Explore the vast range of titles available.

Global Environmental Assessments (GEAs) are in a unique position to influence environmental decision-making in the context of sustainability challenges. To do this effectively, however, new methods are needed to respond to the needs of decision-makers for a more integrated, contextualized and goal-seeking evaluation of different policies, geared for action from global to local. While scenarios are an important tool for GEAs to link short-term decisions and medium and long-term consequences, these current information needs cannot be met only through deductive approaches focused on the global level. In this paper, we argue that a more diverse set of futures tools operating at multiple scales are needed to improve GEA scenario development and analysis to meet the information needs of policymakers and other stakeholders better. Based on the literature, we highlight four challenges that GEAs need to be able to address in order to contribute to global environmental decision-making about the future: 1. anticipate unpredictable future conditions; 2. be relevant at multiple scales, 3. include diverse actors, perspectives and contexts; and 4. leverage the imagination to inspire action. We present a toolbox of future-oriented approaches and methods that can be used to effectively address the four challenges currently faced by GEAs.

The increasing scale and interconnection of many environmental challenges - from climate change to land use - has resulted in the need to collaborate across borders and boundaries of all types. Traditional centralized, top-down and sectoral approaches to governance of single-issue areas or species within social-ecological systems often have limited potential to alleviate issues that go beyond their jurisdiction. As a result, collaborative governance approaches have come to the forefront. A great deal of past research has examined the conditions under which collaborative efforts are likely to achieve desired outcomes. However, few studies have analyzed how the means to achieve successful collaborative outcomes differ based on context when examined across multiple studies. In this research, we begin to chart a means for doing this. Building onto a Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) Framework, we provide a coding manual to analyse how contextual variables mediate the effects of mechanism variables on outcomes of the collaborative governance of social-ecological systems. Through the examination of four cases, we provide a proof-of-concept assessment and show the utility of the CMO framework and coding manual to draw comparisons across cases for understanding how collaborative outcomes are contingent on the social-ecological context in which they occur.

We reply to 'A relational turn for sustainability science?' by West et al. We commend West et al. for their salient comments about the relational turn. Yet the article leaves us wondering about the methodological challenges and pragmatics of relational thinking. The authors omitted important tensions in relational thinking discussion about how to assess dynamic socio-ecological systems, and how to lever change for sustainability. Whilst relational thinking is helpful, researchers inevitably need to make strategic choices about where to divide system components if the goal is to systematically assess relations and to promote transformations toward sustainability. Where and how to 'apply the knife' inevitably is informed by one's ontological starting point (view of reality) and personal epistemological beliefs. We outline three questions to be answered in order to more firmly establish relational thinking in sustainability science: If systems and processes are continually unfolding, how do we identify where to lever change for sustainability? In relational thinking, can we explain human action outside of the shared 'activity of experiencing'? If society and ecology is co-constituted, how can relational approaches be used to understand unfolding and cascading effects in complex systems? We conclude with future directions for a solutions-oriented sustainability science agenda.

Green-building rating systems (GBRSs) are critical for implementing climate change (CC) mitigation strategies because they can help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the building sector. From the Indian policy perspective, the ClimateSMART Cities Assessment Framework (CSCAF) provides cities a roadmap toward mitigating CC while planning/implementing their actions and facilitates realising energy efficiency and green buildings through GBRS adoption and incentivisation. Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) is a comprehensive GBRS aligned with CSCAF and India's climate goals, facilitating the implementation of Government of India's relevant policies and climate-adaptation measures within a building project's different phases. This paper examines existing institutional mechanisms for incentivising GRIHA-rated projects and provides recommendations for municipal bodies, regional developmental authorities, and state governments for strengthening resource efficiency in the built environment through GRIHA. Residential buildings are considered because their contribution to GHG emissions is the greatest among buildings. Data were collected through literature review, reviewing smart-city proposals and latest state annual action plans, Right to Information queries, and structured interviews of stakeholders. Feedback from green-building certification agencies, project proponents, and government officials revealed a need for local-level information dissemination and guidance on institutional mechanisms for incentivising green-rated projects. Further, to understand the implementation mechanisms for GRIHA-linked incentives, residential projects under some local-government agencies were documented as case studies, providing useful insights into prevalent mechanisms for availing incentives while facilitating GRIHA compliance. The information provided herein can be useful for local governments in other developing countries for guiding the building sector toward mitigating climate change.