global to local research

We apologize for the inconvenience...

To ensure we keep this website safe, please can you confirm you are a human by ticking the box below.

If you are unable to complete the above request please contact us using the below link, providing a screenshot of your experience.

https://ioppublishing.org/contacts/

Translating Global Goals to Local Contexts

Co-Creation for Sustainability

ISBN : 978-1-80043-801-9 , eISBN : 978-1-80043-798-2

Publication date: 2 August 2022

This chapter examines the translation of generic global goals into local action. It first discusses the translation of global goals into national agendas and the challenges of localizing the goals. Localizing the goals is essential for ensuring that the SDGs reflect local needs, norms, and values, thus ensuring that local actors find them relevant and meaningful. The chapter argues that cocreation is a key vehicle for the localization of the SDGs and identifies the key benefits that arise from using cocreation as a localization strategy. Cocreation can foster the will and capacity for local governments and communities to advance the cause of sustainability. Cocreation can help communities integrate the sustainable development goals, identify hidden resources, build support networks, create social accountability, etc.

• Governance by goal setting
• Global goals
• National agendas
• Local needs
• Localization

Ansell, C. , Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2022), "Translating Global Goals to Local Contexts", Co-Creation for Sustainability , Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-798-220220004

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022 Christopher Ansell, Eva Sørensen and Jacob Torfing. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this work (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode.

This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this work (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode .

The SDG Cascade: From Global Goals to Local Action

The 2030 Agenda imagines nothing less ambitious than ending global poverty, fostering sustainable development and reversing the march toward the destruction of our natural environment. The fact that the world community was able to come together to agree on these 17 goals was miraculous. Yet looking back from the present day, the hard work was only just beginning in 2015, and the scorecard after the first decade of implementation reveals that we still have a long way to go.

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) represent a strategy of “governance by goal setting” (Biermann, Kanie, & Kim, 2017). The goals themselves are “legally nonbinding,” and nations maintain a large measure of freedom in deciding whether and how to implement them. As a result, actual goal achievement depends on international, national, and local efforts to effectively translate global goals into action. Besides the basic need for political support and access to adequate financing, the SDGs demand a pattern of highly distributed collaboration – one that cascades downward from the global to the national level and then from the national to the local level.

The SDG cascade has received a great deal of careful attention by global policymakers and the 2030 Agenda has been praised for prioritizing the means of implementation of the goals. The UN Development Group (UNDG) has supported SDG implementation by developing “Mainstreaming, Acceleration and Policy Coherence” (MAPS) missions that promote widespread stakeholder consultation to inform implementation strategies. It has also created a “rapid integrated assessment” tool to help nations identify national readiness for SDG implementation.

In addition to this important work, cocreation can support the SDG cascade from global goals to national and local implementation. As argued in Chapter 3, this role for cocreation is already anticipated by Goal 17, which emphasizes partnership as a means of implementation. In particular, transnational multistakeholder partnerships are envisioned as potential mechanisms for translating global goals into local action. Although there are many types of partnership with agendas ranging from policy development to implementation, resource mobilization, advocacy, or operations, some of them come more close to what we refer to in this book as “cocreation.”

Partnerships are not always effective (Pattberg & Widerberg, 2016). Research on partnerships finds that they are challenging to manage and that local groups, in particular, may lack resources to participate effectively (Banerjee, Murphy, & Walsh, 2020). Thus, it is important to understand where and how cocreation can support the implementation of the SDGs and to what effect.

Although cocreation can support SDG implementation at all levels of the cascade from global to local, it is a strategy ideally suited to the “localization” of the SDGs. The most challenging but rewarding work of implementing the SDGs often takes place at the local level where local governments interface with local businesses, civil society organizations, and citizens on very concrete problems. Localization of the SDGs requires that global SDGs be translated into local contexts in ways that make them appear recognizable, urgent, and meaningful. Highly general goals must resonate with concrete local problems and policy agendas and local communities must embrace and support the goals. The strategy for achieving the SDGs at the local level must not only be meaningful to local participants but should appear to be feasible in the local context.

From the Global SDGs to National Agendas

A first step in the SDG cascade is the formulation of national agendas for addressing the goals (Kanie & Biermann, 2017). Of course, even prior to 2015, nations had elaborate laws, institutions, and programs with relevance to SDG implementation. Many nations have therefore begun their implementation efforts by mapping how these existing laws, institutions, and programs align or misalign with the SDGs and assessing whether new initiatives are necessary. Synergies and tradeoffs in national goals must be identified and national-level priorities, indicators, and benchmarks must be developed. A road map for achieving the SDGs is an important product of these efforts and can be essential for setting the framework for cocreation at both the national and local levels. Multistakeholder consultations have become a prominent feature of the development of national agendas, and these consultations offer opportunities for cocreation, particularly in the setting of national priorities.

Reviews indicate that participating nations have made planning efforts to align the SDGs with existing national laws and programs, and most have developed strategies for prioritizing the SDGs and for monitoring progress toward their achievement. Many countries have applied “policy-target alignment analysis” to identify supportive conditions for SDG implementation. Fewer countries, however, have made progress in mainstreaming the SDGs or in implementing those conditions (Allen, Metternicht, & Wiedmann, 2018, 2021). Research finds that even the most advanced countries on the SDG index – Scandinavian and Northern European nations – are making insufficient progress on implementation (Lanshina, Barinova, Loginova, Lavrovskii, & Ponedelnik, 2019).

While nations have been adept in aligning their efforts with existing laws, institutions, and programs, they have been less adept at developing new integrated strategies for achieving the SDGs and in devising evaluation strategies. They also vary in their ability to mainstream and implement the SDGs based on their own institutional strengths and political styles. Japan, for example, is excellent at visioning and goal setting, but weaker at incorporating local government in SDG efforts, while Indonesia has a weaker system for coordinating implementation and reporting but is more effective at integrating national and local efforts (Morita, Okitasari, & Masuda, 2020; Oosterhof, 2018).

As many commentators have noted, national governments prioritize some goals over others. Early analysis suggests that national governments cherry-pick the SDGs, basically stressing goals that align with longer-term agendas or institutional legacies (Forestier & Kim, 2020). Moreover, both developed and developing countries have tended to prioritize poverty and economic development goals over environmental goals. Although many countries indicate an appreciation for the transformational nature of the SDGs in their Voluntary National Reviews (Allen, Metternicht, & Wiedmann, 2021), cherry-picking of some goals over others threatens the whole-of-government approach to action and implementation implied by the SDGs (Banerjee et al., 2020). To meet the transformational promise of the 2030 Agenda requires greater integration and alignment of goals and action (Griggs, Nilsson, Stevance, & McCollum, 2017, p. 214).

National policymakers are encouraged to set priorities by considering the interaction among the SDGs, to create coherent and integrated policy, to beef up institutional capacity, and to engage in policy innovation. Much of the advice on how to approach the interaction of goals is technocratic and relies on various types of modeling excercises to identify opportunities for synergy. While such exercises are useful, integration tends to be problematic because it always takes place in the context of highly developed institutions, communities, and political groups with their own distinctive agendas. This is not to say that existing institutions, communities, or groups are unmalleable and unyielding to modeling analysis. Rather this situation means that the work of integration must proceed through interaction, negotiation, and exchange of ideas between existing institutions and groups.

