Transformation of economic systems is widely regarded as essential for tackling interacting global crises. Unconventional economic approaches seeking holistic human and planetary well-being have transformative potential, but mainstreaming them is hampered by vested interests and intellectual lock-ins. They are also diffuse and struggle to develop sufficient discursive power to gain more widespread traction in policy. To bring coherence, we undertake a qualitative content analysis of 238 document sources from science and practice. We identify ten ecological, social, political economy and holistic principles cutting across 38 economic approaches. They include: (1) social–ecological embeddedness and holistic well-being; (2) interdisciplinarity and complexity thinking; (3) limits to growth; (4) limited substitutability of natural capital; (5) regenerative design; (6) holistic perspectives of people and values; (7) equity, equality and justice; (8) relationality and social enfranchisement; (9) participation, deliberation and cooperation and (10) post-capitalism and decolonization. We also consider opportunities and barriers to applying these principles in the context of global crises. Our results can help consolidate transformative economic approaches and support future efforts to synthesize conceptual models, methodologies and policy solutions and to validate the identified principles more explicitly within global south contexts.

There are growing calls for societies to transform towards regenerative futures that support the flourishing of life and transcend interlinked social and ecological crises. Many actors are now trying to identify whether desired transformations are occurring, and how different interventions are contributing to transformation. These are questions of evaluation. However, we lack a holistic appreciation of how evaluation can most effectively assist transformation efforts. We undertake a systematized scoping review of a large body of evaluation literature to identify principles and methodologies for transformation-focused evaluation. We identify twelve distinct but interdependent principles which, when applied by evaluators (and supported by evaluation commissioners, sponsors and funders), are considered to significantly enhance the effectiveness of evaluation in assessing and assisting transformations, although tensions exist between some of the principles. The principles were clustered into three overarching themes of Complexity Principles (how evaluation approaches complex systems), Power Principles (evaluators’ power relations), and Purpose Principles (evaluation’s deeper purpose and values). The Complexity Principles call for transformation-focused evaluators to appreciate evaluands (e.g., a transition initiative, sector, or region) as unique, entangled, nested, dynamic and uncertain systems, and employ more diverse, developmental, contextually adapted and future-sensitive evaluation approaches. The Power Principles urge evaluators to promote justice, embrace diverse and marginalized perspectives, and reduce evaluator-evaluand polarization by shifting power towards evaluation users, whilst also fostering a more autonomous evaluation profession and mutualistic partnerships of knowledge and action. Most fundamentally, the Purpose Principles advocate for a recentering of values, reflexivity and learning at the heart of evaluation practice, and ensure that the core purpose of evaluation is to support systemic, societal transformation towards regenerative futures. Relevant methodologies are suggested for operationalizing the principles. Transformation-focused evaluation is a radical shift from conventional practice but the urgency to address global crises makes the shift a crucial one.

We urgently need to foster regenerative food systems that mutually reinforce human and ecological health. However, we have limited understanding of the action pathways that could encourage the emergence of such systems. Here we report on an extensive Three Horizons futures process, conducted with diverse participation from food system researchers and practitioners, to identify core domains of action for transforming the food system of Yorkshire, UK, towards a regenerative future. After establishing the contrast between the current degenerative and envisioned future regenerative food system, six core action domains were identified that require support to enable transformation: 1) enhancing supply chain connectivity and innovation to support diverse hybrid business ecosystems; 2) scaling environmentally beneficial and regenerative farming; 3) empowering citizens to reshape food demand; 4) providing trusted, accessible knowledge support for standards and incentives; 5) supporting schools and young people as drivers of long-term change; and 6) ensuring coordination and mutual support across domains. Our results highlight the importance of efforts to cohere synergic action, ambitious visioning, and addressing issues of power. Overall, our study sets an ambitious standard for co-developing action priorities to encourage regenerative futures.

Social-ecological interactions mediate water–energy–food security in small developing islands, but community-scale insights are underrepresented in nexus research. These interactions are dynamic in their response to environmental and anthropogenic pressures and need to be understood to inform sustainable land use planning into the future. This study centered on bringing together diverse stakeholders to explore water–energy–food futures using the “Kesho” (meaning “tomorrow” in Kiswahili) scenario tool for two of the largest islands that comprise the Zanzibar Archipelago. The methodology comprised four core stages: (1) exploration of how past drivers of change impacted water–energy–food security; (2) modeling of a Business as Usual Scenario for land cover change; (3) narrative development to describe alternative futures for 2030 based on themes developed at the community scale; and (4) predictions about how narratives would shape land cover and its implications for the nexus. These results were used to model alternate land cover scenarios in TerrSet IDRISI (v. 18.31) and produce visual representations of expected change. Findings demonstrated that deforestation, saltwater incursion, and a reduction in permanent waterbodies were projected by 2030 in a Business as Usual Scenario. Three alternative scenario narratives were developed, these included Adaptation, Ecosystem Management, and Settlement Planning. The results demonstrate that the effectiveness of actions under the scenario options differ between the islands, indicating the importance of understanding the suitability of national policies across considered scales. Synergies across the alternative scenario narratives also emerged, including integrated approaches for managing environmental change, community participation in decision making, effective protection of forests, cultural sensitivity to settlement planning, and poverty alleviation. These synergies could be used to plan strategic action towards effectively strengthening water–energy–food security in Zanzibar.

‘New economics’ discourses – comprising diverse approaches advocated as more just and sustainable replacements of dominant neoclassical and neoliberal economic perspectives – have been criticised as insufficiently coherent to form the ‘discourse coalitions’ necessary to enter the mainstream. To date there has been little systematic exploration of the agreement or divergence in new economics discourses. Here, we conduct a qualitative systematised review of new economics literature in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to analyse stances towards the economic status quo and the depth of change advocated in it, such as fundamental and systemic transformation or more superficial reformist or accepting types of change that mostly maintain current economic systems. We interpreted authors’ stances towards six key status quo themes: capitalism; neoliberalism; GDP-based economic growth; debt-based money; globalisation; and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the 525 documents analysed, there was relative consensus that neoliberalism needed transforming, stances towards GDP-based growth substantially diverged (from transformative to reformist/accepting), and stances towards the SDGs were mostly accepting, although the status quo themes tended to be infrequently mentioned overall. Different new economics approaches were associated with diverging stances. We suggest that alignment against neoliberalism and towards the SDGs may provide strategic coalescing points for new economics. Because stances towards core problematised aspects of mainstream economics were often not articulated, we encourage new economics scholars and practitioners to remain explicit, aware and reflexive with regard to the economic status quo, as well as strategic in their approach to seeking economic transformation.