. 277. [32] G. Schuitema, N.D. Sintov, Should we quit our jobs? Challenges, barriers and recommendations for interdisciplinary energy research, Energy Policy 101 (2017) 246–250. [33] B. Turnheim, F. Berkhout, F. Geels, A. Hof, A. McMeekin, B. Nykvist, D. van Vuuren, Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges, Global Environ. Change 35 (2015) 239–253. [34] N. Castree, Geography and the new social contract for global change research, Trans. Instit. Br. Geogr. 41 (3) (2016) 328–347. [35] B. Mallaband, G. Wood, K. Buchanan, S. Staddon, N.M. Mogles, E. Gabe-Thomas, The reality of cross-disciplinary energy research in the United Kingdom: a social science perspective, Energy Res. Social Sci. 25 (2017) 9–18. [36] B.K. Sovacool, J. Axsen, S. Sorrell, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design, Energy Res. Social Sci. (2018) 12–42. [37] M. Winskel, Embedding Social Sciences in Interdisciplinary Research: Recent Experiences from Interdisciplinary Energy Research, Science as Culture 23 (2014) 413–418. [38] B.K. Sovacool, S.E. Ryan, P.C. Stern, K. Janda, G. Rochlin, D. Spreng, M.J. Pasqualetti, H. Wilhite, L. Lutzenhiser, Integrating social science in energy research, Energy Res. Social Sci. 6 (2015) 95–99. [39] E. Corbera, L. Calvet-Mir, H. Hughes, M. Paterson, Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report, Nat. Clim. Change 6 (2016) 94–99. [40] P.C. Stern, B.K. Sovacool, T. Dietz, Towards a science of climate and energy choices, Nat. Clim. Change (2016) 547–555. [41] A.C.G. Cooper, Building a socio-technical energy research community: theory, practice and impact, Energy Res. Social Sci. (2017) 115–120. [42] J. Goodman, J.P. Marshall, Problems of methodology and method in climate and energy research: Socialising climate change? Energy Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018) 1–11. [43] A.C.G. Cooper, Building physics into the social: Enhancing the policy impact of energy studies and energy social science research, Energy Res. Social Sci. 26 (2017) 80–86. [44] E. Noboa, P. Upham, Energy policy and transdisciplinary transition management arenas in illiberal democracies: a conceptual framework, Energy Res. Social Sci. (2018) 114–124. [45] B. Mallaband, S. Staddon, G. Wood, Crossing transdisciplinary boundaries within energy research: an ‘on the ground’ perspective from early career researchers, Energy Res. Social Sci. (2017) 107–111. [46] M. Montedonico, F. Herrera-Neira, A. Marconi, A. Urquiza, R. Palma-Behnke, Coconstruction of energy solutions: lessons learned from experiences in Chile, Energy Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018) 173–183. [47] S.S. Ryder, Developing an intersectionally-informed, multi-sited, critical policy ethnography to examine power and procedural justice in multiscalar energy and climate change decisionmaking processes, Energy Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018) 266–275. [48] M. Sarrica, M. Richter, S. Thomas, I. Graham, B.M. Mazzara, Social approaches to energy transition cases in rural Italy, Indonesia and Australia: iterative methodologies and participatory epistemologies, Energy Research and Social, Science 45 (2018) 287–296. [49] J. Smith, M.M. High, Exploring the anthropology of energy: ethnography, energy and ethics, Energy Res. Social Sci. 30 (2017) 1–6. [50] C.P. Spreng, B.K. Sovacool, D. Spreng, All hands on deck: polycentric governance for climate change insurance, Clim. Change 139 (2) (2016) 129–140. [51] D. Ghosh, Risky fieldwork: the problems of ethics in the field, Energy Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018) 348–354. [52] M. Giacomini, J. Hurley, I. Gold, P. Smith, J. Abelson, The policy analysis of 'values talk': lessons from Canadian health reform, Health Policy 67 (1) (2004) 15–24. [53] L. Gailing, M. Naumann, Using focus groups to study energy transitions: researching or producing new social realities? Energy Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018) 355–362. [54] A. Ernst, A. Fischer-Hotzel, D. Schumann, Transforming knowledge for sustainability: Insights from an inclusive science-practice dialogue on low-carbon society in Germany, Energy Res. Social Sci. 29 (2017) 23–35. [55] N. Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the Humanities, Pentire Press, London, 1984. [56] S. Russell, S. Hauert, R. Altman, M. Veloso, Robotics: ethics of artificial intelligence, Nature 521 (2015) 415–418. [57] I. Fazey, N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, J. Patterson, J. Hultman, B. van Mierlo, F. Säwe, A. Wiek, J. Wittmayer, P. Aldunce, H. Al Waer, N. Battacharya, H. Bradbury, E. Carmen, J. Colvin, C. Cvitanovic, M. D'Souza, M. Gopel, B. Goldstein, T. Hämäläinen, G. Harper, T. Henfry, A. Hodgson, M.S. Howden, A. Kerr, M. Klaes, C. Lyon, G. Midgley, S. Moser, N. Mukherjee, K. Müller, K. O'Brien, D.A. O'Connell, P. Olsson, G. Page, M.S. Reed, B. Searle, G. Silvestri, V. Spaiser, T. Strasser, P. Tschakert, N. Uribe-Calvo, S. Waddell, J. Rao-Williams, R. Wise, R. Wolstenholme, M. Woods, C. Wyborn, Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research, Energy Research and Social, Science 40 (2018) 54–70. [58] M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, M. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London, 1994. [59] G. Bammer, Integration and implementation sciences: building a new specialization, Ecol. Soc. 10 (2) (2005). [60] U. Schneidewind, M. Singer-Brodowski, Transformative Wissenschaft. Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschaftsund Hochschulsystem. Marburg: Metropolis; 2. Editon. [61] C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, J. Rockström, Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability, Ecology and society 15 (4) (2010). [62] J. Köhler, F.W. Geels, F. Kern, J. Markard, E. Onsongo, A. Wieczorek, An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31 (2019) 1–32. [63] S. Kemmis, Action research as a practice-based practice, Educ. Action Res. 17 (3) (2009) 463–474. [64] A.V. Norström, C. Cvitanovic, M.F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A.T. Bednarek, E.M. Bennett, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, B.M. Campbell, J.G. Canadell, S.R. Carpenter, C. Folke, E.A. Fulton, O. Gaffney, S. Gelcich, J.B. Jouffray, M. Leach, M. Le Tissier, B. Martín-López, E. Louder, M.F. Loutre, A.M. Meadow, H. Nagendra, D. Payne, G.D. Peterson, B. Reyers, R. Scholes, C.I. Speranza, M. Spierenburg, M. Stafford-Smith, M. Tengö, S. van der Hel, I. van Putten, H. Österblom, Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research, Nat. Sustainability 3 (3) (2020) 182–190. [65] R. Bonney, J.L. Shirk, T.B. Phillips, A. Wiggins, H.L. Ballard, A.J. Miller-Rushing, J.K. Parrish, Next steps for citizen science, Science 343 (6178) (2014) 1436–1437. [66] J.M. Wittmayer, N. Schäpke, Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions, Sustain. Sci. 9 (4) (2014) 483–496. [67] S. Cornell, F. Berkhout, W. Tuinstra, J.D. Tàbara, J. Jäger, I. Chabay, B. de Wit, R. Langlais, D. Mills, P. Moll, I.M. Otto, A. Petersen, C. Pohl, L. van Kerkhoff, Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change, Environ. Sci. Policy 28 (2013) 60–70. [68] H. Bradbury, S. Waddell, K. O’ Brien, M. Apgar, B. Teehankee, I. Fazey, A call to Action Research for Transformations: The times demand it, Action Res. 17 (2019) 3–10. [69] K.H. Müller, Second-Order Science. The Revolution of Scientific Structures, Edition Echoraum, Wien, 2016. [70] P. Aufenvenne, H. Egner, K. Von Elverfeldt, On climate change research, the crisis of science and second-order science, Constructivist Found. 10 (1) (2014) 120–129. [71] B. Sharpe, A. Hodgson, G. Leicester, A. Lyon, I. Fazey, Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation, Ecol. Soc. 21 (2) (2016). [72] M. Polanyi, Tacit knowledge, in: L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in Organizations, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1997, p. Chapter 7. [73] A. Hodgson, Towards an ontology of the present moment, On the Horizon 21 (1) (2013) 24–38. [74] P. Tschakert, K.A. Dietrich, K. Tamminga, E. Prins, J. Shaffer, E. Liwenga, A. Asiedu, Learning and envisioning under climatic uncertainty, Environ. Plann. A 46 (5) (2014) 1049–1068. [75] B. Sharpe, Three Horizons: Patterning of Hope, Triarchy Press, Axminster, Devon, UK, 2013. [76] G.R. Bushe, Generative process, generative outcome: the transformational potential of appreciative inquiry, Adv. Appreciative Inquiry 4 (2013) 89–113. [77] Aristotle, The Nicomachean ethics (Translated by J. A. K. Thomson), Penguin Books, London, 2004. [78] B. Schwartz, K.E. Sharpe, Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive psychology, J. Happiness Stud. 7 (3) (2006) 377–395. [79] N. Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the Humanities, second ed., Pentire Press, London, 2007. [80] K.M. Gustafsson, R. Lidskog, Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development, Clim. Risk Manage. 