The notion of ‘transformations towards sustainability’ takes an increasingly central position in global sustainability research and policy discourse in recent years. Governance and politics are central to understanding and analysing transformations towards sustainability. However, despite receiving growing attention in recent years, the governance and politics aspects of transformations remain arguably under-developed in the global sustainability literature. A variety of conceptual approaches have been developed to understand and analyse societal transition or transformation processes, including: socio-technical transitions, social-ecological systems, sustainability pathways, and transformative adaptation. This paper critically surveys these four approaches, and reflects on them through the lens of the Earth System Governance framework (Biermann et al., 2009). This contributes to appreciating existing insights on transformations, and to identifying key research challenges and opportunities. Overall, the paper brings together diverse perspectives, that have so far remained largely fragmented, in order to strengthen the foundation for future research on transformations towards sustainability

Quantifying rates of climate change in mountain regions is of considerable interest, not least because mountains are viewed as climate “hotspots” where change can anticipate or amplify what is occurring elsewhere. Accelerating mountain climate change has extensive environmental impacts, including depletion of snow/ice reserves, critical for the world’s water supply. Whilst the concept of elevation-dependent warming (EDW), whereby warming rates are stratified by elevation, is widely accepted, no consistent EDW profile at the global scale has been identified. Past assessments have also neglected elevation-dependent changes in precipitation. In this comprehensive analysis, both in situ station temperature and precipitation data from mountain regions, and global gridded datasets (observations, reanalyses and model hindcasts) are employed to examine the elevation dependency of temperature and precipitation changes since 1900. In situ observations in paired studies (using adjacent stations) show a tendency towards enhanced warming at higher elevations. However, when all mountain/lowland studies are pooled into two groups, no systematic difference in high vs. low elevation group warming rates is found. Precipitation changes based on station data are inconsistent with no systematic contrast between mountain and lowland precipitation trends. Gridded datasets (CRU, GISTEMP, GPCC, ERA5, CMIP5) show increased warming rates at higher elevations in some regions, but on a global scale there is no universal amplification of warming in mountains. Increases in mountain precipitation are weaker than for low elevations worldwide, meaning reduced elevation-dependency of precipitation, especially in mid-latitudes. Agreement on elevation-dependent changes between gridded datasets is weak for temperature but stronger for precipitation.

Answers to the seemingly straightforward questions “what is a mountain?” and “where are the mountains of the world?” are in fact quite complex, and there have been few attempts to map the mountains of the earth in a consistent and rigorous fashion. However, knowing exactly where mountain ecosystems are distributed on the planet is a precursor to conserving them, as called for in Sustainable Development Goals 6 and 15 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In this article we first compare 3 characterizations of global mountain distributions, including a new, high-resolution (250 m) map of global mountains derived from terrain characteristics. We show how differences in conceptual definition, methodology, and spatial resolution of source data can result in differences in the extent and location of lands classed as mountains. For example, the new 250-m resource documents a larger global mountain extent than previous characterizations, although it excludes plateaus, hilly forelands, an...

Transdisciplinary (TD) research is increasingly suggested as a means of tackling wicked problems by providing knowledge on solutions that serve as pathways towards sustainable development. In contrast to research striving for generalizable findings, TD research produces insights for a particular case and context. TD researchers, who build on other TD projects’ results, need to know under what conditions knowledge gained from their case can be transferred to and applied in another case and context. Knowledge transfer between researchers and stakeholders is extensively discussed in the literature. However, a more profound understanding and management of the challenges related to knowledge transfer across cases, as it applies to TD research, are missing. We specify the challenges of knowledge transfer in TD research by distinguishing TD research for policy from conventional evidence-based policy, which relies on generalizing findings, such as randomized controlled trials. We also compare the functions that cases fulfil in other types of research that include basic, applied and ideographic research. We propose to conceptualize transferability of knowledge across cases as arguments by analogy. Methodologically, this would imply explicit consideration on whether the cases in question are sufficiently similar in relevant aspects while not dissimilar in other additional relevant aspects. On the one hand, this approach calls for explicit material considerations that are needed to learn about which aspects of cases are relevant. On the other hand, formal considerations on how to weigh perceived relevant similarities and dissimilarities of the cases at hand for transferability of knowledge, are needed. Empirical research on how projects in TD research deal with this problem is called for.

In this paper, we examine the concept of embodied uncertainty by exploring multiple dimensions of uncertainty in the context of risks associated with extreme natural hazards. We highlight a need for greater recognition, particularly by disaster management and response agencies, of uncertainty as a subjective experience for those living at risk. Embodied uncertainty is distinguished from objective uncertainty by the nature of its internalisation at the individual level, where it is subjective, felt and directly experienced. This approach provides a conceptual pathway that sharpens knowledge of the processes that shape how individuals and communities interpret and contextualise risk. The ways in which individual characteristics, social identities and lived experiences shape interpretations of risk are explored by considering embodied uncertainty in four contexts: social identities and trauma, the co-production of knowledge, institutional structures and policy and long-term lived experiences. We conclude by outlining the opportunities that this approach presents, and provide recommendations for further research on how the concept of embodied uncertainty can aid decision-making and the management of risks in the context of extreme natural hazards.