10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Received: 4 December 2021 Revised: 14 July 2022 Accepted: 30 July 2022 DOI: 10.1002/sd.2384 RESEARCH ARTICLE Rethinking the sustainable development goals: Learning with and from community-led initiatives Tom Henfrey1 | Giuseppe Feola2 | Gil Penha-Lopes1 | Filka Sekulova3 | 4 Ana Margarida Esteves 1 Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Change (CE3C), Faculdade de Abstract Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, This paper explores the actual and potential contributions of community-led initia- Portugal 2 Copernicus Institute of Sustainable tives (CLIs) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As examples of self- Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, determined practical action for sustainability and social justice, CLIs prefigure many The Netherlands 3 of the intended outcomes of the SDGs. Existing evidence shows that CLIs are already Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de contributing, at local scale, to almost all of the SDGs, and achieving particular success Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain in bringing different goals into synergy. However, these achievements are based on 4 Centro de Estudos Internacionais (CEI-IUL) ethics, guiding philosophies, issue framings, practical goals and ways of organising and Department of Political Economy/ECSH, School of Social Sciences, Instituto that differ significantly from those behind the formulation and delivery of the SDGs. Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Embracing those differences, and with them greater plurality and ongoing critical Portugal self-reflection, would allow the SDGs to transcend certain self-limiting contradic- Correspondence Tom Henfrey, Centre for Ecology, Evolution tions, particularly concerning the role of economic growth. Such a shift in orientation and Environmental Change (CE3C), Faculdade is essential if the SDGs are to move from reinforcing to challenging the root causes de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal. of unsustainability and injustice. Email: tom@schumacherinstitute.org.uk KEYWORDS Giuseppe Feola, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, civil society, post-growth, social justice, sustainability transformation, transformative social Princetonlaan 8, 3584CB Utrecht, innovation The Netherlands. Email: g.feola@uu.nl Funding information Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Grant/Award Numbers: IF/00940/2015, PTDC/SOC-SOC/2061/2020, SFRH/ BPD/94495/2013 1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N environmental and/or social goals, usually within defined localities or communities of place (c.f. Penha-Lopes & Henfrey, 2019: pp. 11–12). This paper explores the dialogue, actual and potential, between the We consider the term roughly synonymous with others in the litera- UN's 2030 Sustainability Agenda, centred on delivery of the Sustain- ture such as Grassroots Innovations (Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Smith & able Development Goals, and relevant local-scale action on the part of Seyfang, 2013) and Community-Based Initiatives (Celata et al., 2019). various kinds of community-led Initiatives (CLIs). In line with previous Many CLIs form part of translocal networks that seek to strengthen work in this area, we define CLIs as self-organised initiatives of people local action via collaboration, collective learning, pooling and sharing working together on an ongoing basis towards some defined set of resources, and mutual support (Avelino et al., 2019; Feola & This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. © 2022 The Authors. Sustainable Development published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sustainable Development. 2023;31:211–222. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sd 211 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 212 HENFREY ET AL. Nunes, 2014). CLIs arise and operate independently of government, pluralism in both governance and the scientific framings, disciplinary per- but are nonetheless inserted in legislative and socio-cultural contexts spectives and research orientations that support decision-making pro- that influence their development, often in limiting ways (Becker cesses (Stirling, 2011; also see Henfrey, 2018). Gopal (2017) goes et al., 2018; Celata & Coletti, 2019; Henfrey & Penha-Lopes, 2018). further, arguing that this requires no less than a paradigm shift in estab- Our definition above is deliberately broad in order to reflect the lished thinking on sustainability, treating alternative perspectives as criti- diversity of the phenomenon. In this paper, our analysis is informed cal commentaries that can inform the direction of such a shift. Our by the literature and empirical evidence on CLIs generally, but it specific purpose here is to examine the extent to which the demon- focuses primarily on a specific subset of CLIs associated with move- strated, and potential, social and ecological impacts of CLI activity and ments for environmental and social justice. These include the Ecovil- the forms of understanding and acting that underlie these can contribute lage movement of sustainability-oriented intentional communities to rethinking the SDGs. In practical terms, we contend that the SDGs (Lockyer & Veteto, 2013), the Transition movement of local action for can (and shall) not be conceived as the top-down delivery of centrally sustainability in existing communities of place (Lockyer, 2010), the devised interventions or policies by governments or UN agencies, but Permaculture movement of intentional design for sustainability more fruitfully as the convergence of global aspirations and existing inspired by understanding of living systems (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014), bottom-up, community-led strategies. CLIs can help move the 2030 the social solidarity economy movement for reorganisation of eco- Agenda beyond seeking civil society consent and participation and nomic life based on social priorities at local-to-regional scale towards establishment of local partnerships, connected by translocal (Utting, 2015), and the community of actors mobilising around learning networks, and supported by appropriate governance structures degrowth as a deliberate socio-economic reconfiguration aiming to at all levels. Central to this is a willingness to question continually and minimise the material and energetic throughputs needed to support invite diversification, pluralisation, and change not just in practices and human welfare (Burkhart et al., 2020). Each of these has developed a strategies, but in the institutional, epistemological, social and cultural set of general methodologies, along with techniques for adapting roots of existing perspectives (also see Stirling, 2011). them to the social, cultural, economic and ecological specifics of place; The following sections develop this line of inquiry in successive strategies and mechanisms for their uptake and dissemination; and lit- stages. First, we outline some of the observed challenges, conceptual eratures, training infrastructures and other resources to support both and in practice, facing successful implementation of the SDGs at local active diffusion and imitation (Feola & Nunes, 2014; Shawki, 2013). level. We then summarise key ways in which various kinds of CLIs are They are all instances of what has been termed Transformative Social already taking action, and achieving outcomes, consistent with some Innovation, characterised by distinctive modes of framing, under- of the aims of the SDGs. We then look more closely at how these out- standing, organising and acting and flexible, pragmatic responses to comes are achieved, and in particular, their reliance on ways of think- ever-shifting opportunity spaces (Avelino et al., 2017; Pel et al., 2020). ing, organising and acting that differ in important ways from those Our central focus is an apparent contradiction between the gen- conventionally associated with the SDGs. Finally, we conclude that if eral substantive aims of the SDGs and the social and cultural condi- the stated aspirations and values of the SDGs are to be realised, this tions in which these aims are agreed and acted upon. On the one will require significant changes, both in the goals themselves and the hand, the CLIs we consider in this paper are working towards social institutions, framings, narratives and processes associated with their and environmental outcomes that are broadly consistent with the delivery. overall spirit of the SDGs, and many are demonstrably successful, albeit on limited scales, in achieving socially just forms of sustainabil- ity. On the other hand, the relationships of CLIs with states and other 2 | T H E CH A L LE N G E O F I M P L EM E N T I N G incumbent institutions mostly tasked with delivery of the SDGs are T H E SU S T A I N A B L E D EV E L O P M E N T G O A L S ambivalent at best, and often conflictual. CLIs' successes in achieving LOC A L L Y their aims are in most cases rooted in ideological, political, cultural and epistemological bases that are very different from those on which the The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United SDGs were based. Our argument here will be that the tension result- Nations (UN) in 2015, are the most prominent vehicle for sustainable ing from this apparent contradiction can be a productive one, able to development globally. They promise to ‘transform our world’ and stimulate much-needed plurality in the 2030 Agenda. offer a comprehensive and virtually all-encompassing framework for Many different lines of evidence and analysis attest to the need for thinking about sustainable development, and acting towards it, until such pluralism if the substance and delivery of the SDGs are to live up to 2030.1 the 2030 Agenda's aspirations of bringing into being a sustainable and The SDGs, along with their associated indicators and implementa- socially equitable world. Assumptions of centralised planning and deliv- tion and reporting mechanisms, were largely defined through an inter- ery of sustainability agendas contradict current understandings of the governmental negotiation process. While the UN did set up a complex, non-linear dynamics of social-ecological and socio-technical consultative process aimed at ensuring civil society participation, in prac- systems. Successful