The Anthropocene era demands urgent societal changes as we exceed planetary limits. Addressing key sustainability and governance challenges requires inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. Future Earth, a global initiative, brings together leading scholars to advance sustainability science by connecting natural and social sciences and humanities with policymaking. This Special Collection emerged from a 2021 call by Future Earth. Featuring 12 manuscripts, it explores themes like cutting-edge sustainability knowledge, interdisciplinary methods, cultural and developmental issues, and strategies for sustainable transformations. This collection offers a forward-looking view on critical research to guide policy and funding for a sustainable world.

The Anthropocene era necessitates urgent societal changes as we surpass planetary boundaries. Addressing the pressing questions of biogeochemical monitoring, feedback mechanisms, and effective governance systems requires interdisciplinary approaches. Future Earth, a global initiative formed by consolidating networks from major research programs, has been pivotal in advancing sustainability science through such approaches. By bridging natural and social sciences and humanities for enhancing the science–policy interface, Future Earth fosters research and innovation essential for global sustainability transformations. This Special Collection, ‘Charting the Course for the Next Decade of Sustainability Research and Innovation,’ arose from a 2021 call by Future Earth. The Special Collection highlights key scientific questions and future research directions. Contributions span themes such as state-of-the-art sustainability knowledge, transdisciplinary methods, cultural and developmental tensions, multi-actor process efficacy, and integrated knowledge for sustainable transformations. With manuscripts sourced from Future Earth's Global Research Networks and other aligned organizations, this issue underscores a forward-looking perspective on critical interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research needed to support high-level policy and funding directions, ultimately aiming to inform societal decisions for a sustainable and equitable world. We conclude that addressing the sustainability crisis requires a diverse and multi-faceted approach that draws upon the best knowledge of humankind.

Explore urgent societal changes and sustainability science with Future Earth's Collection on sustainability research.

In transdisciplinary sustainability, scientists take responsibility for the long-term impact they have on practitioners in the research field and beyond. However, the duration of a career and amounts of funding are finite. One way out is to perform a responsible exit from the field. This study extracts lessons to realizing researchers’ responsible exit from their field through detailed description of the experiences of two researchers and a practitioner in collaboration in transdisciplinary research, weaving together the perspectives of all parties. The following lessons were extracted: (1) Imagining the extent of mutual understanding, (2) Production of knowledge entrusted to practitioners, and (3) Researchers’ acceptance of being unneeded. This study does not claim that these approaches are universally effective. We suggest that the reader transfer this case study and its approaches to his or her own case to seek better relationships. The validity of this qualitative study's suggestions should be tested by readers.

In the discipline of transdisciplinary sustainability, researchers must responsibly manage their impact on their partner practitioners. Balancing this with limited career durations and limited research funds is challenging. One potential solution involves responsibly exiting from the research field. This study investigates the experience of two researchers and a practitioner in collaborative transdisciplinary research. The lessons include acknowledging researchers’ amateurism, anticipating the challenges in achieving mutual understanding, and embracing researchers’ acceptance of feeling unneeded. The universality of these principles should be investigated in the future research. This research encourages readers to apply these principles to their own cases to develop better relationship between researchers and practitioners that leave no seeds of misfortune.

In transdisciplinary sustainability, scientists take responsibility for the long-term impact they have on practitioners in the research field and broader communities. However, the duration of a career as a scientist and amounts of funding are finite. One way out is to responsibly exit from the field. This study extracts lessons to realizing researchers’ responsible exit from their field by providing a detailed account of the collaborative experiences of two researchers and a practitioner engaged in transdisciplinary research, weaving together the perspectives of all parties. The following lessons were extracted: acknowledging researchers’ amateurism, anticipating the challenges in achieving mutual understanding, and embracing researchers’ acceptance of feeling unneeded. This study does not claim that these principles are universally effective. We suggest that the reader transfer this case study and its approaches to his or her own case to seek better relationships.

In transdisciplinary sustainability, researchers must responsibly manage their impact on their research partner practitioners. Balancing this with limited career durations and funds is challenging. Researchers’ responsible exit from the research field is a possible solution. This research derives insight from researchers’ and a practitioner's experiences in collaborative transdisciplinary research. Lessons include acknowledging researchers’ amateurism, anticipating the challenges in achieving mutual understanding, and embracing researchers’ acceptance of feeling unneeded. However, these approaches might not be universal. Readers are encouraged to apply these lessons to their own case for better relationship building.

This article examines the challenges and opportunities to integrate diverse sources of evidence in assessments produced by international platforms working at the science–policy interface. Diversity (or pluralism) of sources of literature, both in terms of their geographic origin and disciplinary focus, is essential for assessments to inform decision-making across social–ecological contexts. Using the recently completed ‘Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature’ of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services as a case, we find that significant effort has been dedicated to reviewing diverse literature. We discuss three strategies to expand pluralism in future assessments.

Representing plural views in science–policy platforms is essential to avoid reproducing geographic and epistemic biases that permeate contemporary scientific knowledge production and synthesis. The Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has strived to produce assessments that incorporate information from diverse regions and knowledge systems. We explore the geographic and epistemic pluralism of the literature included in the ‘Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature’ (VA), and the challenges and opportunities to achieve such knowledge pluralism. We applied a bibliometric analysis to the sources of evidence cited in the VA, and reflected on the assessment development process, in which we were directly involved. Our results highlight the success of different strategies developed by VA experts to engage with diverse sources of literature. Still, most evidence was English-language academic literature produced in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States, echoing the prominence of this literature in scientific publication in environmental disciplines. Reflecting on our experiences, we discuss strategies that could further enhance the geographic and epistemic pluralism in the information reviewed for future environmental assessments produced by IPBES and other international science–policy platforms.

