Maintaining biodiversity is central to the sustainable development agenda. However, a lack of context-specific biodiversity information at policy-relevant scales has posed major limitations to decision-makers. To address this challenge, we undertook a comprehensive assessment of the biodiversity intactness of sub-Saharan Africa using place-based knowledge of 200 African biodiversity experts. We estimate that the region has on average lost 24% of its pre-colonial and pre-industrial faunal and floral population abundances, ranging from losses of <20% for disturbance-adapted herbaceous plants to 80% for some large mammals. Rwanda and Nigeria are the least intact (<55%), whereas Namibia and Botswana are the most intact (>85%). Notably, most remaining organisms occur in unprotected, relatively untransformed rangelands and natural forests. Losses in biodiversity intactness in the worst-affected biomes are driven by land transformation into cropland in grasslands and fynbos (Mediterranean-type ecosystems), by non-agricultural degradation in forests and by a combination of the two drivers in savannas. This assessment provides decision-makers with multifaceted, contextually appropriate and policy-relevant information on the state of biodiversity in an understudied region of the world. Our approach could be used in other regions, including better-studied localities, to integrate contextual, place-based knowledge into multiscale assessments of biodiversity status and impacts.

In the context of unprecedented global change, there is growing interest in the role of various agents of change in shaping and transforming social-ecological systems (SES) toward more just and sustainable futures. However, the diversity of terms used to describe these change agents prompts the question of whether these terms represent distinct functional roles and if and how they overlap. This article aims to clarify the meaning of 10 terms related to agents who catalyze and guide SES processes that aim to advance change: boundary spanner, change agent, gatekeeper, information broker, institutional entrepreneur, knowledge broker, networker, policy entrepreneur, social innovator, and visionary or visionary leader. Using the bibliographic database Scopus, we conducted a rapid review of the SES literature to determine how each term is defined and used, the function and strategies of each type of agent, the contextual factors enabling their actions, and their overall contribution to broader social-ecological processes. Our findings suggest that agents can be divided into two broad clusters based on their functional roles. One cluster consists of actors aiming to facilitate information flows, and the other of those who aim to instigate specific changes through their activities. In some instances, agents may perform two or more roles simultaneously implying that they may target more than one function. We found that the actions of these agents shape and are shaped by a range of contextual factors, particularly structural and institutional processes. Although this study helps to provide conceptual clarity to the different terms and their main functional roles, more research is needed to better understand their roles at different points in transformation processes and the contexts that mediate their behavior and strategies.

The multiple crises of the Anthropocene require deep transformations to achieve more sustainable, and equitable, social-ecological futures. Consequently, there is growing interest in marginal, experimental, or bottom-up initiatives that may provide alternative ideas and practices that challenge existing structures and contribute toward creating transformative change. Here, we explore how innovative sustainability-oriented initiatives, so-called “seeds,” promote three dimensions of equity: procedural, recognitional, and distributional. We identified 24 initiatives that seek to transform food systems in South Africa, Ghana, Malawi, Zambia, Benin, and Kenya, and used qualitative coding to summarize the range of activities these initiatives are undertaking, how these interact with dimensions of equity, and what barriers they face to achieve combined equity and sustainability goals. We found that seeds contribute primarily to distributional equity, although four seeds contributed to all three dimensions. Procedural equity was the least often achieved, and land ownership, legal recognition, and inclusion in decision making were areas where seeds struggled to make an impact. We found that the seed initiatives we analyzed contribute tangible benefits to beneficiaries, primarily through skills development and income security, but also through transformative outcomes such as increasing self-sufficiency of vulnerable groups and increased economic opportunities. However, seeds face various barriers to their success, primarily regarding funding and community dynamics. Collaboration and creating networks for learning among coalitions of actors emerged as a powerful way to both overcome barriers, and also for the emergence of new transformative initiatives. These insights can provide more focused support for initiatives that can contribute to achieving more equitable and sustainable futures.

