Figure 1 - uploaded by Albert Faber
Content may be subject to copyright.
The adaptive cycle, representing four stages in the life-cycle of a complex system. The axes represent key shaping properties. The stages first run from initial growth to maturation or conservation, increasing connectedness and potential. Subsequently and inevitably a stage of release, or 'creative desctruction' follows, releasing 'overconnectedness' and recapturing resilience. From there, the system reorganizes to harvest new opportunities and to align for a new phase in the adaptive cycle (Source: Holling, 2001; Gunderson and Holling, 2002). Available on http://tinyurl.com/6e9bkqm
Source publication
Since 2001, Dutch transition policy has been in place to govern long-term environmental policy for sustainable system innovation. Dutch environmental policy is subject to regular monitoring and policy evaluation, but the development of a conceptually sound evaluation tool for transition policies remains to be resolved. Key difficulties are the syst...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... adaptive systems may be stable, but always show dynamics; they are always in a state of 'flux'. The adaptive cycle is a useful metaphor to describe adaptive dynamics in CAS in terms of three key properties of change (Holling, 2001;Gunderson and Holling, 2002) ( Figure 1). The first property describes the potential for change, representing the range of options available. ...
Similar publications
This article proposes a fundamental methodological shift in the modelling of policy interventions for sustainability transitions in order to account for complexity (e.g. self-reinforcing mechanisms, such as technology lock-ins, arising from multi-agent interactions) and agent heterogeneity (e.g. differences in consumer and investment behaviour aris...
Citations
... For example, participation of a wide range of stakeholders generates a multiplicity of perspectives and objectives in terms of what the M&E should entail, and how and when it should be carried out. In parallel, the complexity of socialeecological systems, which involve diverse actors and sectors, variable stressors, ambiguous cause-effect relationships, and continuous and non-linear changes, preclude the use of traditional approaches to evaluation (Faber and Alkemade, 2011). ...
Participatory approaches are now increasingly recognized and used as an essential element of policies and programs, especially in regards to natural resource management (NRM). Most practitioners, decision-makers and researchers having adopted participatory approaches also acknowledge the need to monitor and evaluate such approaches in order to audit their effectiveness, support decision-making or improve learning. Many manuals and frameworks exist on how to carry out monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for participatory processes. However, few provide guidelines on the selection and implementation of M&E methods, an aspect which is also often obscure in published studies, at the expense of the transparency, reliability and validity of the study. In this paper, we argue that the selection and implementation of M&E methods are particularly strategic when monitoring and evaluating a participatory process. We demonstrate that evaluators of participatory processes have to tackle a quadruple challenge when selecting and implementing methods: using mixed-methods, both qualitative and quantitative; assessing the participatory process, its outcomes, and its context; taking into account both the theory and participants’ views; and being both rigorous and adaptive. The M&E of a participatory planning process in the Rwenzori Region, Uganda, is used as an example to show how these challenges unfold on the ground and how they can be tackled. Based on this example, we conclude by providing tools and strategies that can be used by evaluators to ensure that they make utile, feasible, coherent, transparent and adaptive methodological choices when monitoring and evaluating participatory processes for NRM.
... In addition, technological uncertainty can hinder the proper evaluation of the innovation and consequently affect the innovation decision (facilitating the appearance of managerial uncertainty); (2) political uncertainty can play a significant role both in the pre-development and take-off phases if we take into account that policy can guide or facilitate the speed and direction of sustainability transition towards bio-based chemicals by different means such as fiscal instruments or niche management measures. In addition, " at the landscape level, one of the key challenges for transition policy is to find leverage to enhance the attractiveness of alternative system options, so increase potential for change " ([13]: 12); (3) market uncertainty, through all its components—but most notably competitive uncertainty—is already present in the pre-development phase, as it is uncertain which firm will bring a competitive technologies into the market and how these competing technologies will perform. In the take-off phase competitive uncertainty is most dominant as new technologies have to compete with both established and competing new technologies ([27]: 18); supplier uncertainty—has a more significant role in the take-off phase when for instance, innovating firms have to find reliable suppliers that are able to deliver high-quality components in large quantities, that assure commercialization; consumer uncertainty is perceived by the innovating firms in the first two phases in a strong way, since " potential consumers are unable to clearly articulate their expectations and needs regarding the new technology " ([27]: 18) and also the new products that are meant to substitute the traditional ones; (4) acceptance/legitimacy uncertainty appears in these two phases when necessary skills and knowledge outdo existing skills and knowledge possessed by the users ([19]: 28); (5) timing uncertainty is perceived by the innovating firms, especially when they are confronted with the lack of managerial tools required to deal with the inherent risk; (6) resource uncertainty about human resources is most dominant in the pre-development phase, while the one about financial uncertainty is most evident in the take-off phase, when there is a fierce competition [27]. ...
This research study aims at providing insight into how different types of uncertainty (with different implications for the various stakeholders) affect the quality of decisions taken in the bio-based products market and consequently its further development and also, more generally, the shift towards a bio-based economy.
... Up to this point, however, we lack a detailed understanding of how policy responses emerge from systemic imbalances and how they co-evolve with the system that policy makers intervene in (Kuhlmann et al., 2010). The literature emphasizes the complex nature of innovation systems, with many interdependent actors and institutions (Faber and Alkemade, 2011). Yet, it remains unclear how this affects policy maker's ability to purposefully induce technological change. ...
... A second mechanism that is likely to shape the dynamics of policy interventions aimed at removing specific system failures is limited capacity and foresight of policy makers. Even if there is a political consensus regarding the goals and means of policy-making, the inherent complexity of socio-technical systems may limit the degree to which consequences of policy interventions can be accurately foreseen (Faber and Alkemade, 2011). As expressed in Lindblom's (1959) 'science of muddling through', policy makers generally possess limited capacity to enlist and evaluate all possible policy measures and outcomes. ...
... In view of societal concerns and the fact that our technological innovation abilities appear not to keep pace with the ability to understand the (long-term) impact of technologies and associated actions (Westley et al., 2011), Ison (2012 argues that this asks for increased focus on science as a reflexive practice informed by systems thinking and practice, even when the ambition is to contribute to significant and on-going innovation that can enhance wellbeing, livelihoods and food security. In the context of complexity dimensions of sustainability transition policies, Faber and Alkemade (2011) argue for policy makers to take two key issues into account: 1) Policy reorientation from Towards responsible scaling up and out in agricultural development 45 efficiency and optimization towards more comprehensive principles of system organization, and 2) Rethinking the means-end dichotomy, moving the focus of policy away from a specific aim that has to be efficiently reached to a focus of policy on a specific incentives (relating to institutional change) that will change economic patterns of development. ...
Discussion paper prepared for the CGIAR Research Program on Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics.
Sustainable development, sustainability and sustainability transition are associated with the growing complexity of sociopolitical systems and ecological systems, and of their interactions. These concepts are becoming even more intricate since in academic considerations and in policy-making the concept of complexity is not precisely defined. The term complexity usually relates to a special class of non-linear mathematical models which are relevant to phenomena described with characteristics measurable in the ratio scale which occur in nature and in social systems. It is also used as analogy and metaphor. The aim of this chapter is to identify and to assess the applications of the concepts deriving from complexity studies in the discourse on sustainability and sustainable development and on related terms—transition to sustainability and management of transition to sustainability. The main hypothesis of the chapter is that a sophisticated language dealing with complexity and applied in the narratives on sustainability and related ideas requires a profounder clarification so as to provide new insights concerning description, explanation of causal links, prediction, normative approach and influence upon societal phenomena.