Many countries have used multistakeholder collaboration in their national SDG planning, but engagement with civil society has been much weaker (Allen et al., 2018; Siddiqi et al., 2020). Yet there is an opportunity and an imperative here. Governments seeking to mainstream and implement the SDGs can widen their perspective by engaging more directly with local-level institutions and civil society actors (Forestier & Kim, 2020). To do this is to work together on the development of indicators that measure progress toward the SDGs. National-level measures need to be more sensitive to how well indicators capture the impact of local efforts (Hansson, Arfvidsson, & Simon, 2019).

While the translation of the global SDGs into national plans is critical for success, so is the translation of national plans and priorities into local action. While national agencies have resources and expertise for undertaking the SDGs, their efforts are often concentrated and centralized in a limited number of organizations in capital cities at a great distance from the on-the-ground problems that call for SDG action. By contrast, there are millions upon millions of localities with resourceful and motivated actors who given the right impetus can greatly expand the resources and efforts to realize the SDGs. Hence, if successful, the translation of national plans and priorities into local action can multiply initiatives on many fronts at once. This multiplier effect explains the importance of localizing the SDGs.

The Achilles' Heel of Agenda 2030: Localization

Agenda 2030 aims to be transformational. Yet to be truly transformational, this agenda must be institutionalized at all levels of society – it must go beyond government policies and programs and become embedded as a wider societal agenda. To do that successfully requires wide engagement beyond national government institutions. For example, the Network of Mediterranean Engineering Schools (RMEI) succeeded in mainstreaming gender equality values by fostering collaborations that included not just ministers but also university, industry, and professional associations (Zabaniotou, 2020).

Although Agenda 2030 clearly expresses the value of partnerships, the partnerships that it has spawned often have feet of clay, in that they are not building strong links to local communities and civil society organizations (Jönsson & Bexell, 2020). In spirit, the partnership model – as embodied by SDG 17 – clearly signals a desire for bottom-up participatory governance. However, a review of partnerships associated with the SDGs found limited bottom-up participation and inclusion (Enechi & Pattberg, 2020). The limited resources and capacity of local stakeholders to participate and perceptions of conflicts between local, national, and international agendas have made localization the Achilles' heel of the SDGs.

Ongoing processes of decentralization have contributed to making local action much more important in many countries (Herrera, 2019). Increasingly, cities have taken a leading role in fostering climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, which are particularly important given growth and population density (Fenton & Gustafsson, 2017). Cities are focal sites that combine the scale, the agency, and the motivation to make major investments in collaboration for sustainability (Ofei-Manu et al., 2018).

A key challenge is that local SDG implementation is multilevel and multisectoral . Although implementation may be spatially localized, it is still often embedded in wider national or global flows of resources, ideas, and power and cuts across the boundaries of policy sectors. This multilevel and multisectoral interaction must be harnessed and accommodated in order to have successful local implementation. Local cocreation efforts are likely to be more successful when international organizations and national governments support the capacity of local network development and assist local stakeholders in organizing and knowledge development (Kauffman, 2016). Experience with earlier Local Agenda (LA) 21 processes found that local capacity is an important variable in achieving implementation success. Cocreation can help local communities to align the necessary resources and capacity and build the political support necessary for localization of the SDGs.

Although the concept of localization can refer both to translating global goals into national goals, or national goals into local goals (Jönsson & Bexell, 2020; Lanshina et al., 2019), we focus here on the latter. To date, SDG localization has had mixed success. An examination of Voluntary National Reviews of Asian and Pacific Countries finds that about half incorporated local governments into their SDG planning efforts, but the results were weaker in terms of giving local governments a more “holistic” role in the SDG process (Oosterhof, 2018). Moreover, a recent UN report indicates that local involvement with the SDGs remains nascent at best in many countries (Flores & Samuel, 2019).

Develop an inclusive and participatory local process

Establish a realistic local agenda based on evidence and public engagement

Establish goals for implementing the agenda

Monitor progress toward achieving local goals

A general condition for making all four of these steps work is that local governments and stakeholders must be able to mobilize sufficient resources, capacity, and political support.

The strategy of localization for achieving sustainability extends back at least to the UN's adoption of Local Agenda 21 in 1992 (Oosterhof, 2018). Local Agenda (LA) 21 encouraged local governments to work with their communities to develop sustainability plans. Many point to both positive and negative lessons of LA 21. One valuable lesson is that these local processes are more successful when there are strong local champions who encourage their development (Barrutia & Echebarria, 2011). Another lesson is that these local processes are more successful when they are supported by higher-level governments, such that lower-level and higher-level governments coproduce outcomes (Barrutia & Echebarria, 2011; Fidelis & Pires, 2009). While LA 21 participation was intended to be broad based, its achievements were often quite limited in scope (Wittmayer, van Steenbergen, Rok, & Roorda, 2016). These findings suggest that it is important to develop strategies for scaling up positive results.

LA 21 raised a number of issues that vex all innovation projects. Conceived as a safe process for local governments – that is, one that supplemented but did not challenge existing local planning processes – it focused on new demonstration projects that did not encroach on local agendas or threaten local power (Wittmayer et al., 2016). As a result, however, these demonstration projects also had limited scope and impact (Geissel, 2009). In Germany, LA 21 initiatives produced few tangible results because they focused on relatively small projects at the margins of mainstream institutions and policies. In Portugal, weak local partnership development limited their long-term results (Fidelis & Pires, 2009). These findings indicate that it is important for the strategy of localization to secure support from existing local institutions in order to mainstream the SDGs into their policies and programs. A positive example come from Ghana, which has mainstreamed the SDGs into the local planning process by Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies to incorporate the SDGs into their medium-term development plans (Duah, Ahenkan, & Larbi, 2020).

The stress on the importance of localization reappears in the context of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDG strategy of localization was criticized for being too closely aligned with the priorities of development agencies and leading donor countries and of neglecting national and local governments and civil society (Howard & Wheeler, 2015). Although national governments were signatories to the MDGs, there was a lack of broad-based ownership for implementing the goals.

Consequently, and as a way to seek legitimacy for the new goals, broad consultations were conducted worldwide from 2012 and onwards (Dodds et al., 2017; Kamau et al., 2018). These consultations concluded that inclusion of local stakeholders was important for building wide commitment to the SDGs. As a result, the SDG agenda focuses action on more local and integrated collaborative efforts and has provided a number of resources to facilitate “localization.” One important resource is the Roadmap for Localizing the SDGs , a guide produced by a partnership between UNDP, UNHabitat, and the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments. Paralleling the National Voluntary Reviews, the SDG Platform for Localization, Local2030 , encourages Local Voluntary Reviews.

