Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-17 (section)

=== 17.2.4 System-level Explanations ===

<div id="h2-7-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Systems explanations help explain the dynamics of transitions toward sustainable development while explicitly uncovering links between the human and natural worlds, the socio-cultural embeddedness of technology, and the inertia behind high-carbon development pathways. This line of thinking often envisages transitions emerging from complex systems in which many different elements interact at small scales and spontaneously self-organise to produce behaviour that is unexpected, unmanaged and fundamentally different from the sum of the system’s constituent parts.

Social-ecological systems theory describes the processes of exchange and interaction between human and ecological systems, investigating in particular non-linear feedback occurring across different scales ( [[#Folke--2006|Folke 2006]] ; [[#Holling--2001|Holling 2001]] ). This approach has informed subsequent theoretical and empirical developments, including the ‘planetary boundaries’ approach ( [[#Rockström--2009|Rockström et al. 2009]] ), conceptualisations of vulnerability and adaptive capacity ( [[#Hinkel--2011|Hinkel 2011]] ; [[#Pelling--2010|Pelling 2010]] ) and more recent explorations of urban resilience ( [[#Romero-Lankao--2016|Romero-Lankao et al. 2016]] ) and regenerative sustainability ( [[#Clayton--2018|Clayton and Radcliffe 2018]] ; [[#Robinson--2015|Robinson and Cole 2015]] ). Employing a systems lens to address the ‘root causes’ of unsustainable development pathways (such as dysfunctional social or economic arrangements) rather than the ‘symptoms’ (dwelling quality, vehicle efficiency, etc.) can trigger the non-linear change needed for a transformation to take place ( [[#Pelling--2015|Pelling et al. 2015]] ). Exploring synergies between climate change adaptation, mitigation and other sustainability priorities (such as biodiversity and social equity, for instance) ( [[#Beg--2002|Beg 2002]] ; [[#Burch--2014|Burch et al. 2014]] ; [[#Shaw--2014|Shaw et al. 2014]] ) may help to yield these transformative outcomes, though data regarding the specific nature of these synergies is still emerging.

Socio-technical transition theory, on the other hand, explores the ways in which technologies such as low-carbon vehicles or regenerative buildings are bound up in a web of social practices, physical infrastructure, market rules, regulations, norms and habits (see, e.g, ( [[#Loorbach--2017|Loorbach et al. 2017]] ). Radical social and technical innovations can emerge that ultimately challenge destabilised or increasingly ineffective and undesirable incumbents, but path dependencies often stymie these transition processes, suggesting an important role for governance actors ( [[#Burch--2017|Burch 2017]] ; [[#Frantzeskaki--2012|Frantzeskaki et al. 2012]] ; [[#Holscher--2019|Holscher et al. 2019]] ).

This also reveals the large-scale macroeconomic, political and cultural trends (or contexts) that may reinforce or call into question the usefulness of current systems of production and consumption. One branch of this theory, transition management ( [[#Kern--2008|Kern and Smith 2008]] ; [[#Loorbach--2010|Loorbach 2010]] ), explores ways of guiding a socio-technical system from one path to another. In particular, it highlights interactions between actors, technologies and institutions, and the complex governance mechanisms that facilitate them ( [[#Smith--2005|Smith et al. 2005]] ). The challenge, in part, becomes linking radical short-term innovations with longer-term visions of sustainability ( [[#Loorbach--2010|Loorbach and Rotmans 2010]] ) and creating opportunities for collaborative course-correction in light of new information or unexpected outcomes ( [[#Burch--2017|Burch 2017]] ).

<div id="17.2.5" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="conclusions"></span>