Pluralism drawing on core social scientific concepts would facilitate integrated sustainability research.

It has become quite common in environmental sustainability research to promote the influencing of so-called inner dimensions of individuals as means to address pressing environmental problems such as climate change, what we refer to as the Inward Turn. We argue that the conceptual foundations of the Inward Turn, an extreme form of methodological individualism, limit it significantly as a strategy for addressing climate change and other socially relevant environmental problems. After briefly reviewing major shortcomings with the way the Inward Turn conceptualizes the relationship between individuals and social change, including its neglect of causal structures and propensity to abstract its analysis away from problems that are specific to place and time, we sketch the basic tenets of an alternative methodological approach capable of overcoming these limitations. Our approach, however, does not go to the other extreme and neglect the role of individuals; rather, our recognition of the structural drivers of particular environmental problems points to the necessity of specific collective actions by individuals, for example, in the practice of social movements. This recognition demands a rethinking of the role of individual factors, like emotion and empathy, in addressing environmental sustainability problems, namely as they relate to collective action/social movement emergence, development, and outcomes.

The aim of this paper is to outline a way in which research can contribute to the advance of environmental social movements. Current struggles under capitalism are fragmented and localized, which means that creating unity out of fragmented struggles is essential for movements to become more successful. The Right to the City (RTC) as a concept, in its most radical formulation, has this ambition at its core. I examine various attempts from the RTC literature to promote unity, paying particular attention to the use of ideas of justice. In general these attempts are too abstract to be of practical use to existing movements. They do provide useful insight to researchers, by showing the necessity of paying attention to the context that particular movements operate in, but means of formulating advice for movement activists remain vague. I argue that to be more useful to movements, research should and can have something to say about the practical issues movements face, such as, how demands are framed and how to engage with other organizations. I argue that this can be done by bringing together analysis at a number of levels. In the case of movements of labor for the environment, Marxist geographic structural analysis can be combined with political and cultural analysis based on Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and analysis of the dynamics of movement emergence and advance using social movement theory. I argue that such a framework can connect a vision for radical change with the more immediate problems of organizing social movements.

No abstract

The Great Green Wall Initiative (GGWI) is a pan-African program launched in 2007 to combat land degradation and bring about both ecological and socio-economic benefits in the Sahel. With projects in place on only one-fifth of the targeted land and uncertainty about the extent of positive impacts, there is a need for improved monitoring and evaluation of current projects to inform the design of future projects. In this paper, we focus on the evaluation of socio-economic impacts, drawing on development theory, to relate investments in sustainable land management (SLM) to outcomes in terms of human well-being. We deploy a conceptual model, which draws on both the capability approach to human development and the sustainable livelihood framework. To contextualize the framework to the Sahel, we undertook a literature review of scientific studies of the facilitative social conditions and socio-economic impacts of SLM interventions in four countries: Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger and Ethiopia. We further refined the framework by examining project evaluation reports of Global Environmental Facility (GEF)-funded SLM projects. Our analysis of GEF projects shows that current monitoring and evaluation pays only limited attention to achieved outcomes in terms of well-being. We briefly discuss the application of the framework to SLM interventions and make recommendations for how it should be operationalized, including recommending more comprehensive measurement of the well-being impacts of these projects.