navigation of this complexity demands supporting tice this has been widely criticised as inadequately inclusive (especially of multiple issue framings and action pathways, on the part of diverse marginalised social groups), not representative of social and cultural actors (Leach et al., 2010; Smith & Stirling, 2010). This, in turn, requires diversity, and having little actual impact on the negotiations and their 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License HENFREY ET AL. 213 outcomes (Graute, 2016; Sénit, 2020; Sénit et al., 2017). It thus ignored A particularly glaring problem concerns the role of economic growth. calls from scientists to ensure the goals included attention to multiple Although both a stated objective of SDG8 and implicitly assumed pre- dimensions of inclusion, and in particular the need to recognise and condition for realising other goals, continued growth in global GDP - empower grassroots actors and processes able to contribute to the and, therefore, in national GDP in all industrialised countries - is likely to ‘transformative innovation’ that any meaningful efforts towards global be incompatible with specific targets relating to reduced resource con- sustainability need to foreground (Leach et al., 2012). With the policy sumption (including greenhouse gas emissions) set out in Goals 6, 12, focus shifting from adoption to implementation, the legacy of those 13, 14, and 15 (Hickel, 2019). This finding adds to an increasingly large flaws has become apparent. and compelling body of evidence pointing to a basic incompatibility Implementation of the SDGs has largely been led by national gov- between perpetual economic growth and the prospects of either sustain- ernments. The consequences reflect concerns that parliamentary ability and equity (e.g., Brockway et al., 2021; Hickel et al., 2021). democracies are less than fully democratic, and in particular have diffi- Accordingly, calls are increasing for revision or removal of SDG8, and culty accommodating inclusive debate and action on sustainability along with it the assumed dependency, or even correlation, between (Asara et al., 2013). Debates on SDG implementation (e.g., Sachs achieving the SDGs and continued adherence to ongoing GDP growth et al., 2019) have tended to take a narrow view of non-state actors, as a fundamental tenet of national and international economic strategies including local communities and the civil society, as a heterogeneous (Naidoo & Fisher, 2020; Steinberger et al., 2020). In other words, in their collective of stakeholders whose participation has been necessary current format, the SDGs reflect the inherent contradiction in the term only to build legitimacy for government-led action (also see Cumming ‘sustainable development’ that critics have recognised ever since the et al., 2017 and Sexsmith and McMichael, 2015). The resulting sys- Brundtland Report (la Court, 1990). tematic disempowerment of stakeholders implicitly conceived as pas- As pre-figurative experiments that often question the imperative sive recipients of SDG-related interventions and policies is behind perpetual economic growth, and strive to realise post-growth problematic, not only for specific SDGs that directly relate to inclusion socio-economic organisation, CLIs can be important vehicles for a (SDG16), partnership (SDG17) and equality (SDG5 and SDG10), but reorientation of the SDGs towards forms of socio-ecological transition for the entire SDG project. It also limits the scope for action at other that reconsider the role of economic growth in the pursuit of well- levels of scale identified as important for sustainability, in particular being and environmental and social justice. In contrast, a decontextua- the bioregional scale (Cato, 2013), and via institutional forms other lized approach to SDG implementation that marginalises public than those of the state and market (Ostrom, 2005). participation implicitly dismisses possible implementation pathways, This centralisation of SDG development and delivery creates par- especially those arising from a creative, diverse and autonomous civil ticular challenges concerning their local-level implementation. Gener- society, and consequently reduces possibilities for success. By obscur- alised strategies for either implementation or monitoring are unlikely ing the plurality of perspectives and diversity of approaches that to fit diverse local contexts and needs (Tan et al., 2019; Valencia already inform civil society action at local level, the top-down et al., 2019). Complex administrative architectures, such as those approach (to formulating and advancing the implementation of SDGs) involving nested layers in highly decentralised government, may exac- misses a large, dynamic and growing body of understanding and activ- erbate this (e.g., Horn & Grugel, 2018). This may well, in part, reflect ity. If taken seriously and adequately supported, such community-led the limitations of a compartmentalised policy approach, which is mobilisation could bring to the SDGs the transformative potential another recognised issue with the SDG architecture (Biermann necessary for their rethinking and eventual delivery. As an initial et al., 2017; Lim et al., 2018). The coronavirus pandemic has reversed exploration of the form this could take, the next section summarises pledged progress on income inequality, increasing the visibility and some of the main documented achievements of CLIs in relation to urgency of the need for radical questioning of the framing and imple- the SDGs. mentation of the SDGs, especially as regards their interconnectivity. Mutual coherence and compatibility among the goals, however, is par- ticularly relevant in a post-pandemic recovery period (Ottersen & 3 | CONT RI BUT I ONS OF C OMMUNIT Y - Engebretsen, 2020; Shulla et al., 2021). LE D I N I T I A T I V E S T O I M P L E M E NT A T I O N O F Other critics point to more fundamental problems with the SDGs, T H E SU S T A I N A B L E D EV E L O P M E N T G O A L S in particular, a failure to address root causes of unsustainability (Easterly, 2015). This creates a danger that implementation of the CLIs have long been recognised as prefigurative of wider societal transi- SDGs perpetuates and even reinforces the unsustainability and injus- tions to sustainability (Frantzeskaki et al., 2016). Their activities, in some tice they seek to address (Kopnina, 2016; Menton et al., 2020). In cases now ongoing over several decades, pre-empt many of the aspira- most countries, apparent progress towards SDG indicators is at best tions of the SDGs in important ways, both in relation to the context of poorly correlated with actual progress on environmental protection, specific goals and the way the 2030 Agenda as a whole attempts to inte- and may even mask ongoing loss of biodiversity (Zeng et al., 2020). grate diverse environmental and social goals (Henfrey & Penha- Findings such as these increasingly call into question whether the Lopes, 2015). Since the SDGs came into being, some CLIs (and their net- SDGs can actually be achieved without challenging their own framing works) have partially incorporated them into strategic frameworks for assumptions. their work, at both local and translocal levels (Penha-Lopes & 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 214 HENFREY ET AL. Henfrey, 2019: 88–89). The importance of actively involving CLIs in the management of natural resources in both terrestrial (SDG15) and marine 2030 Agenda is widely recognised, both as sources of knowledge and settings (SDG14), commons have been created by CLIs as the basis for experience and as participants in the decentralised processes necessary sustainable and socially responsible production and consumption for effective SDG implementation at local scales (Global Taskforce of (SDG12) in areas such as agroecology and food production (SDG2), Local and Regional Governments, 2016; Rieckmann, 2017; Waage renewable energy infrastructures (SDG7), education and learning et al., 2015). CLIs engage with thematic streams within the SDGs in ways (SDG4), cooperative enterprise (SDG8), healthcare (SDG3) and finance that are often critical and creative, leading to a reshaping of their mean- (SDG1, SDG10) (Bollier & Helfrich, 2019). Often initiated as local ing and possible implementation formats. responses to climate change (SDG13) (Henfrey & Kenrick, 2017), they A selective survey of the literature found evidence that CLIs are have through various forms of boundary commoning—partnership both already addressing almost every one of the 17 SDGs, and in many among commons and with state and market actors (SDG17)—provoked cases doing so with considerable success, at least at their local scale multi-level institutional change (SDG16) (Macedo et al., 2020; Wittmayer of operation. The evidence is particularly strong in relation to SDGs et al., 2020), resulting in new forms of sustainability-oriented governance that directly reflect the priorities of CLIs, such as SDG3 (good health at both community and city scale (SDG11) (Burnett & Nunes, 2021; and well-being), SDG7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG11 (sustain- Russell, 2019). In some cases, CLIs have become the foundations of new able communities) SDG 12 (responsible production and consumption) regional economies and global sustainability industries (SDG9) (Lewis & and SDG 17 (partnership for the goals). The main exception was Conaty, 2012; Ornetzeder & Rohracher, 2006). SDG14 (life below water), for which literature research revealed no The examples listed above are, while selective, not in our assess- clear examples of CLI contributions. However, many coastal and marine ment untypical: impacts of this kind are likely to be observed wherever environments have long histories of self-management by local communi- CLIs are established, active, and operating effectively. Aggregated ana- ties. In collaboration with state and parastatal actors, these have become lyses drawing on data from multiple CLIs in different countries, local con- the basis of numerous initiatives in co-management, sustainable develop- texts and fields of activity are rare, but confirm this assertion. One study ment and environmental education worldwide (e.g., Barracosa of 38 CLIs in six European countries found significant reductions in car- et al., 2019; Friedlander & Gaymer, 2021; Johannes, 2002), providing bon footprints of both active members and