Epistemic and geographic pluralism was partially achieved in IPBES Values Assessment, and can be further enhanced in future assessments.

Substantive carbon is sequestered in mangrove, saltmarsh, seagrass, and other marine ecosystems. Blue carbon is considered to offer potential for enhanced carbon sequestration. Bringing blue carbon to market, however, presents risks to local people and communities with livelihood and other connections to these environments. While efforts are forged to establish payments for ecosystem services, blue carbon presents critical challenges to social and environmental justice. In this paper, we synthesize insights from relevant literature and provide direction for future research on the social and cultural dimensions of blue carbon.

Blue carbon has been proposed as a nature-based solution to mitigate climate change and is the focus of concerted scientific and policy attention. The rush to operationalize blue carbon however, presents significant risks for social and environmental justice where it intersects with inequality and marginalization. To date, the reasonable and just consequences of the social transformation that will accompany blue carbon are under-examined. We undertake a structured literature review of research published over the past decade that addresses the social and cultural dimensions of blue carbon, and chart four themes: (1) conceptual issues, (2) governance issues; (3) emergent lessons (from practice); and (4) future research directions that address: social acceptability; processes to address social justice including engagement, participation, and benefit sharing; information and data deficits; and institutional governance reform. If the stated opportunities are to be fully realized, we argue the social and cultural dimensions of blue carbon, and its intersections with social justice, must be attended to explicitly and clarified.

Just transitions to climate change mean attending to people, culture, and livelihoods as blue carbon is operationalized.

Many conservation initiatives call for ‘transformative change’ to counter biodiversity loss, climate change, and injustice. The term connotes fundamental, broad, and durable changes to human relationships with nature. However, if oversimplified or overcomplicated, or not focused enough on power and the political action necessary for change, associated initiatives can perpetuate or exacerbate existing crises. This article aims to help practitioners deliberately catalyze and steer transformation processes. It provides a theoretically and practically grounded definition of ‘transformative conservation’, along with six strategic, interlocking recommendations. These cover systems pedagogy, political mobilization, inner transformation, as well as planning, action, and continual adjustment.

Calls for ‘transformative change’ point to the fundamental reorganization necessary for global conservation initiatives to stem ecological catastrophe. However, the concept risks being oversimplified or overcomplicated, and focusing too little on power and the political action necessary for change. Accordingly, its intersection with contemporary biodiversity and climate change mitigation initiatives needs explicit deliberation and clarification. This article advances the praxis of ‘transformative conservation’ as both (1) a desired process that rethinks the relationships between individuals, society, and nature, and restructures systems accordingly, and (2) a desired outcome that conserves biodiversity while justly transitioning to net zero emission economies and securing the sustainable and regenerative use of natural resources. It first reviews criticisms of area-based conservation targets, natural climate solutions, and nature-based solutions that are framed as transformative, including issues of ecological integrity, livelihoods, gender, equity, growth, power, participation, knowledge, and governance. It then substantiates six strategic recommendations designed to help practitioners deliberately steer transformation processes. These include taking a systems approach; partnering with political movements to achieve equitable and just transformation; linking societal with personal (‘inner’) transformation; updating how we plan; facilitating shifts from diagnosis and planning to action; and improving our ability to adjust to transformation as it occurs.

Curious about stemming the global biodiversity and climate crises? Browse this article on transformative conservation!

There has been a long history of conflicts, studies, and debate over how to both protect rivers and develop them sustainably. With a pause in new developments caused by the global pandemic, anticipated further implementation of the Paris Agreement and high-level global climate and biodiversity meetings in 2021, now is an opportune moment to consider the current trajectory of development and policy options for reconciling dams with freshwater system health.

We calculate potential loss of free-flowing rivers (FFRs) if proposed hydropower projects are built globally. Over 260,000 km of rivers, including Amazon, Congo, Irrawaddy, and Salween mainstem rivers, would lose free-flowing status if all dams were built. We propose a set of tested and proven solutions to navigate trade-offs associated with river conservation and dam development. These solution pathways are framed within the mitigation hierarchy and include (1) avoidance through either formal river protection or through exploration of alternative development options; (2) minimization of impacts through strategic or system-scale planning or re-regulation of downstream flows; (3) restoration of rivers through dam removal; and (4) mitigation of dam impacts through biodiversity offsets that include restoration and protection of FFRs. A series of examples illustrate how avoiding or reducing impacts on rivers is possible – particularly when implemented at a system scale – and can be achieved while maintaining or expanding benefits for climate resilience, water, food, and energy security.

Policy solutions and development pathways exist to navigate trade-offs to meet climate resilience, water, food, and energy security goals while safeguarding FFRs.

In this paper, we focus on the disruption that the current pandemic has created within the US industrial food system. We suggest that the pandemic has provided an opening for small producers. Attending to small-scale responses to the pandemic can guide policy and public investments towards a more just and sustainable future for food.

Building on the IPES-Food Communique of April 2020, we examine the many ways in which the US industrial food system faltered during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Using Regime Theory as a guide, we suggest that such a catastrophic crisis may create significant opportunities for an emergent food regime. Drawing from our research and participant observation in the US Midwest, we examine changes in the food system occasioned by the pandemic that foreshadow a new food regime. We suggest several blockages and risks to this new regime and suggest policies that would make transition smoother to a more just and sustainable food system.

What will food be like after the pandemic? This new study outlines an alternative food system emerging in the American Midwest.