Lessons about localization can also be drawn from other international efforts. The results of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, for example, suggest that the management of social–ecological systems is more effective when multilevel networks develop that can help integrate and bring to bear different information and perspectives (Berkes, 2009). This often means bridging between the scientific knowledge of experts and the lay knowledge of local residents. Such networks require coordination and facilitation across levels by agents who specialize in this process. Building support from local stakeholders is understood to be a critical aspect of localization strategies (Reddy, 2016), and many types of local civil society groups – including resident or neighborhood associations – can become involved in the localization of the SDGs (Abd Rahman & Yusof, 2020).

An example of successful bridging between levels comes from community forestry in Nepal. Although this initiative was created by national legislation, its effectiveness has been attributed to the active mobilization of an NGO called Forest Action . Concerned that the national government was undermining the community basis of forest management, Forest Action engaged in active participant research at the community level and advocated for the mobilization of communities. However, the point here is not just that communities need to mobilize, but that there needs to be top-down support for community-based mobilization as well. Another point is that community-based action does not just organically occur. It needs to be skillfully organized (Fischer, 2017).

An important challenge for localization is that awareness of the SDGs has been limited, particularly among citizens and nonstate actors. Studies have found weak awareness both in developed (Hege & Demailly, 2018) and less developed contexts (Jönsson & Bexell, 2020). Low levels of awareness of the SDGs have been an important barrier to the creation of multistakeholder partnerships at the local level (Banerjee et al., 2020; Lindborg, 2019). Informational campaigns can prepare the way for enhanced local participation.

Although politics, institutional capacity, and regulation present challenges everywhere to ambitious SDG implementation, in some parts of the world political corruption, limited fiscal, administrative and technical capacity, and weak regulatory oversight act as barriers to SDG implementation. Such conditions may also present significant barriers to effective community and citizen participation in SDG implementation. However, if designed in ways that are sensitive to these challenges, cocreation can support a strategy of SDG localization.

Cocreation as a Strategy of SDG Localization

Effective localization relies not only on translating global goals into local action but also depends on successful mobilization of local institutions and communities and the marshalling of resources, capacities, and commitments. We identify 10 ways that a cocreation strategy can support the effective localization of the SDGs.

Cocreation Can Contextualize the SDGs

A challenge for SDG implementation is that global goals, targets, and indicators must be translated in ways that make sense to local governments and stakeholders (Lindborg, 2019). The very universality of the SDGs makes it imperative to translate them into locally meaningful strategies that respond to local issues (Akbar, Flacke, Martinez, Aguilar, & van Maarseveen, 2020). Otherwise, local stakeholder groups will be inclined to ignore global goals and to resist externally mandated policies and programs. Localization can thus be thought of as a strategy of contextualizing, customizing, or embedding global goals.

The local contextualization of sustainability strategies should not be conceptualized as a mechanical top-down process requiring local governments and communities to implement global agendas. Rather, it calls for a more interactive process that acknowledges the importance of social learning in goal adaptation (Rist, Chidambaranathan, Escobar, Wiesmann, & Zimmermann, 2007). Cocreation can facilitate this interactive process of contextualization, helping local stakeholders customize SDG strategies that work for the local community (Kauffman, 2016). The process of translating global goals into local action often involves rephrasing and reinterpreting the SDGs and integrating them with existing local agendas and narratives.

Contextualize the SDGs : Use cocreation to contextualize global goals so that they reflect local needs, norms, and values in order to ensure that local SDG action is relevant and meaningful.

Cocreation Can Encourage Societal Ownership of the SDGs

Successful localization of Agenda 2030 will depend on fostering a sense of local ownership of the SDGs. However, this is not merely a matter of delegating authority or discretion for implementation to local governments. A more transformative and integrative commitment to sustainable outcomes is likely to occur with a more pervasive societal ownership of sustainability strategies. Survey evidence from Australia and the United States, for example, finds that citizens favor a “partnership” arrangement with local government over an arrangement where citizens are merely passive recipients of government-delivered services (Weymouth & Hartz-Karp, 2018). However, civil society generally looks to the government to initiate, coordinate, and support local collective action for SDGs (Banerjee et al., 2020). Cocreation can facilitate societal ownership of the SDGs by fostering these partnerships between government and civil society.

Effective mobilization and facilitation of local stakeholders is an important pathway to societal ownership of the SDGs (Biekart & Fowler, 2018). For example, a local peat restoration program sponsored by the Indonesian government discovered that trust building and community participation were the critical factors for ensuring local support, which ultimately led to the program's success (Moallemi et al., 2020). Support from local residents was also a crucial factor in the small community of Feldheim, Germany, which succeeded in transitioning to 100% renewable energy. The success of this program has been attributed to the fact that citizens and the local government developed coownership over the transition project (Young & Brans, 2017).

Many other examples of the importance of building societal ownership for sustainability projects can be found in different policy sectors and regions. For example, a land restoration project known as Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration has been used to address poverty and food insecurity while increasing environmental resilience. Cocreated with farmers from Niger, the project has proven to be a successful model of engaging local stakeholders in sustainable development (United Nations, 2020). Similarly, a codesigned and cocreated project among Vietnamese farmers increased their sense of ownership over the issues of climate change adaptation (Phuong et al., 2018).

Local projects sponsored by transnational partnerships often fail because they lack local legitimacy (Beisheim, Liese, Janetschek, & Sarre, 2014). Thus, establishing legitimacy with local stakeholders is essential for project success. A sustainability project in the North Rupununi region of Guyana (Project COBRA) engaged communities in participatory scenario-building exercises in an effort to develop community-owned solutions. A key lesson of this project was the importance of working with local leaders with high community legitimacy who were guided by their interest in supporting their communities (Mistry et al., 2016).

Build Societal Ownership : Use cocreation to encourage local communities to support and take responsibility for achieving one or more SDGs.

Cocreation Can Build Local Capacity for Change

One of the challenges for the localization of LA 21 and the MDGs was that local communities lacked the capacity to effectively carry out the global agenda. One of the advantages of cocreation is that it moves away from thinking about the community as a client or consumer or a mere beneficiary of externally provided goods. Instead, it envisions communities as competent and resourceful actors capable of effective action while simultaneously recognizing the potential for further empowering these actors to take part in sustainability transitions (Howard & Wheeler, 2015). For example, in Cape Town, South Africa, a Wellbeing Innovation Lab has built capacity by helping local residents become more skilled in analyzing community challenges (Habiyaremye, 2020).

Local capacity is built, in part, by cultivating active citizenship, and positive outcomes from citizen engagement have been found even in less democratic contexts (Gaventa & Barrett, 2012). However, it is important to recognize that citizen participation can also lead to negative outcomes where governments make citizen participation appear tokenistic, unrepresentative, or manipulated (Gaventa & Barrett, 2012, p. 2403). Such outcomes can even occur in democratic settings that encourage citizen participation, as they did in a smart city project in Trondheim, Norway (Gohari, Baer, Nielsen, Gilcher, & Situmorang, 2020).

Develop local capacity for change : Use cocreation to reenvision local affected and relevant actors as resources for and partners in SDG achievement.

Cocreation to Foster Social Accountability for the SDGs

The development literature has found that citizen participation not only builds an active sense of citizenship but also helps to ensure a degree of state accountability (Gaventa & Barrett, 2012; Newell & Wheeler, 2006). A study of a rural development project in Indonesia found many challenges to the participation of marginalized community members, but also found that they were capable of engaging in productive deliberative contestation with local governing elites (Gibson & Woolcock, 2008).