direct beneficiaries, espe- some indication of the potential for community-led action in this area. cially in the fields of transportation, diet, waste avoidance and renewable Table 1 lists illustrative examples of impact for each of the other energy production (Landholm et al., 2019). Although focussed on realised 16 SDGs.2 and potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the study noted Listing these impacts goal-by-goal risks obscuring the integrated considerable and diverse further environmental and social benefits aris- nature of many CLI actions that is perhaps among their biggest ing from CLI activity, highlighting the holistic nature of this activity and strengths. The synergies among SDGs thematics that arise in the con- ability to support progress on multiple SDGs simultaneously, in comple- text of the holistic orientation typical of many CLIs is evident both in mentary or synergistic fashion (Celata & Sanna, 2019). Extrapolation specific cases and in relation to more general concepts. As one exam- from these data indicated the potential aggregate contributions of CLIs ple, the Chikukwa Project was initiated when small-scale farmers in to meeting progressive emissions reduction targets to be considerable, several neighbouring rural villages in Zimbabwe adopted permaculture under a scenario of high levels of activity and public participation, though as part of a strategy to address ecological and social challenges that inadequate by itself without structural changes and the active participa- threatened subsistence food production (SDG2), and basic livelihoods tion of government and business (Martellozzo et al., 2019). Although (SDG1). Villagers worked together to restore degraded woodlands data maintained by some national and international CLI networks indi- and protect watercourses (SDG6). They also established new mecha- cate the numbers, diversity and levels of activity of CLIs to be consider- nisms for peer learning (SDG4), conflict resolution and collective able, the absence of any systematic records or analysis makes their decision-making and action (SDG16), paying special attention to actual numbers and impacts difficult to ascertain (Penha-Lopes & empowerment of women (SDG5). Outcomes include improved overall Henfrey, 2019). A considerable resource for effective local-scale action standards of general well-being (SDG3), creation of new economic towards outcomes consistent with the SDGs thus remains only partially opportunities (SDG8), maintaining and strengthening low-carbon life- visible, at best, and lacks the support necessary to grow to its full styles and livelihoods largely rooted in sustainable management and potential. use of local resources (SDG12, 13) and safeguarding the future of the While we have so far emphasised the positive qualities of CLIs, it villages as viable communities (SDG11), as well as linking to wider is important to recognise that they do not provide perfect, ready- national and international networks in permaculture and related areas made solutions that can simply be scaled up. In many cases and of community action (SDG17) (Didarali & Gambiza, 2019; Richardson- respects they reflect, and fail to address, features of their wider social Ngwenya, 2021). context that contradict their own stated commitments to inclusion, An example of a more general pattern is the formation by CLIs of diversity and tolerance (Ferguson & Lovell, 2015; Quilley, 2015). At commons ecologies, self-organised governance and management systems local levels, many initiatives struggle to attract participants and engage at local to regional scale designed to promote, harmonise and integrate publics beyond a narrow white, middle class and well educated demo- defined social and environmental goals (De Angelis, 2017; Esteves graphic (Merritt & Stubbs, 2012; Nicolosi et al., 2018; Smith, 2011). et al., 2021). Historically the basis of traditional and indigenous Key local organisers often lack the skills, resources or opportunity to 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License HENFREY ET AL. 215 TABLE 1 Selected illustrative examples of CLIs' contributions to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) UN SDGs Indicative examples of approaches taken by community-led initiatives SDG1—No poverty CLIs use diverse strategies and methods to support individual and collective well-being, often in ways that are organised along non-market logics and require lower levels of material affluence. This not only directly addresses, and mitigates, experienced poverty, it also invites a reframing and reappraisal of poverty as commonly defined as a direct function of material scarcity (Vita et al., 2020). Many CLIs have created new alternative or complementary currencies to help improve and diversify creation, distribution and circulation of wealth and increase alignment with requirements for sustainability. For example, 31% of the studies of alternative or complementary currencies reviewed by Michel and Hudon (2015) reported that such currencies contribute to tackling social exclusion and 23% helped improve quality of life in terms of well-being. Michel and Hudon (2015) also found that 24% of the studies had identified income increases and improvement of living standards as economic impacts of these currencies, while 29% reported that members of alternative or complementary currencies gained access to otherwise unaffordable goods and services SDG2—Zero Many CLIs employ organic, regenerative and agroecological forms of food production and local/regional provision, hunger including linking producers and consumers of food through mechanisms such as solidarity purchasing, community- supported agriculture and farmers' markets. Sustainable and equitable provision of food is thus brought into synergy with creation of environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits (Cristiano, 2021). Quantitative assessments of short food supply chains, including Community Supported Agriculture, Urban Gardens, and Farmer Markets, show that these CLIs outperform conventional food retail and long food supply chains for most environmental and social assessment criteria (Doernberg et al., 2022) SDG3—Good CLIs generally align with alternative economic philosophies and methodologies that prioritise health and well-being health and rather than economic indicators. Specific strategies include deliberately building social capital (and to lesser degrees, wellbeing other forms of non-fiscal capital), and leveraging it to promote well-being through a range of social, spatial and material design strategies including a healthy work-life balance, inclusive and deeply democratic decision making, conflict resolution institutions, and self-development practices, among others (Hall, 2015) SDG4—Quality Learning is central to CLIs, both their internal development as projects, initiatives and networks and their bridging with education wider society (Henfrey, 2017). Many operate their own learning programmes, and actively cultivate learning collaborations with wider society through communities of practice and other forms of learning partnership (Ulbrich & Pahl-Wostl, 2019 for an example of learning partnerships involving the German Permaculture initiatives, and Macedo et al., 2020 for an example of such partnerships involving Transition Towns) SDG5—Gender The actual performance of CLIs is mixed, with high levels of women's representation and leadership in some areas equality combined with reproduction of more typical patterns and forms of gender imbalance in others (e.g., Celata & Sanna, 2019; Ferguson & Lovell, 2015). Many CLIs involve social experimentation and questioning of dominant cultural norms and narratives, with potential to go beyond numerical equality to progress towards genuinely gender- equitable and gender-inclusive societies (e.g., Hanaček et al., 2020) SDG6—Clean water CLIs implement a diverse range of appropriate water management technologies. For example, in Tamera Ecovillage in and sanitation the Alentejo region of Portugal, water management is a central ecological topic. The community develops and tests a wide variety of infrastructures for water retention in the landscape and usage within the community, and promotes wider discussion, reflection and innovation through various forms of collaboration with internationally recognised authorities as well as testing a wide variety of infrastructures to support and enhance water cycling and storage (Vizinho et al., 2015). Lockyer (2017), quantified water consumption at the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage in the United States, and found that per capita daily water use was 23% of the average United States citizen, thanks to rainwater catchment technologies and water saving practices, among other simple but effective socio-technical innovations SDG7—Affordable CLIs are active in both supply-side and demand-side interventions relating to sustainable energy, both through various and clean energy forms of community-owned energy generation and initiatives to promote less energy-intensive settlements and lifestyles. Community energy in many cases is the initial and/or most important form of action, with community energy projects often providing a focus for a wider range of activities powered and/or funded by renewable energy generation infrastructure, or helping to create enabling conditions for other work by reducing dependencies on infrastructures that are corporate-run, environmentally destructive and dependent on fossil fuels, nuclear or other forms of unsustainable generation (Becker et al., 2017; Hewitt et al., 2019). Hewitt et al. (2019) provide an overview of sizeable renewable, community energy production across eight European countries, while on the demand side, Lockyer (2017) quantified natural gas and electricity consumption at the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, which were, respectively, approximately 5% and 18% of the average per capita consumption of United States citizens SDG8—Decent CLIs are developing many alternative models of entrepreneurship representing distinctive forms of economic and work and organisational philosophy, reinventing the nature of work and creating livelihood opportunities that are intrinsically economic growth linked with equity, sustainability and ecological, social and cultural regeneration (Hillman et al., 2018; Genus et al., 2021). In addition, increasing numbers of