Invasive species (IS) pose a global threat to biodiversity and human wellbeing. Managing this complex problem at the large scales required—across biomes, jurisdictions and land tenures—is challenging, particularly in developing countries. Innovative approaches that extend management beyond the remit of government are urgently needed. Initiatives which are not currently dominant, which exist at the margins of current mainstream practice, and which offer new ways of thinking and doing, may represent a promising source of inspiration and impact for IS management. Here we identify and analyse these so-called seeds in the context of IS management in South Africa, with the goal of understanding their contribution to IS management and to deeper transformative change. We examine what kinds of bottom-up innovations are currently present, what activities they involve and whom they benefit, what enablers and barriers they face, and in what ways they demonstrate transformative potential. We identified 37 seed initiatives, including technological solutions, alternative uses for IS, stewardship approaches and ways of engaging the public. Seeds are primarily enabled by their social connections, including broad collaborations, investing in networks, and in working with trusted mediators. Key barriers include misaligned or unstable government funding, inappropriate regulatory frameworks, and shortages of skilled personnel. These seed initiatives include many indicators of transformative change, including the ability to restructure systems, be innovative and be highly co-productive. We identify clusters of seeds representing different transformative strengths. This work provides a first insight into how marginal, experimental or bottom-up initiatives could contribute significantly to the impact of IS management in South Africa, and beyond. Supporting the scaling of these initiatives can contribute to transformative change towards more sustainable and just social-ecological futures.

Systemic barriers to sustained academic participation in the activities of international science–policy organizations undermine equitable knowledge co-production — a collaborative multi-actor creation of knowledge. We outline institutional reforms to tackle such barriers to the benefit of researchers, organizations and society at large.

Underpinned by systemic thinking, social-ecological systems (SES) research has emerged as a critical field for addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene, marked by a cross-scale focus, inter-and transdisciplinary approaches, and a strong emphasis on place-based work. Thanks to the efforts of many networks and institutes, the field has advanced new theoretical and methodological approaches, fostered dedicated journals, and spurred educational programs. It has also significantly influenced sustainability initiatives and policy from local to global scales, and has richly informed place-based efforts. Despite this progress, SES research faces persistent challenges, including conceptual and methodological fragmentation, difficulty in scaling localized insights to global frameworks (and vice versa), and capturing cross-scale connections and processes while retaining contextual relevance. Inclusivity also remains a critical issue, with regional, Indigenous, and local contributions often underrepresented, as there is still a reliance on short-term, inequitably distributed grant funding for much of the research in the field. This paper introduces the Society for Social-Ecological Systems (SocSES), a global platform designed to build on and connect to the rich legacy of SES networks. SocSES aims to advance and support SES–based research, practice, and action toward a just and sustainable future. We outline how SocSES will provide a home for SES institutes, networks, researchers, and practitioners working at the science-practice-policy interface to connect and amplify existing efforts through thematic streams, regional hubs, an institutional hub, an early-career professionals hub, and synthesis groups. The society will provide a stable infrastructure to foster interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration, enhance the generalizability and policy relevance of SES research, bolster education, research, and knowledge co-production, and support the next generation of SES professionals. By addressing the persistent challenges facing the field and fostering transformative spaces and communities for innovation and action, SocSES aspires to support and leverage SES knowledge as a cornerstone of global sustainability science. In line with the society’s commitment to linguistic diversity and equitable access, this abstract has been translated into 12 languages by authors of this paper and additional contributors. These translations are available in Appendix 2 and at https://socses.org/about/paper.

CONTEXT: As the concept of social-ecological resilience gains increasing policy attention, there is growing demand for approaches that operationalise it. Amongst these demands is the need to empirically assess absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities that underpin resilience to better understand the ways in which social-ecological systems can navigate change and uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE: We explore the application of a capitals approach for assessing resilience capacities, using an example of deciduous fruit farming operations in the Western Cape region of South Africa.

METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, thematically coded, and analysed using causal loop diagrams and co-occurrence analyses to identify changes experienced by farming operations, their responses to these changes, and the effects of both on capital resources. We then apply the criteria developed for the classification of resilience capacities.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A variety of changes affect farming operations at multiple points across the value chain, and have effects across capital resources. Most significant to farmers are changes which impact the amount of water available and the cashflow they require to sustain their operations. The most common responses employed by farmers consisted of activities which either increase the availability of an affected resource, or decrease its demand in order to maintain the same functions (adaptive capacity). In fewer cases, farming operations were able to absorb the depletion of their capital resources due to pre-emptive management (absorptive capacity). In similarly few cases, the potential or realised resource deficiencies caused by changes were either corrected or decoupled from the farming operation through structural reorganisation towards a different or additional function and types of output being delivered (transformative capacity). Evidence of changes being anticipated prior to their onset were also identified, leading to responses which are used in conjunction with the preceding three capacities.

SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings suggest that the criteria we developed for classifying resilience capacities offer a useful means of operationalising resilience. In particular, the approach we pilot in this paper enables the application of a systems perspective to identify interactions between changes and responses, which broadens the options for identifying management strategies and interventions. The approach we propose can be used to identify key leverage points to strengthen the capacities of vulnerable farmers. Further work is required to integrate consideration of cross-scale effects of farm-scale resilience strategies on the broader social-ecological system.

Sub-Saharan Africa is under-represented in global biodiversity datasets, particularly regarding the impact of land use on species' population abundances. Drawing on recent advances in expert elicitation to ensure data consistency, 200 experts were convened using a modified-Delphi process to estimate 'intactness scores': the remaining proportion of an 'intact' reference population of a species group in a particular land use, on a scale from 0 (no remaining individuals) to 1 (same abundance as the reference) and, in rare cases, to 2 (populations that thrive in human-modified landscapes). The resulting bii4africa dataset contains intactness scores representing terrestrial vertebrates (tetrapods: ±5,400 amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and vascular plants (±45,000 forbs, graminoids, trees, shrubs) in sub-Saharan Africa across the region's major land uses (urban, cropland, rangeland, plantation, protected, etc.) and intensities (e.g., large-scale vs smallholder cropland). This dataset was co-produced as part of the Biodiversity Intactness Index for Africa Project. Additional uses include assessing ecosystem condition; rectifying geographic/taxonomic biases in global biodiversity indicators and maps; and informing the Red List of Ecosystems.

Social-ecological systems (SES) research has gained substantial momentum, as witnessed by the growth in SES publications, theories, and frameworks, and the traction these concepts have gained in development and policy arenas. However, the growth and development of the SES field has only been partially examined, which limits our ability to make sense of and support the future development of the field and its ability to inform pressing sustainability challenges. The aim of this study is to understand how SES research has grown and changed over time as a field of study using bibliometric methods, co-authorship and co-citation network analysis. Our study is informed by broader bodies of work that have sought to understand the development of scientific fields, concepts, and research agendas. We highlight key trends that have influenced the organization of the field as well as how key thematic areas of SES research have evolved over time. Our results indicate that the research on SES is (i) mainly carried out by authors located in North America and Europe, (ii) characterized by changes in the terminology employed, as identified through our search terms, (iii) linked to the emergence of major conferences and centers dedicated to SES research, as well as its growth over time, (iv) characterized by a highly interconnected structure, with almost 80% of scholars being connected to each other, and (v) characterized by a shift in citation patterns, with newcomers in the network carving out their niche and replacing the founding figures as the central focus. We discuss the implications of these findings, including the nature of SES research as an epistemic network, the highly collaborative nature of SES research, and the role played by open -access journals in the growth of SES research in the digital era. We further suggest that the SES research field is at a critical transition point, with contending visions of its future following a more disciplinary path or remaining as a more open interdisciplinary space. We conclude with the questions this raises for future SES research regarding the implications of this duality on the nature, production, and validation of knowledge and its evolution.

Agricultural systems are important for the livelihoods and food security of millions of people. These systems are increasingly interconnected across scales and face challenges in responding to multiple, and coalescing types of environmental, social, and economic change. Most studies on how actors respond to change have focused on farmers and farming communities. In this study, we investigate the connectivity of farming systems to markets, to understand how social relationships across the supply chain influence how actors respond to multiple types of changes. We used a participatory network mapping method to interview actors across a fruit supply chain in the Western Cape, South Africa, that is connected to both global and national markets. We identified droughts, climatic variations, changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and other social shifts as the most important changes affecting the production and trade of fruit in this region. We also identified three types of responses to these changes: i) responses concerning the dynamics of trade relationships (e.g., changing or maintaining trade relationships); ii) responses based on changes at the individual level (e.g., changes in farm management); and iii) responses based on social relationships (categorized into four types, namely collaboration, knowledge transfer, financial assistance, and marketing coordination). Within these four types, we found that different types of social networks, that include actors operating at different scales and within and outside of supply chains, mediate responses to change. We also found that networks of collaboration, knowledge exchange and financial assistance show a positive correlation, where actors with an export orientation engage in multiple social relationships that enable responding to changes. However, we found limited participation of local market actors in most of these networks. Further investigating these social networks, and the actors participating in them, is essential to better understand and anticipate how and why agricultural systems respond to multiple types of changes, ultimately influencing their trajectory in an increasingly changing world.