19 (2018) 1–11. [81] C. Calyx, B. Jessup, Nuclear citizens jury: from local deliberations to transboundary and transgenerational legal dilemmas, Environ. Commun. (2018) 1–14. [82] G. Smith, Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009. [83] F. Westley, N. Antadze, D.J. Riddell, K. Robinson, S. Geobey, Five configurations for scaling up social innovation: case examples of nonprofit organizations from Canada, J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 50 (3) (2014) 234–260. [84] N. Schäpke, F. Stelzer, G. Caniglia, M. Bergmann, M. Wanner, M. SingerBrodowski, D. Loorbach, P. Olsson, C. Baedeker, D.J. Lang, Jointly experimenting for transformation?: shaping real-world laboratories by comparing them, GAIA 27 (2018) 85–96. [85] G. McCrory, N. Schäpke, J. Holmén, J. Holmberg, Sustainability-oriented labs in real-world contexts: An exploratory review, J. Cleaner Prod. 123202 (2020) . [86] F. Harris, Outdoor learning spaces: the case of forest school, Area 50 (2) (2018) 222–231. [87] M. Kim, Indigenous knowledge in Canadian science curricula: cases from Western Canada, Cult. Sci. Edu. 12 (3) (2017) 605–613. I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 17 [88] H. Lotz-Sisitka, A.E.J. Wals, D. Kronlid, D. McGarry, Transformative, transgressive social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 16 (2015) 73–80. [89] G. Leicester, Transformative Innovation: A Guide to Practice and Policy, Triarchy Press, Axminster, UK, 2016. [90] C. Luederitz, D.J. Abson, R. Audet, D.J. Lang, Many pathways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives, Sustain. Sci. 12 (3) (2017) 393–407. [91] C. Seelos, J. Mair, Mastering system change, Stanford Social Innov. Rev. 2018 (Fall) (2018) 35–41. [92] F. Westley, P. Olsson, C. Folke, T. Homer-Dixon, H. Vredenburg, D. Loorbach, J. Thompson, M. Nilsson, E. Lambin, J. Sendzimir, B. Banerjee, V. Galaz, S. van der Leeuw, Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation, Ambio 40 (7) (2011) 762–780. [93] K. Mossberger, C.J. Tolbert, R.S. McNeal, Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007. [94] A. Smith, R. Raven, What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability, Res. Policy 41 (6) (2012) 1025–1036. [95] E.G. Irwin, P.J. Culligan, M. Fischer-Kowalski, K.L. Law, R. Murtugudde, S. Pfirman, Bridging barriers to advance global sustainability, Nat. Sustainability 1 (7) (2018) 324–326. [96] D.P. Lam, B. Martín-López, A. Wiek, E.M. Bennett, N. Frantzeskaki, A.I. HorceaMilcu, D.J. Lang, Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes, Urban Transform. 2 (2020) 1–24. [97] M. Tengö, E.S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, M. Spierenburg, Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach, Ambio 43 (2014) 579–591. [98] S. Waddell, Societal change systems: a framework to address wicked problems, J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 52 (4) (2016) 422–449. [99] J. Rotmans, D. Loorbach, Complexity and transition management, J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2) (2009) 184–196. [100] L. van Kerkhoff, Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principles-based approach, Sustain. Sci. 9 (2) (2014) 143–155. [101] S. Jasanoff, Science and citizenship: a new synergy, Sci. Public Policy 31 (2) (2004) 90–94. [102] C. May, Patient autonomy and the politics of professional relationships, J. Adv. Nurs. 21 (1) (1995) 83–87. [103] F.W. Geels, Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective, Theory, Culture Soc. 31 (5) (2014) 21–40. [104] C. Roberts, F.W. Geels, M. Lockwood, P. Newell, H. Schmitz, B. Turnheim, A. Jordan, The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: towards a new research agenda, Energy Res. Social Sci. (2018) 304–311. [105] A. Cherp, V. Vinichenko, J. Jewell, E. Brutschin, B. Sovacool, Integrating technoeconomic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy transitions: a meta-theoretical framework, Energy Res. Social Sci. 37 (2018) 175–190. [106] J. Blythe, J. Silver, L. Evans, D. Armitage, N.J. Bennett, M.L. Moore, T.H. Morrison, K. Brown, The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse, Antipode 50 (5) (2018) 1206–1223. [107] B.L. Keeler, R. Chaplin-Kramer, A.D. Guerry, P.F.E. Addison, C. Bettigole, I.C. Burke, B. Gentry, L. Chambliss, C. Young, A.J. Travis, C.T. Darimont, D.R. Gordon, J. Hellmann, P. Kareiva, S. Monfort, L.l. Olander, T.l. Profeta, H.P. Possingham, C. Slotterback, E. Sterling, T. Ticktin, B. Vira, Society is ready for a new kind of scienceis academia? Bioscience 67 (7) (2017) 591–592. I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724 18