community initiatives explicitly associate with zero-growth or degrowth economic scenarios in the global North (Robra et al., 2020), as a fundamental element of decent work and human flourishing. Watson (2020) found that Community Supported Agriculture initiatives can involve meaningful, non-alienating work relations, although the risk of self-exploitation and erosion of community relations has been observed in other cases (Galt et al., 2016) (Continues) 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 216 HENFREY ET AL. TABLE 1 (Continued) UN SDGs Indicative examples of approaches taken by community-led initiatives SDG9—Industry, CLIs are key examples of transformative social innovations, capable of challenging and overcoming technical, social and innovation and cultural lock-ins in dominant regimes and associated infrastructures. CLIs such as cohousing, renewable energy infrastructure communities and car-sharing (Ornetzeder & Rohracher, 2013), as well as ecovillages (Barani et al., 2018) and hackerspaces, repair cafes and appropriate technology initiatives (Smith et al., 2014 ) develop material innovation in technologies and sectors as diverse as housing, transport, finance, food production, and other areas, creating infrastructural systems that maximise their capacity for self-maintenance, regeneration and flexible adaptation to changing circumstances at the same time as they minimise their reliance on external inputs of materials and energy SDG10—Reduced CLIs empower their members through creating local and translocal connections, favouring learning and reskilling, and inequalities supporting political voice (Avelino et al., 2019). Direct practical outcomes include engagement of diverse publics (Celata & Sanna, 2019) and creation of local-regional economic systems that practice inclusion and equity as core organisational principles (Esteves et al., 2021; Genus et al., 2021; Hillman et al., 2018) SDG11— Most documented ecovillages and co-housing projects achieve per capita ecological footprints far below national Sustainable cities averages, including the only two documented examples of European settlements with per capita ecological footprints and communities below levels required for global sustainability (Daly, 2017; also see Lockyer, 2017). CLIs have been identified as a core component of transitions to sustainability in urban settings (Frantzeskaki et al., 2016) SDG12— Several general surveys of CLIs such as ecovillages and other intentional communities reveal significant impacts in more Responsible sustainable production and consumption, along with numerous related social benefits (Barani et al., 2018; Celata & production and Sanna, 2019; Daly, 2017). For example, Cloughjordan Ecovillage in Ireland employs a range of technical, behavioural consumption and social measures, leading to a per capita ecological footprint less than half the national average. Ecological Footprint methodology is proactively employed as a learning and feedback mechanism to work towards more sustainable production and consumption (Carragher & Peters, 2018) SDG13—Climate CLIs such as food cooperatives and renewable energy communities show significant realised reductions in beneficiaries' action lifestyle-associated greenhouse gas emissions in several areas, including food consumption, transport, energy consumption, waste production and disposal (Landholm et al., 2019). The aggregate potential emissions reductions, in scenarios assuming high levels of public engagement in CLIs, exceed 2020 targets in most EU countries and would represent significant contributions to 2030 to 2050 targets (Martellozzo et al., 2019) SDG15—Life on Many CLIs are adopting and promoting agroecological and agroforestry-based methods of food production rooted in land local cultural and environmental conditions and able to mitigate climate change, increase biodiversity, increase soil quality and generate other socio-ecological benefits (Doernberg et al., 2022; Wartman et al., 2018). Permaculture and other CLIs reinvigorate traditional forms of customary land management and show strong complementarity with more conventional conservation methods like protected areas (Chakroun & Droz, 2020) SDG16—Peace, CLIs typically operate as commons, self-organised institutions for collective action rooted in local social and ecological justice and realities capable of nesting at multiple spatial and social scales (Esteves et al., 2021). Some have a specific focus on strong new forms of relationship building for global peace (Esteves, 2020). Interactions between CLIs and incumbents in the institutions energy sector are creating new hybrid forms of institutionalisation better able to respond to pressures for transformative change (Wittmayer et al., 2020) SDG17— CLIs organise and collaborate within translocal networks that create diverse forms of connection, partnership, support Partnership for and learning among local initiatives (Avelino et al., 2019). Several translocal networks exist globally each involving the goals hundreds to thousands of local initiatives; for example, the Transition Network, the Global Ecovillage Network, national Community-Supported-Agriculture networks and their European umbrella Urgenci, various national Repair Café networks, and national and international Social and Solidarity Economy networks, among others. New forms of multi-actor local partnership include the Municipalities in Transition framework, which supports collaborations for transformative action on sustainability between Transition initiatives and local government, designed to help to navigate uncertainty and complexity and support emergent and unplanned outcomes (Macedo et al., 2020) build and broker relationships with existing diverse sub-communities, entering into dialogue and collaboration with indigenous, feminist, leading to a tendency to sideline such work in favour of more familiar post-colonial and other subaltern movements in order to become part and volunteer-friendly activities (Grossmann & Creamer, 2017; of a pluriverse of sustainable and just alternatives, rooted in diverse Nicolosi & Feola, 2016). Some initiatives unwittingly perpetuate dis- cultural and ecological specifics of place (Nirmal & Rocheleau, 2019; criminatory and/or exclusionary social norms, for example relating to Paulson, 2017). Great agency and discursive influence of CLIs within gender and sexuality (Dinnie & Browne, 2011). This perhaps reflects a global sustainability agendas will be counterproductive if it does not wider tendency towards depoliticisation, with the ironic outcome of actively integrate and strengthen this commitment to including and actually perpetuating features of neoliberal discourse and foreclosing empowering an ever-greater diversity of voices, perspectives and framings and courses of action that more diverse voices could bring interests. (Argüelles et al, 2017). A recent, and welcome, trend is for systematic Despite these limitations, we argue here that CLIs are contribut- decolonisation of thought, discourse and action, drawing on and ing meaningfully to almost all of the SDGs (Table 1), and that they are 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License HENFREY ET AL. 217 doing so in ways that transcend, and in some ways challenge, many The following paragraphs explore each of these points in turn. predominant assumptions concerning the formulation and implemen- As examples of practical efforts to live more sustainably, CLIs offer tation of SDGs. In particular, the proactive, prefigurative and creative many important lessons in relation to what successful delivery of the nature of CLI action on the SDGs challenge conceptions of civil soci- 2030 Agenda might look like in practice. First, they operate through ety as consisting of either passive stakeholders whose compliance is experimentation and learning by doing, which is prone to setbacks and necessary for reasons of public acceptability, or even vehicles for apparent ‘failures’, yet embraced as vital learning opportunities (Feola & delivery of centrally defined goals, targets and implementation strate- Nunes, 2014). Second, they operate in ‘messy’ social conditions marked gies. In contrast to such conceptions, our review highlights the roles by clear internal and external contradictions, conflicts and struggles. Yet, played by CLIs as pioneers in sustainability practices and techniques many of their conflicting elements provide a ‘fertile soil’ for innovation, and as influencers and supporters of local government through active evolution, and dynamic and constructive responses to fast-changing, and collaborative partnership in sustainability governance arrangements. uncertain and unpredictable contexts (Sekulova et al., 2017). Third, they These findings invite us to look beyond what CLIs do, can and could con- exhibit forms of distributed agency that allow them to adapt rapidly and tribute to SDG implementation, and also take into account the how and flexibly to whatever opportunities for innovative action arise in their why. Attention to mechanisms and motivations highlights the potential immediate contexts (Pel et al., 2020). Fourth, local experiences are often for CLIs to contribute to a wider reformulation of the SDGs, both con- shared, distilled, critically assessed, and transferred or adapted to new ceptually and in practice, as the next section explores. contexts through translocal networks that connect diverse local actors (Avelino et al., 2019; Feola & Nunes, 2014). In all these respects, CLIs offer a necessary complement to the logics of bureaucratisation and 4 | B EY O N D T H E SU S T A I N A B L E commodification that mark state-led and market-led approaches, leading D E V E L O P M E NT GO A LS : C O M M U N I T Y - LE D to creation of new hybrid institutions, flexibly able to reconcile impulses I N I T I A T I V E S A S P R A C T I CA L A N D E P I S TE M I C towards transformation and stability (Wittmayer et al., 2020). To be most ALTERNATIVES effective, such institutional hybridisation should become an integral part of the SDGs, not just in delivery, but as part of active and ongoing pro- A growing body of knowledge on the actual practices and guiding phi- cesses of critical reflection and reformulation. losophies of CLIs emphasises their nature and potential as agents of The decentralised and autonomous nature of CLIs also allows the transformative change that the 2030 Agenda implies rhetorically, them