Newell et al. (Reference Newell, Twena and Daley2021) offer an excellent contribution towards scaling behaviour change. Their contribution bridges understandings of individual behaviour change and the broader social and political structures that shape and explain individual behaviours. They engage with the disciplines of economics, psychology, sociology and political economy and frame an ecosystem of transformation. I propose here that there is more to be gained by also linking these understandings into research from the transformations community.Footnote ¹

Transformations research is directly concerned with understanding the structures, systems and enabling factors that shape transformation (Scoones et al., Reference Scoones, Stirling, Abrol, Atela, Charli-Joseph, Eakin, Ely, Olsson, Pereira, Priya, van Zwanenberg and Yang2018). Transformations literature often refers to ‘sustainability’ as an over-arching, multi-problem challenge rather than focusing on a component therein (e.g. climate mitigation). Research tends to take a transdisciplinary approach to explore pluralities of worldviews and knowledges in place-based cases (Caniglia et al., Reference Caniglia, Luederitz, von Wirth, Fazey, Martin-López, Hondrila, König, von Wehrden, Schäpke, Laubichler and Lang2021; Kates, Reference Kates2011). In this instance, there are (at least) two ways in which transformations research could stretch and expand the understandings being developed by Newell et al.Footnote ²

Firstly, transformations research offers nuanced understandings of the dynamic relationships between individual change and broader systems change. Researchers in sustainability science pay attention to the values and mindsets of individuals as routes towards triggering transformations (e.g. Horcea-Milcu et al., Reference Horcea-Milcu, Abson, Apetrei, Duse, Freeth, Riechers, Lam, Dorninger and Lang2019; Woiwode et al., Reference Woiwode, Schäpke, Bina, Veciana, Kunze, Parodi, Schweizer-Ries and Wamsler2021). Such approaches study ‘inner transformations’ as changes to these values and mindsets. There is work that explores how inner transformations are triggered, and how they shape changes in individual, collective and policy-making behaviours (Tröger & Reese, Reference Tröger and Reese2021; Wamsler et al., Reference Wamsler, Osberg, Osika, Herndersson and Mundaca2021). Such work is nuanced in exploring the dynamics between ‘inner’ and individual-level change and broader political, social and economic changes (see Benessaiah & Eakin, Reference Benessaiah and Eakin2021 for an excellent example of the role of crises). Such work goes a long way towards Newell et al.'s calls for a ‘contextualized, transformative and dynamic view of scaling that synthesizes feedbacks between the individual and systems levels’ (p.2).

In exploring these dynamics across scales, transformations research increasingly engages with a leverage points framework and systems thinking (Abson et al., Reference Abson, Fischer, Leventon, Newig, Schomerus, Vilsmaier, Von Wehrden, Abernethy, Ives, Jager and Lang2017; Meadows, Reference Meadows1999). In parallel to Newell et al.'s framing of shallow and deep scaling, leverage points address shallow and deep interventions for systems transformation; the deepest leverage points are around questioning the system properties of paradigms and structures, and the shallowest are around properties of materials and processes. However, systems are complex, multi-scaled, sometimes place-based (e.g. social ecological system), sometimes tightly technically defined (e.g. ‘the food system’), and sometimes less tangible (e.g. knowledge as a system). Systems thinking in sustainability science recognizes that multiple systems framings are nested and connected over multiple scales (e.g. Davelaar, Reference Davelaar2021). It encourages us to consider which system is being intervened in, defined by whom, at what depth, towards what normative outcomes, and how impacts are shaped by other connected or nested systems (Leventon et al., Reference Leventon, Abson and Lang2021).

The second contribution of transformations research to this ecosystem of transformation lies in this systems thinking approach to navigate scales, disciplines and complexity. At its simplest, systems thinking helps provide an organizing framework to position different perspectives and disciplines relative to each other, considering how disciplinary agendas link and stretch each other. However, it also pushes us further towards critiquing how individuals are embedded in societies and broader political economies, that in turn are nested within, and connected to, other systems that create and reinforce them, while being reflexive of our positionality in defining and framing these systems. In doing so, we are pushed towards unpacking systems of democracy, knowledge and power to unravel how paradigms and structures therein shape opportunities for scaling behaviour change towards transformation.

In summary, I can see only benefits in exploring how sharing across these themes helps create solid, nuanced understandings of ecosystems of transformation towards achieving a 1.5-degree world.