Where citizen mobilization is specifically oriented toward holding governments and other service providers accountable for services and fiduciary responsibilities, it is often referred to as “social accountability” (Butler et al., 2020), which has been particularly important for health-related programs (Flores & Samuel, 2019; Nepal & van der Kwaak, 2020). Social accountability may take a number of specific forms, including citizen monitoring and social audits (Flores & Samuel, 2019; Saner, Yiu, & Nguyen, 2020; Thinyane, Goldkind, & Lam, 2018).

An EU-sponsored project – IMAGINE – offers an example of how cocreation might contribute to social accountability. This project seeks to support a sustainability transition in urban energy use and is premised on the idea that such transitions must work directly with local stakeholders and residents. Reviews of cities where the project has been carried out suggest that cocreation with local citizens has served as a check on local politicians when the politicians sought to limit or weaken the project (Richard & David, 2018).

Successful social accountability generally depends on the willingness of governments to engage with citizens and stakeholders (Butler et al., 2020; Danhoundo, Nasiri, & Wiktorowicz, 2018). It may be enhanced when these forms facilitate citizen oversight at different levels of government. For example, Tanzania's “Bwalo Forums” have helped provide social accountability at different levels by mobilizing citizen oversight across different levels of government (Butler et al., 2020).

Social accountability requires active mobilization of civil society organizations, which is essential for overcoming the limits of the knowledge of individual citizens (Mdee & Mushi, 2020). To achieve a collective citizen voice, social accountability also depends on the successful mobilization of diverse stakeholders. Local grassroots organizations are often important interlocutors in mobilizing these marginalized populations (Flores & Samuel, 2019), and even children have been found to fruitfully contribute to social accountability (Walker, Cuevas-Parra, & Phiri Mpepo, 2019). Collective mobilization can be supported by partnerships and social movements (Danhoundo et al., 2018) or institutions that support “multidirectional communication” (Butler et al., 2020).

It is important to acknowledge here, however, that there may be a tension inherent in the idea of initiating cocreation for the purpose of achieving social accountability. A study of German and French NGOs found that they were cautious about committing to partnerships with governments or the private sector because they are concerned that it will jeopardize their watchdog role and that their voice within the partnership might not be great enough to exercise accountability (Hege & Demailly, 2018).

Create social accountability : Use cocreation to enable local communities to critically monitor, scrutinize, and respond to efforts to achieve the SDGs.

Cocreation Supports Learning and Knowledge Creation

Cocreation processes can be used to both solicit valuable input and support for sustainability from citizens and stakeholders, but can also foster prosustainability attitudes and behavior change among participants. In the area of sustainable consumption, for example, changing household routines are commonly stressful for residents, and transformative change often depends on social learning (Sutherland, Hordijk, Lewis, Meyer, & Buthelezi, 2014). Studies have shown that facilitated cocreation projects can produce the learning necessary to support behavioral change (Schröder et al., 2019). The creation of so-called “action teams” organized in the UK to address the production of household waste provide an example in the domain of sustainable consumption. These action teams produced important reductions of household waste of nearly 20%, and in some cases considerably more, while producing useful local knowledge that was shared among a large group of residents (Hargreaves et al., 2008).

Achieving the SDGs requires a great deal of knowledge production. Research on “citizen science” has mapped a number of ways that citizens can participate in the cocreation and coproduction of data relevant to SDG implementation. Such cocreated data can be used to provide basic information on critical issues (e.g., biodiversity or plastic pollution) and to monitor progress toward SDG implementation (Fritz et al., 2019). Capacity building for knowledge creation can help to build long-term support for transformational change (Ziervogel, Enqvist, Metelerkamp, & van Breda, 2021). Cocreating knowledge can facilitate mutual learning and trust, as shown in urban environmental projects in Berlin and Rotterdam (Frantzeskaki & Kabisch, 2016).

The cocreation of knowledge may take place early in the process of developing a response to the SDGs. For instance, in Douala Cameroun, cocreation was used to design a transdisciplinary workshop to address urban health issues (Weimann et al., 2020). A number of participatory approaches to knowledge generation are relevant to cocreation strategies. Participatory Rural Appraisal has demonstrated it is possible to engage local citizens and stakeholders in the cocreation of knowledge for rural development. Participatory mapping is a technique of collecting, assembling, integrating, and interpreting geospatial information based on community input, which is particularly useful where local data are scarce (Akbar et al., 2020). These types of knowledge cocreation often serve a dual mission – they bring local knowledge to bear in a collective fashion by crowdsourcing community knowledge while also making this knowledge available to the wider community, thus spurring and informing action for sustainability.

Support learning and knowledge creation : Use cocreation to encourage local citizens and stakeholders to jointly share and create data and knowledge and engage in mutual learning about sustainability.

Cocreation as Bottom-Up Goal Integration

Cocreation can facilitate the types of community linkages that build SDG goal integration from the bottom up. As one interviewee put it in a study of local Irish SDG implementation: “The SDGs created possibilities for linkages between organizations in different sectors where maybe we wouldn't have thought about those linkages before […] it has created real opportunities for us to kind of maybe come together” (Banerjee et al., 2020, p. 7). For these organizations, the SDGs provided a reason to come together and to collaborate.

In the city region of Greater Geraldton in Western Australia, deliberative polls were used to solicit public views on sustainability challenges. Local politicians were surprised that the representative sample of residents who participated in the deliberative polls advanced an even more ambitious sustainability agenda than had been originally imagined by local government. What was notable about the agenda that emerged from the polls is how it broke down existing government silos in seeking to pursue several goals at once (Weymouth & Hartz-Karp, 2018).

Encourage bottom-up goal integration : Use cocreation to enable local communities to discover synergies between sustainability goals as well as to forge connections between otherwise siloed efforts.

Cocreation to Spot Leverage Points

Spot leverage points for change : Use cocreation to identify opportunities for transformational change and to move entrenched practices.

Cocreation Can Build Support Networks

Research on participatory community building for sustainability finds that overlapping and reinforcing community networks are often crucial for supporting change even where it is difficult (Mistry et al., 2016). Cocreation can be used to help build prosustainability networks. For example, in the Western Cape, South Africa, a transformation lab or “T-lab” concept was used to engage local citizens in rethinking the local food system. In addition to supporting innovation, an important goal of the T-lab was to build relationships among a range of local actors who were working on food system issues in relative isolation from one another. The project succeeded in fostering the development of a new network of activists who engaged in the development of a food charter with the local government (Pereira, Drimie, Zgambo, & Biggs, 2020).

Build support networks : Use cocreation to facilitate connections between change agents who otherwise might operate in isolation and forge alliances for change.

Cocreation Can Identify Hidden Resources

Cocreation can also be used as a strategy for identifying a community's hidden resources for addressing sustainability challenges (Lam, Zamenopoulos, Kelemen, & Hoo Na, 2017). This point is an addendum to the idea of using cocreation to build capacity, but it emphasizes that many skills and resources already exist without necessarily being recognized as useful or valuable for pursuing sustainability. Cocreation workshops can help stakeholders identify available resources and skills available either within their own community or externally (Bloomfield et al., 2018; Ziervogel et al., 2021).