to challenge some of the self-limiting assumptions that underlie but struggles with in practice. As instances of transformative social the SDGs. Foremost among these is that of continuing economic innovation, they offer new ways of framing, understanding, organising growth as the ultimate goal of humanity, which is now widely recog- and acting potentially well suited to making substantial progress nised to be a product of particular social, cultural, historical and politi- towards sustainability (Pel et al., 2020). This includes offering possible cal processes and institutions. The pursuit of perpetual economic routes to overcoming the limitations of the SDGs as a centralised and growth has proved to be disconnected from, and even undermining, top-down process driven by the very structures and guiding assump- strong sustainability targets and social welfare in a wide range of tions that are the root causes of the issues it purports to address. In countries (Fanning & O'Neill, 2019; Jackson, 2017, 2021; Kallis this respect, we identify four general qualities of CLIs as being of par- et al., 2018; Tilsted et al., 2021). This said, in the absence of broad- ticularly great potential importance: based redistribution within and across the Global North and South, growth is often perceived as the only way of addressing poverty, in 1. Their activities are rooted in the actual practice of sustainability, as line with the highly questionable assumption that its benefits will lived and embodied, grounded in specific local and regional con- trickle down to the poor (Akbulut et al., 2019). texts and supported by appropriate social institutions and cultural While not all CLIs share discourses that are explicitly critical of perspectives. economic growth, many CLIs offer prefigurative examples of post- 2. They question the necessity and desirability of perpetual economic growth societies, operating according to alternative economic philoso- growth, (a core internal barrier for reaching most of the SDGs) phies, structures and practices able to combine high levels of human along with many other guiding assumptions of the dominant para- well-being, social justice, and the preservation or even enrichment of digm that the SDGs tacitly or explicitly perpetuate (separation of the environment (Jackson, 2017). The highly centralised processes so people and nature, quality of life as a function of material accumu- far associated with formulation and delivery of the SDGs thus tend to lation, gender and racial blindness). marginalise key sources of visions, experience, understanding and 3. They provide operating and replicable examples of systemic alter- expertise that are vital to their success. natives - along with ongoing efforts to create these - that express As working examples of sustainability thinking in practice, many joined-up and (aspirationally, at least) evolving holistic understand- CLIs are holistic endeavours in which different social and environmen- ings of environmental and social issues. tal goals are approached not as separate issues, but as interdependent 4. They include, and on an ongoing basis generate, new perspectives and needing to be addressed collectively. Although rooted in common and approaches with wider transformative potential, ones that understandings of the ecological embeddedness of human society and continuously evolve in a reflexive and self-critical fashion. transformative potential of self-organised, bottom-up action, they 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 218 HENFREY ET AL. exhibit considerable diversity, both among and within movements, in 5 | C O N C LU S I O N : TO W A RD S A R E S E A R C H specific framings of the forms of collaboration and practical action nec- A ND P O LI C Y A G E N D A essary to realise such transformation (Feola & Jaworska, 2019). In a practical sense, evidence is growing of their ability to bring about sys- From the above analysis of the ways many CLIs are working towards temic change at local to regional levels, in ways that naturally bring mul- the SDGs, and the outcomes of these (Table 1), we conclude that the tiple SDGs, social and economic, into synergy (Esteves et al., 2021). patterns underlying successful efforts by CLIs to achieve outcomes Delivery of the SDGs may take such working cases as inspirational consistent with the aspirations of the SDGs reflect fundamental epi- examples for wider action, actively exploring and mobilising their stemic, ontological, ethical, analytical and operational contradictions potential for translation to other contexts, including via institutional between CLIs and dominant forms of being, knowing, understanding reform at all levels. Doing so will provide an opportunity to integrate and doing, including those behind the 2030 Agenda. We have argued novel problem framings that introduce new perspectives and ideas, and above that globally CLIs have been effectively realising key elements apply and connect established ideas in original ways. The diffusion of of the SDGs as embedded features of social and economic life, in sustainability principles and practices through translocal networks of ways that tend to spur stronger forms of sustainability and wider CLIs shows that while local initiatives develop highly embedded and notions of justice. We believe that our findings above, provide a locally-specific ways of addressing pressing sustainability issues, situ- sound basis for rethinking the SDGs, and making them stronger, more ated experiences can be translated into more general principles and just, intersectional and inclusive. Nevertheless, this potential is cur- practices that, in turn, can inform initiatives elsewhere (Avelino rently unproven, and urgently needs testing through an action et al., 2019; Feola & Nunes, 2014). In this, translocal networks play an research approach where researchers act as brokers between CLIs important role in scaling out, rather than upscaling, particular experi- seeking to offer more than isolated local-scale experiments and estab- ences and impacts, ensuring their replicability and evolution in function lished actors (especially government at all levels) working to imple- of the contexts and subjectivities that underpin and embody them. ment the 2030 Agenda. This approach needs to be experimental, Examples of the transfer and replicability of alternative logics reflexive, responsive to ongoing learning, and adaptive in the face of through translocal networks of CLIs include the concept of ‘Regenera- change. tive Cultures’ (Wahl, 2016), which consciously build individual and col- In practical terms, we believe that the SDGs can (and shall) not be lective capacities to respond constructively to emerging crises and conceived as the top-down delivery of centrally devised interventions navigate the inherent complexity and uncertainty of social and ecological or policies by governments or UN agencies, but more fruitfully as the systems. Regenerative Development and Design (Mang & Reed, 2012) convergence of global aspirations and existing bottom-up, works from a deep connection with place, potential and vocation as community-led strategies. How to design and govern this conver- guiding principles for understanding and action. Permaculture employs a gence is an open question. On the one hand, the top-down rollout of set of heuristic, analytical and decision-making tools based on deep pre-defined, supposed sustainability solutions that are ‘validated’ observation of the self-organising properties of living systems and rooted through community and civil society's consent (as in Sachs in overlapping ethics of sustainability and equity, and applies these in the et al., 2019) would reproduce the well-documented implementation deliberate design of everyday life (Taylor Aiken, 2017). The Global Ecov- issues, or gaps, discussed above (Cumming et al., 2017; Horn & illage Network (GEN) has captured key principles derived from practical Grugel, 2018; Tan et al., 2019; Valencia et al., 2019). On the other experience of life in sustainability-oriented principles as the Ecovillage hand, CLIs are not imagined here as mechanisms that shift existing Mandala,3 which emphasises the social, cultural, economic and ecological responsibilities for the public good from state actors onto individuals dimensions of sustainability, and the need to integrate these and civil society. Neither should CLIs be seen as ready-made solutions (Litfin, 2014). Combining this with the principles of Regenerative Devel- to be simplistically transferred to every context. opment, GEN-International has recently reconceptualised the SDGs as a In contrast, we propose that CLIs can help move the 2030 set of Regenerative Development Aims,4 which emphasise the need to Agenda beyond seeking civil society consent and participation and move from sustainability to regeneration, as an ongoing aspiration and towards establishment of local partnerships, connected by translocal life ethic rather than a fixed goal that can ever be definitively reached. learning networks, and supported by appropriate governance struc- All of these, and many more in CLI networks around the world, have tures at all levels. Central to this governance approach is a willing- roles to play in informing a more pluralistic, inclusive and ambitious ness to question continually and invite diversification, pluralisation, global sustainability agenda, drawing upon the full range of available per- and change not just in practices and strategies, but in the institu- spectives and tools and rooted within grounded experience of dedicated tional, epistemological, social and cultural roots of existing perspec- action towards sustainability as embodied practice at human scale. Not tives (also see Stirling, 2011). This in turn, requires a recognition of all local initiatives nor all types of CLIs share a common vision or agenda the uncertainty inherent in any genuinely transformative endeavour (e.g., regarding perpetual economic growth); neither are they immune (Scoones & Stirling, 2020). Horizontal governance structures that from limitations as regards their replicability or issues of inclusion and foster interaction among partners (CLIs, state authorities, business representation of diverse groups and interests (e.g., Argüelles sector, etc.) on an equal footing (Lange et al., 2013), may facilitate et al., 2017). However, as shown also in Table 1, effectives practices do such