This article applies socio-technical transitions theory (STTT), with the aim of identifying how the barriers and opportunities that exist to implementing sustainable building are socio-spatially embedded at a residential scale in Sydney, NSW. This is done through a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with a range of professionals in relevant industries. The research concludes that barriers and opportunities to sustainable residential buildings in Sydney exist within a landscape context of housing provision in developed countries. However, the conceptual application of these barriers to Sydney, through the multi-level perspective of STTT with a geographical conceptualisation of the socio-spatial embeddedness of transitions, highlights the necessity of working within the Sydney and NSW context to facilitate genuine and meaningful transitions. Furthermore, a key finding of this article was the necessity of including socio-economic factors in a STTT analysis in order to transition to a residential built environment which is both sustainable and affordable.

New financing mechanisms for tropical forest conservation, based on payments for ecosystem services, often involve the development of new business models. Suppliers of ecosystem services may include existing land users (e.g., farmers, foresters, tourism operators) or new business ventures (e.g., carbon accountants and traders, conservation bankers). Developing viable business models for biodiversity conservation is a major challenge, due to: the complexity of biodiversity itself (i.e., genes, species, and ecosystems, many still undocumented); the various linkages between business and biodiversity (which may be an economic input, output, competing resource use, or victim of pollution); insufficient consensus on biodiversity conservation priorities and performance indicators applicable at the enterprise level; weak or missing property rights, liability regimes, and/or incentive measures to penalize biodiversity loss and reward conservation effort; and concerns about potential adverse social impacts. This study presents a synthesis of experience across a range of sectors to develop more sustainable business models for biodiversity conservation, identifies key success factors, and outlines a new approach to building a biodiversity business that combines policy innovation, business development assistance, and financial support.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Despite this, relatively little attention is paid to building their capacity to manage the impacts of climate change they experience now and those they will experience in future. While child-centred approaches are starting to emerge in the field of community-based adaptation, these approaches are almost exclusively used by child-focused organizations. This article argues that mainstreaming children's needs and capacities into broader adaptation efforts can lead to more sustainable outcomes that can help to build long-term community-level adaptive capacity. A series of short examples from the field are used to highlight the different contexts in which childcentred approaches to community-based adaptation are taking place and some outcomes achieved to date. The article concludes that while there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that taking a child-centred approach to communitybased adaptation can build the adaptive capacity of children and also provide benefits to entire communities, there is no solid evidence-base proving that what has worked in a growing number of cases is more broadly applicable, translatable to other regions or sustainable in the absence of direct project support. The article recommends that collaborative efforts between researchers and practitioners should be launched to gather this evidence.

In the version of this article originally published, one of the two authors with the name Wei Zhao was omitted from the author list and the affiliations for both authors were assigned to the single Wei Zhao in the author list. In addition, the ORCID for Wei Zhao (Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA) was incorrectly assigned to author Wei Zhou. The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.