Identify hidden resources : Use cocreation to identify, enlist, and combine the many resources and skills that already exist in the local community.

Cocreation Can Support Local Innovation

Support local innovation : Use cocreation to stimulate collaborative innovation and build conditions for diffusion and scaling of innovative solutions.

To succeed as a strategy of “governance by goal setting,” the SDGs need to cascade downward from the global to the national to the local level. In this chapter, we have identified “localization” as an Achilles heel of the SDGs and suggested that cocreation can serve as a central strategy of SDG localization. Fig. 4.1 summarizes the range of actionable lessons that we draw from cocreation as a localization strategy. Although many different approaches and strategies of cocreation are possible, the overall point is that cocreation can foster the will and the capacity for local governments and communities to advance the cause of sustainability.

Cocreation as a Strategy of Localization.

Book Chapters

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Global to Local: A Scale-Aware Network for Remote Sensing Object Detection

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

• Utility Menu

Self-Organizing Systems Research Group

0001 cells ants fish 1010011 hello 1010011 world 1010010 agents robots swarms 1000

Global to Local Theory

One major difficulty in self-organizing multi-agent systems research is the lack of theoretical models that allow us to ask  fundamental questions about computability and complexity . Given a global goal and a multi-agent system where the agents have limited capability (finite state, limited view), we can ask many theoretical questions:   Is the global task solvable? What are the minimal agent capabilities required to robustly solve the task? What are the lower bounds on parallelism and scalability?   Answers to these theoretical questions have important practical implications: they tell us fundamental limits on what global-to-local algorithms and compilers can achieve, and how agent design restricts the set of tasks that the system is able to solve.

We have developed the beginnings of a  global-to-local theory  that can answer such questions, in the context of self-organizing pattern formation tasks on 1D asynchronous cellular automata. This work was developed by  Daniel Yamins (now faculty at Stanford) during his PhD. It is inspired in part by the amazingly robust and complex pattern formation that is achieved by biological systems such as the fruit fly embryo, as well as the engineering application of pattern formation ideas to robot swarms, modular robots and self-assembly.

Some of the contributions of this work are:

• An existence problem:   Local checkability forms a simple criterion that any robustly solvable goal must satisfy. If a pattern is not locally checkable, no robust local rule can self-organize it. The minimum radius for local checkability gives us a way to reason about minimal agent programs. We have used local checkability to show lower bounds on agent state and communication for several common classes of patterns (repeated, scale-invariant).
• A construction problem:   For all patterns that are locally checkable, we can use the local check to algorithmically derive local rule that generates it robustly. The local agent rule is by construction  scale-invariant  (works for varying numbers of agents),  robust  (works for any initial condition and asynchronous timing), and  self- repairing  (pattern reemerges after perturbation). 
• A resource problem:   The two main resource parameters of the model, the agent interaction radius and agent memory size, exist in a radius-state resource tradeoff. We describe algorithms for tuning along the continuum between large-radius/low-state and low-radius /high-state implementations.
• By combining these three techniques, we are able to build a  Global-to-Local Compiler  that implements this theory: the compiler takes as an input a logic-based description of a pattern or a set of example patterns, derives a local checkability condition, and produces a cellular automata rule that is both scalable and self-repairing.

This work has led to many new insights into current global-to-local compilers, for example how efficient they are in terms of agent state and time. It has also revealed new and surprising connections between cellular automata and traditional computing models (such as Turing machines, Languages, and De-Bruin graphs). An important future area will be generalizing this work from cellular automata to other multi-agent settings, and using this model to better understand existing self-organizing systems. Ultimately, this type of theory will provide an important design tool for self-organizing systems, by allowing us to reason about the complexity and scalability of embedded multi-agent systems where agents have limited capability.

Publications

Daniel Yamins and Radhika Nagpal . 2008. “ Automated Global-to-Local Programming in 1-D Spatial Multi-Agent Systems .” In Intl. Conf on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS). (pdf)

Daniel Yamins . 2008. “ A Theory of Local-to-Global Algorithms for One-Dimensional Spatial Multi-Agent Systems .” Doctoral thesis, Harvard University. Publisher's Version

Daniel Yamins . 2005. “ Towards a Theory of "Local to Global" in Distributed Multi-Agent Systems (I) .” In Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems Conferences (AAMAS). Publisher's Version

Daniel Yamins . 2005. “ Towards a Theory of "Local to Global" in Distributed Multi-Agent Systems (II) .” In Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems Conferences (AAMAS). Publisher's Version

Advertisement

From global to local: reshoring for sustainability

• Published: 18 June 2016
• Volume 9 , pages 75–88, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• Alison Ashby 1  

9476 Accesses

77 Citations

Explore all metrics

The UK clothing industry has seen the extensive offshoring of manufacturing, which has created fragmented global supply chains; these present a range of supply issues and challenges, including many related to sustainability. Reshoring is a reversion of a previous offshoring decision, thereby ‘bringing manufacturing back home’ (Gray et al. J Supply Chain Management 49(2):27–33, 2013 ), and can be motivated by increased costs and supply management problems. While not a new phenomenon, the reshoring of activities is growing in practice and there is an imperative for academic research (Fratocchi et al. J Purch Supply Manag 20:54–59, 2014 ). Through an in-depth longitudinal case study, this paper explores how sustainability can be addressed through reshoring; the studied UK-based clothing SME has strong principles and is explicitly committed to bringing its supply chain ‘home’. There is a recognised need for more OM research using a social lens (Burgess and Singh Oper Manag Res 5:57–68, 2012 ), so Social Network Theory (SNT) is employed to examine the reshoring decision-making process. SNT applies a relational, qualitative approach to understand the interactions between network actors, and focuses on the types and strengths of relationships and how they provide context for decisions (Galaskiewicz J Supply Chain Manag 47(1):4–8, 2011 ). The findings demonstrate the importance of socially complex, long-term relationships in managing a sustainable supply network. These relationships contribute to the resources that a firm can harness in its supply practices, and SNT extends this with its emphasis on the strength of ties with suppliers, and the trust, reciprocity and shared meanings it engenders. For the studied firm these advantages are derived through its localised supply chain, and collaborative supplier relationships, and its progressive reshoring of activities is integral to achieving its sustainability principles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major review and future research agenda

K. Katsaliaki, P. Galetsi & S. Kumar

Sustainability trends and gaps in the textile, apparel and fashion industries

Stefano Abbate, Piera Centobelli, … Emanuela Riccio

Fast Fashion, Fashion Brands & Sustainable Consumption

Allwood JM, Laursen SE, Malvido de Rodriguez C, Bocken NMP (2006) Well-dressed? The present and future sustainability of clothing and textiles in the United Kingdom. Biffaward Programme on Sustainable Resource Reuse, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge

Google Scholar  

Arlbjorn JS, Mikkelsen OS (2014) Backshoring manufacturing: notes on an important but under-researched theme. J Purch Supply Manag 20:60–62