open, inclusive and learning-prone arrangements. However, we exist, as does empirical evidence of their impact on almost all the SDGs. suggest that such settings, differently and probably newly designed 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License HENFREY ET AL. 219 for distinct contexts, should be a structural rather than ad-hoc com- RE FE RE NCE S ponent (e.g., as many so-called ‘living labs’ are) of the transformative Akbulut, B., Demaria, F., Gerber, J., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2019). Who pro- implementation of the SDGs. There is no expectation that such gov- motes sustainability? Five theses on the relationships between the degrowth and the environmental justice movements. Ecological Econom- ernance processes would be smooth, or devoid of tensions and con- ics, 165, 106418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106418 flict, with different partners, including CLIs, required to question Argüelles, L., Anguelovski, I., & Dinnie, E. (2017). Power and privilege in their own assumptions, learn from each other and negotiate in order alternative civic practices: Examining imaginaries of change and to facilitate a convergence of global and local sustainability aspira- embedded rationalities in community economies. Geoforum, 86, 30– 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.08.013 tions, and existing bottom-up, community-led strategies. The evi- Asara, V., Profumi, E., & Kallis, G. (2013). Degrowth, democracy and auton- dence compiled here suggests that CLIs hold many useful clues and omy. Environmental Values, 22, 217–239. https://doi.org/10.3197/ propositions, but we can only guess what the end product will look 096327113X13581561725239 like. The single projection that we can make is that the eventual Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Cipolla, C., Kunze, I., & Wittmayer, J., 2019. Trans- local empowerment in transformative social innovation networks. result will in many ways be completely unrecognisable from the European Planning Studies, 8, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/ world we have today. 09654313.2019.1578339 The first step towards this transformation is a radical democrati- Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., sation of the SDGs' formulation and implementation, in all respects. Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S., & O'Riordan, T. This will include, at the very least, major collective rethinking and (2017). Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Tech- nological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 195–206. https://doi.org/ reworking of each SDG; contextualisation of SDG delivery in relation 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.002 to diverse and place-based social, ecological and cultural realities; and Barani, S., Alibeygi, A. H., & Papzan, A. (2018). A framework to identify the creation of new, inclusive, multi-level institutions and processes and develop potential ecovillages: Meta-analysis from the studies of for both application and ongoing critical reflection upon and learning world's ecovillages. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43, 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.036 from the consequences. A key outcome of all this will be the recon- Barracosa, H., de los Santos, C. B., Martins, M., Freitas, C., & Santos, R. ceptualisation of the SDGs not as goals or targets, but as visions or (2019). Ocean literacy to mainstream ecosystem services concept in pathways in the making, or as questions to be posed in different ways formal and informal education: The example of coastal ecosystems of and combinations in each locality, addressed through action learning southern Portugal. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 626. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fmars.2019.00626 collaborations across multiple stakeholder groups and building on Becker, S., Kunze, C., & Vancea, M. (2017). Community energy and social existing local and translocal experience of practical action for justice entrepreneurship: Addressing purpose, organisation and embedded- and sustainability. ness of renewable energy projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.048 Becker, S. L., Franke, F., & Gläsel, A. (2018). Regime pressures and organi- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS zational forms of community-based sustainability initiatives. Environ- We are grateful to Frank Biermann and Tim O'Riordan for their stimu- mental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 29, 5–16. https://doi.org/ lating critical comments on a previous version of this manuscript. 10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.004 Work on this paper was partially supported by various awards from Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-set- ting: The novel approach of the UN sustainable development goals. the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, whose sup- Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 26–31. https://doi. port is gratefully acknowledged: Bolsa IF/00940/2015 (Penha-Lopes, org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010 Henfrey), Bolsa SFRH/BPD/94495/2013 (Esteves) and project grant Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (2019). Free, fair and alive. The insurgent power of PTDC/SOC-SOC/2061/2020 (Esteves, Henfrey). the commons. New Society Publishers. Brockway, P., Sorrell, S., Semieniuk, G., Kuperus Heun, N., & Court, V. (2021). Energy efficiency and economy-wide rebound effects: A ORCID review of the evidence and its implications. Renewable and Sustainable Tom Henfrey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0709-804X Energy Reviews, 141, 110781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021. Giuseppe Feola https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1069-503X 110781 Gil Penha-Lopes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1024-1954 Burkhart, C., Schmelzer, M., & Treu, N. (2020). Degrowth in movement(s): Exploring pathways for transformation. Zer0 Books. Filka Sekulova https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6827-5359 Burnett, A., & Nunes, R. (2021). Flatpack democracy: Power and politics at Ana Margarida Esteves https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0417-6770 the boundaries of transition. Environmental Policy and Governance, 31, 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1931 ENDNOTES Carragher, V., & Peters, M. (2018). Engaging an ecovillage and measuring 1 its ecological footprint. Local Environment, 23, 861–878. https://doi. https://sdgs.un.org/goals org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1481021 2 A fuller and dynamic list, in interactive format that supports contribu- Cato, M. S. (2013). The bioregional economy: Land, liberty and the pursuit of tions, can be found at https://wiki.communitiesforfuture.org/wiki/ happiness. Earthscan. Sustainable_Development_Goals Celata, F., & Coletti, R. (2019). Enabling and disabling policy environments 3 for community-led sustainability transitions. Regional Environmental https://ecovillage.org/solution/the-5-dimensions-of-sustainability/. Accessed October 21st 2021. Change, 19, 983–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01471-1 4 Celata, F., Dinnie, L., & Holsten, A. (2019). Sustainability transitions to low- https://ecovillage.org/sustainable-development-the-ecovillage-way/. carbon societies: Insights from European community-based initiatives. Accessed October 21st 2021. 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 220 HENFREY ET AL. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 909–912. https://doi.org/10. international permaculture movement. Ecology and Society, 20, 39. 1007/s10113-019-01488-6 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08048-200439 Celata, F., & Sanna, V. S. (2019). A multi-dimensional assessment of the Frantzeskaki, N., Dumitru, A., Anguelovski, I., Avelino, F., Bach, M., environmental and socioeconomic performance of community-based Best, B., Binder, C., Barnes, J., Carrus, G., Egermann, M., Haxeltine, A., sustainability initiatives in Europe. Regional Environmental Change, 19, Moore, M. -L., Mira, R. G., Loorbach, D., Uzzell, D., Omann, I., 939–952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01493-9 Olsson, P., Silvestri, G., Stedman, R., Wittmayer, J., Durrant, R., & Chakroun, L., & Droz, L. (2020). Sustainability through landscapes: Natural Rauschmayer, F. (2016). Elucidating the changing roles of civil society parks, satoyama, and permaculture in Japan. Ecosystems and People, in urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental 16, 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1837244 Sustainability, 22, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017. Cristiano, S. (2021). Organic vegetables from community-supported agri- 04.008 culture in Italy: Emergy assessment and potential for sustainable, just, Friedlander, A. M., & Gaymer, C. F. (2021). Progress, opportunities and and resilient urban-rural local food production. Journal of Cleaner Pro- challenges for marine conservation in the Pacific Islands. Aquatic Con- duction, 292, 126015. servation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 31, 221–231. https://doi. Cumming, T. L., Shackleton, R. T., Förster, J., Dini, J., Khan, A., org/10.1002/aqc.3464 Gumula, M., & Kubiszewski, I. (2017). Achieving the national develop- Galt, R. E., Bradley, K., Christensen, L., Van Soelen Kim, J., & Lobo, R. ment agenda and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) through (2016). Eroding the Community in Community Supported Agriculture investment in ecological infrastructure: A case study of South Africa. (CSA): Competition's effects in alternative food networks in California. Ecosystem Services, 27, 253–260. Sociologia Ruralis, 56, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12102 Daly, M. (2017). Quantifying the environmental impact of ecovillages and co- Genus, A., Iskandarova, M., & Warburton Brown, C. (2021). Institutional housing communities: A systematic literature review. Local Environment, entrepreneurship and permaculture: A practice theory perspective. 