Article   Google Scholar  

Ashby A, Smith MH, Leat M (2012) Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supp Chain Manag: An Int J 17(5):497–516

Attaran M, Attaran S (2007) Collaborative supply chain management. Bus Process Manag J 13(3):390–404

Autry CW, Griffiths SE (2008) Supply chain capital: the impact of structural and relational linkages on firm execution and innovation. J Bus Logist 29(1):157–173

Bansal P (2005) Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strateg Manag J 26:197–218

Barney JB (2012) Purchasing, supply chain management and sustained competitive advantage: the relevance of resource-based theory. J Supply Chain Manag 48(2):3–5

Barthelemy J (2003) The seven deadly sins of outsourcing. Acad Manag Exec 17(2):87–98

Baumgartner RJ, Ebner D (2010) Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain Dev 18:76–89

Bergvall-Forsberg J, Towers N (2007) Creating agile supply networks in the fashion industry: a pilot study of the european textile and clothing industry. J Text Inst 98(4):377–385

Bernardes ES (2010) The effect of supply management on aspects of social capital and the impact on performance: a social network perspective. J Supply Chain Manag 46(1):45–56

Birtwistle G, Moore CM (2007) Fashion clothing - where does it all end up? Int J Retail Distrib Manag 35(3):210–216

Bordonaba-Juste, Victoria, & Cambra-Fierro, Jesus. J. (2009). Managing supply chain in the context of smes: a collaborative and customized partnerships with the suppliers as the key for success. Supply Chain Manag: An Int J, 14(5), 393–402.

Bounds, Andrew & Powley, Tanya (2015). UK textiles eye reshoring jobs boost. Retrieved 20/05/16 from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e2594e6-b06e-11e4-a2cc-00144feab7de.html#axzz49BlHMubx

Burgess K, Singh PJ (2012) Using the social system of a supply chain to improve a focal organisation’s operating performance. Oper Manag Res 5:57–68

Cagliano R, Caniato F, Golini R, Kalschmidt M, Spina G (2008) Supply chain configurations in a global environment: a longitudinal perspective. Oper Manag Res 1:86–94

Caniato F, Golini R, Kalschmidt M (2013) The effect of global supply chain configuration on the relationship between supply chain improvement programs and performance. Int J Prod Econ 143:285–293

Caputo AC, Palumbo M (2006) Manufacturing re-insourcing in the textile industry. Industrial Manag Data Syst 16(2):193–207

Choi TY, Kim Y (2008) Structural embeddedness and supplier management: a network perspective. J Supply Chain Manag 44(4):5–13

da Silveira GJC (2014) An empirical analysis of manufacturing competitive factors and offshoring. Int J Prod Econ 150:163–173

Darnall N, Jolley GJ, Handfield RB (2008) Environmental management systems and green supply chain management: complements for sustainability? Bus Strateg Environ 18:30–45

DEFRA. (2011). Sustainable clothing roadmap.

Dekkers R (2010) Impact of strategic decision making for outsourcing in managing manufacturing. Int J Oper Prod Man 9:935–965

Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 11:130–141

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from case: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32

Elia S, Caniato F, Luzzini D, Piscitello L (2014) Governance choice in global sourcing of services: the impact on service quality and cost saving performance. Glob Strateg J 4:181–199

Field JM, Sroufe RP (2007) The use of recycled materials in manufacturing: implications for supply chain management and operations strategy. [article]. Int J Prod Res 45(18/19):4439–4463. doi: 10.1080/00207540701440287

Forman M, Jorgensen S, Michael (2004) Organising environmental supply chain management. Greener Man Int 45(Spring):43–62

Fratocchi L, Di Mauro C, Barbieri P, Nassimbeni G, Zanoni A (2014) When manufacturing moves back: concepts and questions. J Purch Supply Manag 20:54–59

Galaskiewicz J (2011) Studying supply chains from a social network perspective. J Supply Chain Manag 47(1):4–8

Gereffi G, Lee J (2016) Economic and social upgrading in global value chains and industrial clusters: why governance matters. J Bus Ethics 133:25–38

Gray JV, Skowronski K, Esenduran G, Rungtusanatham MJ (2013) The reshoring phenomenon: what supply chain academics ought to know and should do. J Supply Chain Manag 49(2):27–33

Gualandris J, Golini R, Kalschmidt M (2014) Do supply management and global sourcing matter for firm sustainability performance? Supp Chain Manag: An Int J 19(3):258–274

Gylling M, Heikkila J, Jussila K, Saarinen M (2015) Making decisions on offshore outsourcing and backshoring: a case study in the bicycle industry. Int J Prod Econ 162:92–100

Jahns C, Hartmann E, Bals L (2006) Offshoring: dimension and diffusion of a new business concept. J Purch Supply Manag 12:218–231

Johnston D (2012) The shift to reshoring. Supply and Demand Chain Executive, September, pp. 28–30

Karlsson, Christer. (2009). Researching operations management : Routledge.

Kauffman RG (2002) Supply management - what’s in a name? Or do we know who we are? The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Fall, pp. 46–50

Kinkel S (2009) Drivers and antecedents of manufacturing offshoring - a german perspective. J Purch Supply Manag 15:154–165

Kinkel S (2014) Future and impact of backshoring - some conclusions from 15 years of research on german practices. J Purch Supply Manag 20:63–65

Krause DR, Vachon S, Klassen RD (2009) Special topic forum on sustainable supply chain management: introduction and reflection on the role of purchasing management. J Supply Chain Manag 45(4):18–25

Larsen MM, Manning S, Pedersen T (2013) Uncovering the hidden costs of offshoring: the interplay of complexity, organizational design and experience. Strateg Manag J 34:533–552

Lewin AY, Massini S, Peeters C (2009) Why are companies offshoring innovation? The emerging global race for talent. J Int Bus Stud 40(6):901–925

Manning S, Massini S, Lewin Arie Y (2008) A dynamic perspective on next-generation offshoring: the global sourcing of science and engineeering talent. Acad Manag Perspect 22(3):35–54

Martinez-Mora C, Merino F (2014) Offshoring in the spanish footwear industry: a return journey? J Purch Supply Manag 20:225–237

Mascle C, Zhao HP (2008) Integrating environmental consciousness in product/process development based on life-cycle thinking. Int J Prod Econ 112(1):5–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.016

Maskell P, Pedersen T, Petersen B, Dick-Nielsen J (2007) Learning paths to offshore outsourcing: from cost reduction to knowledge seeking. Ind Innov 14(3):239–257

McGregor, Kirsty. (2015). Home made: Home-grown wool in the fashion industry Retrieved 21/10/15, from http://www.drapersonline.com/in-business/features/home-made-home-grown-wool-in-the-fashion-industry/5072617.article- .VielwiSsbdm

Narasimhan R, Mahapatra S, Arlbjorn JS (2008) Impact of relational norms, supplier development and trust on supplier performance. Oper Manag Res 1:24–30

Nyaga GN, Whipple JM, Lynch DF (2010) Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J Oper Manag 28:101–114

Pilbeam C, Alvarez G, Wilson H (2012) The governance of supply networks: a systematic literature review. Supp Chain Manag: An Int J 17(4):358–376

Power D (2005) Supply chain management integration and implementation: a literature review. Supp Chain Manag: An Int J 10(2):252–263

Preuss, Lutz. (2005a). The green multiplier : A study of environmental protection and the supply chain : Palgrave Macmillan.