22, 1358–1377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1348342 Business Strategy and the Environment, 30, 1454–1467. https://doi. De Angelis, M. (2017). Omnia Sunt Communia. On the commons and the org/10.1002/bse.2708 transformation to postcapitalism. Zed Books. Global Taskforce for Local and Regional Governments (2016). Roadmap Didarali, Z. & Gambiza, J. (2019). Permaculture: Challenges and benefits in for localizing the SDGs: Implementation and monitoring at subnational improving rural livelihoods in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Sustainabil- level. https://www.global-taskforce.org/roadmap-achieving-sdgs- ity 11, 2219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082219 local-level Dinnie, E., & Browne, K. (2011). Creating a sexual self in heteronormative Gopal, M. (2017). Shedding some light on the invisible: The transformative space: Integrations and imperatives amongst spiritual seekers at the power of paradigm shifts. In T. Henfrey, G. Maschkowski, & G. Penha- Findhorn community. Sociological Research Online 16, 1–10. https:// Lopes (Eds.), Resilience, community action and societal transformation doi.org/10.5153/sro.2287 (pp. 113–140). Permanent Publications. Doernberg, A., Piorr, A., Zasada, I., Wascher, D., & Schmutz, U. (2022). Sus- Graute, U. (2016). Local authorities acting globally for sustainable develop- tainability assessment of short food supply chains (SFSC): Developing ment. Regional Studies, 50, 1931–1942. https://doi.org/10.1080/ and testing a rapid assessment tool in one African and three European 00343404.2016.1161740 city regions. Agriculture and Human Values, 1–20. https://doi.org/10. Grossmann, M., & Creamer, E. (2017). Assessing diversity and inclusivity 1007/s10460-021-10288-w within the transition movement: An urban case study. Environmental Easterly, W. (2015). The trouble with the sustainable development goals. Politics, 26(1), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016. Current History, 114(775), 322–324. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh. 1232522 2015.114.775.322 Hall, R., 2015. The ecovillage experience as an evidence base for national Esteves, A. M. (2020). Peace education for the Anthropocene? The contri- wellbeing strategies. Intellectual Economics, 9, 30–42. https://doi.org/ bution of regenerative ecology and the ecovillages movement. Journal 10.1016/j.intele.2015.07.001 of Peace Education, 17, 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201. Hanaček, K., Roy, B., Avila, S., & Kallis, G. (2020). Ecological economics and 2019.1657817 degrowth: Proposing a future research agenda from the margins. Eco- Esteves, A. M., Genus, A., Henfrey, T., Penha-Lopes, G., & East, M. (2021). logical Economics, 169, 106495.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. Sustainable entrepreneurship and the sustainable development goals: 2019.106495 Community-led initiatives, the social solidarity economy and commons Henfrey, T. (2017). Permaculture education as ecology of mind: The head, ecologies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30, 1423–1435. hands and heart of transformation. pp. 171–184 in Wynn, J., & Hall, R. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2706 (eds.), Mass intellectuality and democratic leadership in higher education. Fanning, A., & O'Neill, D. (2019). The wellbeing–consumption paradox: Bloomsbury Academic.https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474267618 Happiness, health, income, and carbon emissions in growing versus Henfrey, T. (2018). Designing for resilience: Permaculture as a transdisci- non-growing economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 810–821. plinary methodology in applied resilience research. Ecology and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102135 23, 33.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09916-230233 Feola, G. & Jaworska, S. (2019). One transition, many transitions? A Henfrey, T., & Kenrick, J. (2017). Climate, commons and Hope: The transi- corpus-based study of societal sustainability transition discourses in tion movement in global perspective. In T. Henfrey, G. Maschkowski, & four civil society's proposals. Sustainability Science, 14, 1643–1656. G. Penha-Lopes (Eds.), Resilience, community and societal transforma- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0631-9 tion (pp. 161–190). Permanent Publications. Feola, G., & Nunes, R. (2014). Success and failure of grassroots innovations Henfrey, T., & Penha-Lopes, G. (2015). Permaculture and climate change for addressing climate change: The case of the transition movement. adaptation: Inspiring ecological, social, economic and cultural responses Global Environmental Change, 24, 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. for resilience and transformation. Permanent Publications. gloenvcha.2013.11.011 Henfrey, T., & Penha-Lopes, G. (2018). Policy and community-led action Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2014). Permaculture for agroecology: on sustainability and climate change: Paradox and possibility in the Design, movement, practice, and worldview. A review. Agronomy for interstices. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 29, 52– Sustainable Development, 34, 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.05.002 s13593-013-0181-6 Hewitt, R. J., Bradley, N., Baggio Compagnucci, A., Barlagne, C., Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2015). Grassroots engagement with transi- Ceglarz, A., Cremades, R., McKeen, M., Otto, I.M., & Slee, B. (2019). tion to sustainability: Diversity and modes of participation in the Social innovation in community energy in Europe: A review of the 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License HENFREY ET AL. 221 evidence. Frontiers in Energy Research, 7, 31.https://doi.org/10.3389/ Mang, P., & Reed, B. (2012). Designing from place: A regenerative frame- fenrg.2019.00031 work and methodology. Building Research and Information, 40, 23–38. Hickel, J. (2019). The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.621341 Growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustainable Development, 27, Martellozzo, F., Landholm, D. M., & Holsten, A. (2019). Upscaling from 873–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1947 the grassroots: Potential aggregate carbon reduction from community- Hickel, J., Brockway, P., Kallis, G., Keyßer, L., Lenzen, M., Slameršak, A., based initiatives in Europe. Regional Environmental Change, 19, Steinberger, J., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2021). Urgent need for post- 953–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01469-9 growth climate mitigation scenarios. Nature Energy, 6, 766–768. Menton, M., Larrea, C., Latorre, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Peck, M., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00884-9 Temper, L., & Walter, M. (2020). Environmental justice and the SDGs: Hillman, J., Axon, S., & Morrissey, J. (2018). Social enterprise as a potential From synergies to gaps and contradictions. Sustainability Science, 15, niche innovation breakout for low carbon transition. Energy Policy, 1621–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00789-8 117, 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.038 Merritt, A., & Stubbs, T. (2012). Incentives to promote green citizenship in Horn, P., & Grugel, J. (2018). The SDGs in middle-income countries: Set- UKtransition towns. Development, 55, 96–103. https://doi.org/10. ting or serving domestic development agendas? Evidence from 1057/dev.2011.113 Ecuador. World Development, 109, 73–84. Michel, A., & Hudon, M. (2015). Community currencies and sustainable Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity without growth: Foundations for the economy development: A systematic review. Ecological Economics, 116, 160– of tomorrow (2nd ed.). Routledge. 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.023 Jackson, T. (2021). Post growth: Life after capitalism. Polity Press. Naidoo, R., & Fisher, B. (2020). Reset sustainable development goals for a Johannes, R. E. (2002). The renaissance of community-based marine post-pandemic world. Nature, 583, 198–201. https://doi.org/10. resource management in oceania. Annual Review of Ecology and Sys- 1038/d41586-020-01999-x tematics, 3, 317–340. Nicolosi, E., & Feola, G. (2016). Transition in place: Dynamics, possibilities, Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., & Schmelzer, M. and constraints. Geoforum, 76, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2018). Research on degrowth. Annual Review of Environment and geoforum.2016.09.017 Resources, 43, 291–316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ- Nicolosi, E., Medina, R., & Feola, G. (2018). Grassroots innovations for sus- 102017-025941 tainability in the United States: A spatial analysis. Applied Geography, Kopnina, H. (2016). The victims of unsustainability: A challenge to sustain- 91, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.12.024 able development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Develop- Nirmal, P., & Rocheleau, D. (2019). Decolonizing degrowth in the post- ment and World Ecology, 23, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/ development convergence: Questions, experiences, and proposals 13504509.2015.1111269 from two indigenous territories. Environment and Planning E: Nature la Court, T. D. (1990). Beyond Brundtland. Zed Books. and Space, 2, 465–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618819478 Landholm, D. M., Holsten, A., Martellozzo, F., Reusser, D. E., & Kropp, J. P. Ornetzeder, M., & Rohracher, H. (2006). User-led innovations and partici- (2019). Climate change mitigation potential of community-based initia- pation processes: Lessons from sustainable energy technologies. tives in Europe. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 927–938. https:// Energy Policy, 34, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004. doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1428-1 08.037 Lange, P., Driessen, P. P., Sauer, A., Bornemann, B., & Burger, P. (2013). Ornetzeder, M., & Rohracher, H. (2013). Of solar collectors, wind power, Governing towards sustainability—Conceptualizing modes of gover- and car sharing: Comparing and understanding successful cases of nance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 15(3), 403–425. grassroots innovations. Global Environmental Change, 23, 856–867. Leach, M., Rockström, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I., Stirling, A. C., Smith, A., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.007 Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Ely, A., Arond, E., Folke, C., & Olsson, P. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton Univer- (2012). Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society, sity Press. 17, 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04933-170211 Ottersen, O. P., & Engebretsen, E. (2020). COVID-19 puts the sustainable Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. C. (2010). Dynamic Sustainabilities. development goals center stage. Nature Medicine, 26, 1672–1673. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1094-y Lewis, M., & Conaty, P. (2012). The resilience imperative. Cooperative transi- Paulson, S. (2017). Degrowth: Culture, power and change. Journal of Politi- tions to a steady-state economy. New Society Publishers. cal Ecology, 24, 425–448. https://doi.org/10.2458/v24i1.20882 Lim, M. M. L., Søgaard Jørgensen, P., & Wyborn, C. A. (2018). Reframing Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., the sustainable development goals to achieve sustainable develop- Kunze, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J., & Jørgensen, M. S. (2020). ment in the Anthropocene - a systems approach. Ecology and Society, Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: A relational 23, 22. framework and 12 propositions. Research Policy, 49, 104080. https:// Litfin, K. (2014). Ecovillages. Lessons for Sustainable Community. Polity Press. doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104080 Lockyer, J. (2010). Intentional community carbon reduction and climate Penha-Lopes, G., & Henfrey, T. (2019). Status report on community-led change action: From ecovillages to transition towns. In M. Peters, S. action on sustainability and climate change in Europe in 2019. Ecolise. Fudge, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Low carbon communities: Imaginative Quilley, S. (2015). Ecocultures of transition: New, traditional and alterna- approaches to combating climate change locally (pp. 197–215). Edward tive ways of living in the ‘adjacent possible’. In S. Böhm, Z. P. Bharu- Elgar. cha, & J. Pretty (Eds.), Ecocultures: Blueprints for sustainable Lockyer, J. (2017). Community, commons, and degrowth at dancing rabbit communities (pp. 199–217). Routledge. ecovillage. Journal of Political Ecology, 24, 519-542. https://doi.org/10. Richardson-Ngwenya, P. (2021). Everyday political geographies of 2458/v24i1.20890 community-building: Exploring the practices of three Zimbabwean per- Lockyer, J., & Veteto, J. R. (Eds.). (2013). Environmental anthropology engaging maculture communities. Environmental Policy and Governance, 31, Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, permaculture, and ecovillages. Berghahn Books. 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1930 Macedo, P., Huertas, A., Bottone, C., del Río, J., Hillary, N., Brazzini, T., Rieckmann, M. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning Wittmayer, J. M., & Penha-Lopes, G. (2020). Learnings from local objectives. UNESCO. collaborative transformations: Setting a basis for a sustainability Robra, B., Heikkurinen, P., & Nesterova, I. (2020). Commons-based peer framework. Sustainability, 12, 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/ production for degrowth?-the case for eco-sufficiency in economic su12030795 organisations. Sustainable Futures, 2, 100035. 10991719, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2384 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [17/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 222 HENFREY ET AL. Russell, B. (2019). Beyond the local trap: New Municipalism and the rise of Tilsted, J., Bjørn, A., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Friis Lund, J. (2021). Accounting the fearless cities. Antipode, 51, 989–1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/ matters: Revisiting claims of decoupling and genuine green growth in anti.12520 Nordic countries. Ecological Economics, 187, 107101. https://doi.org/ Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107101 Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve Ulbrich, R., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2019). The German permaculture community the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2, 805–814. from a Community of Practice Perspective. Sustainability, 11, 1241. Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. C. (Eds.). (2020). The politics of uncertainty: Chal- https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051241 lenges of transformation. Earthscan. Utting, P. (Ed.). (2015). Social and solidarity economy: Beyond the fringe. Zed Sekulova, F., Anguelovski, I., Argüelles, L., & Conill, J. (2017). A ‘fertile soil’ Books. for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical Valencia, S. C., Simon, D., Croese, S., Nordqvist, J., Oloko, M., Sharma, T., framework. Environment and Planning A, 49, 2362–2382. https://doi. Buck, N. T., & Versace, I. (2019). Adapting the sustainable develop- org/10.1177/0308518X17722167 ment goals and the new urban agenda to the City level: Initial reflec- Sénit, C. -A. (2020). Leaving no one behind? The influence of civil society tions from a comparative research project. International Journal of participation on the sustainable development goals. Environment and Urban Sustainable Development, 11, 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Planning C: Politics and Space, 38, 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 19463138.2019.1573172 2399654419884330 Vita, G., Ivanova, D., Dumitru, A., García-Mira, R., Carrus, G., Stadler, K., Sénit, C. -A., Biermann, F., & Kalfagianni, A. (2017). The representativeness Krause, K., Wood, R., & Hertwich, E. G. (2020). Happier with less? of global deliberation: A critical assessment of civil society consulta- Members of European environmental grassroots initiatives reconcile tions for sustainable development. Global Policy, 8, 62–72. https://doi. lower carbon footprints with higher life satisfaction and income org/10.1111/1758-5899.12371 increases. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, 101329. https://doi. Sexsmith, K., & McMichael, P. (2015). Formulating the SDGs: Reproducing org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101329 or reimagining state-centered development? Globalizations, 12, 581– Vizinho, A., Campos, I., Alves, F. M., Fonseca, A.L., & Penha-Lopes, G. 596. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2015.103809 (2015). Adaptation to drought in Alentejo, Portugal (case study). BASE Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable FP7 Project. development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Waage, J., Yap, C., Bell, S., Levy, C., Mace, G., Pegram, T., Unterhalter, E., Politics, 16, 584–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701419121 Dasandi, N., Hudson, D., Kock, R., Mayhew, S., Marx, C., & Poole, N. Shawki, N. (2013). Understanding the transnational diffusion of social (2015). Governing the UN sustainable development goals: Interactions, movements. Humanity and Society, 37, 131–158. https://doi.org/10. infrastructures, and institutions. The Lancet Global Health, 3, e251– 1177/0160597613481799 e252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70112-9 Shulla, K., Voigt, B. F., Cibian, S., Scandone, G., Martinez, E., Wahl, D. C. (2016). Designing Regenerative Cultures. Triarchy Press. Nelkovski, F., & Salehi, P. (2021). Effects of COVID-19 on the sustain- Wartman, P., Van Acker, R., & Martin, R. (2018). Temperate agroforestry: able development goals (SDGs). Discover Sustainability, 2, 15. https:// How Forest garden systems combined with people-based ethics can doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00026-x transform culture. Sustainability, 10, 2246. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Smith, A. (2011). The transition town network: A review of current evolu- su10072246 tions and renaissance. Social Movement Studies, 10, 99–105. https:// Watson, D. J. (2020). Working the fields: The organisation of labour in doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2011.545229 community supported agriculture. The Organ, 27(2), 291–313. https:// Smith, A., Fressoli, M., & Thomas, H. (2014). Grassroots innovation move- doi.org/10.1177/1350508419888898 ments: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., Pel, B., & Campos, I. (2020). Contributing to 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025 sustainable and just energy systems? The mainstreaming of renew- Smith, A., & Seyfang, G. (2013). Introduction: Constructing grassroots able energy prosumerism within and across institutional logics. innovations for sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 23, 827– Energy Policy, 149, 112053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020. 829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.003 112053 Smith, A., & Stirling, A. C. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience Zeng, Y., Maxwell, S., Runting, R. K., Venter, O., Watson, J. E. M., & Roman and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15, 11. Carrasco, L. (2020). Environmental destruction not avoided with the Steinberger, J. K., Lamb, W. F., & Sakai, M. (2020). Your money or your sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 3, 795–798. life? The Carbon-Development Paradox. Environmental Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0555-0 15, 44016. Stirling, A. (2011). Pluralising progress: From integrative transitions to transformative diversity. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transi- tions, 1, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.03.005 How to cite this article: Henfrey, T., Feola, G., Penha-Lopes, Tan, D. T., Siri, J. G., Gong, Y., Ong, B., Lim, S. C., MacGillivray, B. H., & G., Sekulova, F., & Esteves, A. M. (2023). Rethinking the Marsden, T. (2019). Systems approaches for localising the SDGs: Co- production of place-based case studies. Globalization and Health, 15, sustainable development goals: Learning with and from 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0527-1 community-led initiatives. Sustainable Development, 31(1), Taylor Aiken, G. (2017). Permaculture and the social Design of Nature. 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2384 Geografiska Annaler: Series B. Human Geography, 99, 172–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2017.1315906