Preuss L (2005b) Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: a view from the supply chain management function. Bus Strateg Environ 14:123–139

Primo MAM (2010) Supply chain integration mechanisms for alleviating supply problems in manufacturing firms. Oper Manag Res 3:43–59

Reuter C, Foerstl K, Hartmann E, Blome C (2010) Sustainable global supplier management: the role of dynamic capabilities in achieving competitive advantage. J Supply Chain Manag 46(2):45–63

Roberts S (2003) Supply chain specific? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing initiatives. J Bus Ethics 44(2):159–170

Samaranayake P (2005) A conceptual framework for supply chain management: a structural integration. Supp Chain Manag: An Int J 10(1):47–59

Seuring S (2008) Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain management. Supp Chain Manag: An Int J 13(2):128–137

Simpson DF, Power D (2005) Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Supp Chain Manag: An Int J 10(1):60–68

Slepniov D, Waehrens BV, Jorgensen C (2010) Global operations networks in motion: managing configurations and capabilities. Oper Manag Res 3:107–116

Soderberg L, Bengtsson L (2010) Supply chain managment maturity and performance in smes. Oper Manag Res 3:90–97

Tate WL (2014) Offshoring and reshoring: us insights and research challenges. J Purch Supply Manag 20:66–68

Tate WL, Ellram LM, Schoenherr T, Petersen KJ (2014) Global competitive conditions driving the manufacturing location decision. Business Horizons 57:381–390

Tsoulfas GT, Pappis CP (2006) Environmental principles applicable to supply chains design and operation. J Clean Prod 14:1593–1602

van Bommel HWM (2011) A conceptual framework for analyzing sustainability strategies in industrial supply networks from an innovation perspective. J Clean Prod 19:895–904

Varma, S., Wadhwa, S., & Deshmukh, S, G. (2006). Implementing supply chain management in a firm: issues and remedies. Asia Pacific J Mark Logistics, 18(3), 223–243.

Voss C, Tsikriktis N, Frohlich M (2002) Case research in operations management. Int J Oper Prod Man 22:195–219

Walker H, Jones N (2012) Sustainable supply chain management across the Uk private sector. Supp Chain Manag: An Int J 17(1):15–28

Yin RK (2009) Case study research : Design and methods . Publications, Sage

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Management, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK

Alison Ashby

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison Ashby .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ashby, A. From global to local: reshoring for sustainability. Oper Manag Res 9 , 75–88 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-016-0117-9

Download citation

Received : 29 October 2015

Revised : 06 June 2016

Accepted : 13 June 2016

Published : 18 June 2016

Issue Date : December 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-016-0117-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Nearshoring
• Sustainability
• Social network theory
• Supply management
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Machine Learning

Title: offline multi-agent reinforcement learning with implicit global-to-local value regularization.

Abstract: Offline reinforcement learning (RL) has received considerable attention in recent years due to its attractive capability of learning policies from offline datasets without environmental interactions. Despite some success in the single-agent setting, offline multi-agent RL (MARL) remains to be a challenge. The large joint state-action space and the coupled multi-agent behaviors pose extra complexities for offline policy optimization. Most existing offline MARL studies simply apply offline data-related regularizations on individual agents, without fully considering the multi-agent system at the global level. In this work, we present OMIGA, a new offline m ulti-agent RL algorithm with implicit global-to-local v alue regularization. OMIGA provides a principled framework to convert global-level value regularization into equivalent implicit local value regularizations and simultaneously enables in-sample learning, thus elegantly bridging multi-agent value decomposition and policy learning with offline regularizations. Based on comprehensive experiments on the offline multi-agent MuJoCo and StarCraft II micro-management tasks, we show that OMIGA achieves superior performance over the state-of-the-art offline MARL methods in almost all tasks.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Climate Change, Human-Wildlife Interactions and Sustainable Tourism Nexus in Protected Areas

Local community perceptions on human wildlife interactions in the face of climate variability. A case of Nyaminyami community, Zimbabwe Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Zimbabwe

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Human interactions with wildlife, both positive and negative, have defined the nature of human wildlife relations throughout history. Along with human wildlife interaction, Climate change exacerbates the complexity and consequences of human wildlife interactions, particularly those that rely on flora and fauna for tourism and development. This study assesses the interrelatedness and causes of human wildlife interactions and climate variability and the impact they have on livelihood. Two hundred and fourteen people randomly selected from four wards in the Nyaminyami community in Mashonaland West, Zimbabwe were interviewed.Four focus group discussion sessions with randomly selected residents were also conducted in each ward. Results from the study show that respondents were concerned that human wildlife interactions resulted in human wildlife conflict, and that anthropogenic factors contributed immensely to an increase in the problems faced by local communities. Most of these concerns stemmed from specific areas (wards) where factors such as competition for resources, settlement in wildlife corridors, agricultural activities, tourism and increasing human induced climate change are accelerating human wildlife conflict. Results also show that human related practices contributed to human wildlife interaction in all the four wards. Discussants reported climate change, competition over resources and living close to protected areas as the major factors influencing human-wildlife conflict. It is recommended that communities be educated on, and need to embrace climate change and adapt to it. It is also important that any tourism ventures in the district involve the communities so that they directly benefit from and see the value of living with wildlife and learn to coexist. Proper land use planning is also paramount before any settlements are allocated to avoid living close to protected areas.

Keywords: Climate Change, coexistence, Human wildlife conflict, land use planning, protected area, wildlife damage, problem animals

Received: 26 Oct 2023; Accepted: 22 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Mupunga and Shoko. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mr. Power Mupunga, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe

People also looked at

Gillings School of Global Public Health

Welcome to the no. 1 public school of public health — and no. 2 overall..

Practice and Service

Global Health

The Return of Measles

Hanna Brosky

Katherine Turner

Gillings alums coordinate public health efforts to confront opioid use in rural NC

The challenge of opioid use disorder (OUD) has a devastating impact on the families and communities of N.C., but a recent legal settlement will fund state and local public health efforts to address the harms of OUD.

Accurate interpretation and use of data is crucial to understanding public health needs and devising comprehensive, evidence-based solutions.

The environments in which we live, work and play invariably affect public health. In fact, environmental exposures – most of which can be prevented – account for nearly one quarter of all diseases worldwide.

Epidemiology — the study of the distribution and determinants of disease and other risk factors in a population — is the cornerstone of public health inquiry and problem solving.

Health behaviorists use social and behavioral science to develop, implement and evaluate programs and policies that promote health and foster social justice.

Health policy experts address the complex challenges of health care delivery and produce cutting-edge analyses that impact policy at all levels, improving population health.

Maternal and child health focuses on the determinants and systems that promote and maintain the health of women, children and their families to enhance the future health and welfare of society.

This dynamic field encompasses nutrition science as well as behavior change, communication, counseling and the effects of dietary culture on individuals and within communities.

Applying system thinking and leadership principles in a public health context — with teams, projects, organizations and systems — can eliminate inequities, improve health conditions and foster change in local and global communities.

Inclusive Excellence

High impact research, global is local, your future starts here., information for:.

Planet (and People) vs. Plastics

From 2023 to 2024, plastic pollution worsened. Increased industrial production and consumer consumption, coupled with insufficient recycling efforts, have exacerbated the issue. Expansion of e-commerce and online deliveries has led to a surge in packaging waste. Despite awareness campaigns and regulatory measures, the overall response from governments and industries remains inadequate to address the scale of pollution. As a result, plastic pollution continues to accumulate in oceans, waterways and ecosystems worldwide, posing significant threats to marine life and human health.

In 2023, the Nicholas School of Environment produced an in-depth special on the scale of the plastics problem, and how the Duke community was working toward solutions. Below are updates to what has happened in the plastics policy space since mid-2023, and some new developments in how Duke University supports scholarship and action to fight plastic pollution.

Federal action

Nationally, the U.S. Congress in 2023 reintroduced the Break Free from Plastic Act , a bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act by reducing the production and use of certain single-use plastic products and packaging, as well as improving producers’ responsibility in the design, collection, reuse, recycling, and disposal of consumer products, and preventing pollution from consumer products and packaging. An earlier attempt in 2021 to pass the bill stalled when trade groups pushed back.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drafted its National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution, and the General Services Administration (GSA), which sets U.S. government procurement policies, issued the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Reduction of Single-Use Plastic Packaging. On behalf of the NC Plastic Waste Coalition, Duke’s Environmental Law and Policy clinic submitted comments to GSA, while other members of the Duke community submitted comments to EPA. The National Park Service issued a plastics elimination and reduction plan in June 2023 to reduce single-use plastics at its facilities and promote better reuse of materials. Researchers at Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability indexed an additional 300 policies on plastics in its 2023 Annual Trends in Plastic Policy for a total of 894 policies.

In the absence of comprehensive congressional action in the United States to address plastic pollution, other policies and regulatory reforms have assumed greater responsibility to mitigate environmental impacts of plastic pollution.

Local action: applied research

Michelle Nowlin , a Duke University law professor and co-director of the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, serves on the executive board of the interdisciplinary, student, staff, and faculty, plastic pollution working group at Duke. Nowlin and her colleague, Dr. Nancy Lauer, published a framework for inland cities to prevent marine debris in 2022. The study encourages inland city officials, resource managers, and community partners to collect data that informs policy development, to develop policies that reduce waste at the source, and to use stormwater controls to capture mismanaged waste and reduce aquatic and marine debris. Coastal communities up to 50km from oceans are responsible for almost nine metric tons of marine trash annually; another nearly two tons of trash come from inland cities located more than 50km from the coast, according to the study.

As important as personal responsibility is in reducing plastic waste, Nowlin said the heavier burden should be on industry, using the beverage sector as one example:

The beverage industry realized long ago that it could save money by convincing consumers that it was our behaviors and our habits that were causing problems…when really, it's a systemic problem. The industries have been let off the hook for managing the waste generated through their production and marketing practices. We need laws and policies that encourage better corporate stewardship and discourage waste.” —Michelle Nowlin, Duke University Plastic Pollution Working Group

duke vs. plastic

Additional ways the Duke community is driving systemic change across industries on plastic pollution:

Collaborated with the NC-headquartered Plastic Ocean Project, which has created a business certification program recognizing “ocean- friendly establishments” statewide.

Developed a data protocol and publicly accessible database for Waterkeepers Carolina, which obtained grants to install trash traps in local waterways. Volunteers haul out trash monthly and categorize the trash collected using the data protocol and database, which then informs policy.

Published  Plastics , a book that covers the entire life of plastic, its waste generation and management, the environmental and societal impacts, and policies that help reduce pollution caused by heavy plastics use.

Based on doctoral experience researching plastics pollution at Duke University, Zoe Diana published roadmap on transdisciplinary doctoral training to address global sustainability challenges. Diana will present on microplastics in paint at October 2024 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) meeting. 

Devoted master’s project research to plastic-pollution related themes: the per capital social cost of plastic pollution, with an aim to inform global policy; how plastic pollution contaminates salt marshes; optimizing coastal ecosystem health and product safety by researching microplastic disposal dynamics of oysters; and the study of plastic impacts on terrestrial ecosystem functions like carbon cycling.

Developed a pilot program and training program for the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, which oversees the state’s resources for the arts, history, libraries, and nature, to help the agency reduce single-use plastics in its operations. 

Conduct a 2024-2025 interdisciplinary research group for graduate and undergraduate students on the bioremediation of plastic pollution to conserve marine biodiversity. Expected outputs from the year-long class includes peer-reviewed manuscripts; development and testing of a novel enzyme to degrade plastic; data on plastic additives as potential carcinogens; and a website that searches health endpoints of plastic additives. 

DUKE ENVIRONMENT Feature

The earth is awash in plastic pollution.

Read more about Duke’s research on plastic pollution, and tips for individuals to reduce that pollution.

Nicholas School Communications & Marketing

[email protected]

Related News

How Saving Island Life Can Sink the Island

On the Swamp: Fighting for Indigenous Environmental Justice

Where Have All the Right Whales Gone?

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What Are Americans’ Top Foreign Policy Priorities?

• Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

• Differences by partisanship
• Differences by age
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals.

Jacob Poushter, Associate Director, Global Attitudes Research Laura Clancy, Research Analyst

Dorene Asare-Marfo, Panel Manager Sarah Austin, Research Assistant Peter Bell, Associate Director, Design and Production Janakee Chavda, Assistant Digital Producer Manolo Corichi, Research Analyst Jonathan Evans, Senior Researcher Moira Fagan, Research Associate Janell Fetterolf, Senior Researcher Shannon Greenwood, Digital Production Manager Sneha Gubbala, Research Assistant Christine Huang, Research Associate Anna Jackson, Editorial Assistant Hannah Klein, Senior Communications Manager Gar Meng Leong, Communications Manager Kirsten Lesage, Research Associate Jordan Lippert, Research Assistant Carolyn Lau, International Research Methodologist John Carlo Mandapat, Information Graphics Designer William Miner, Research Assistant Patrick Moynihan, Associate Director, International Research Methods Georgina Pizzolitto, Research Methodologist Dana Popky, Associate Panel Manager Sofia Hernandez Ramones, Research Assistant Laura Silver, Associate Director, Global Attitudes Research Sofi Sinozich, International Research Methodologist Maria Smerkovich, Research Associate Kelsey Jo Starr, Research Analyst Brianna Vetter, Administrative Associate Richard Wike, Director, Global Attitudes Research

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Environment & Climate
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• International Affairs
• United Nations
• War & International Conflict

Fewer Americans view the United Nations favorably than in 2023

Rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, how u.s. jews are experiencing the israel-hamas war, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Tool for Tracking Research Vessels in the Arctic is now Live for the 2024 Field Season