Impact statement
This paper reflects on the need for sustainability of the coasts in the Anthropocene. It considers the increasing need for science to engage with society to achieve sustainable coastal futures. In the human-dominated system of the future, fact, or scientific evidence alone is not sufficient for society to adapt and transform towards higher degrees of sustainability. We propose that there are interventions and actions at the science–society interface that are needed to enable such higher degrees of sustainability. The paper identifies six social innovations knowable through the scientific literature that have the potential to substantially increase the ability of society to transform to coastal sustainability. These six social innovations are also critical for enabling the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The six innovations proposed in this paper can be bound together with social action and interest in a new science–society compact for sustainable coasts in the Anthropocene.
Introduction
Post-industrial society has had a profound impact on the state of the planet, and living with global environmental change is a challenge for all generations, current and future. In an astoundingly short period of two centuries, human activities have caused the climate to change. This change is resulting in impacts from both slow onset changes and extreme events across the Earth system (see, e.g., Steffen et al., Reference Steffen, Rockström, Richardson, Lenton, Folke, Liverman, Summerhayes, Barnosky, Cornell, Crucifix, Donges, Fetzer, Lade, Scheffer, Winkelmann and Schellnhuber2018; Folke et al., Reference Folke, Polasky, Rockström, Galaz, Westley, Lamont, Scheffer, Osterblom, Carpenter, Chapin, Seto, Weber, Crona, Daily, Dasgupta, Gaffney, Gordon, Hoff, Levin, Lubchenco, Steffen and Walker2021). A new geological epoch was started, referred to as the Anthropocene, in which humans dominate the natural system. The Anthropocene is rooted in both the past and the present, but the concept of thresholds and tipping points (Rockström et al., Reference Rockström, Steffen, Noone, Persson, Chapin, Lambin, Lenton, Scheffer, Folke, Schellnhuber, Nykvist, de Wit, Hughes, van der Leeuw, Rodhe, Sorlin, Snyder, Costanza, Svedin, Falkenmark, Karlberg, Corell, Fabry, Hansen, Walker, Liverman, Richardson, Crutzen and Foley2009; Nash et al., Reference Nash, Cvitanovic, Fulton, Halpern, Milner-Gulland, Watson and Blanchard2017; McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2018; Turner et al., Reference Turner, Calder, Cumming, Hughes, Jentsch, LaDeau, Lenton, Shuman, Turetsky, Ratajczak, Williams, Williams and Carpenter2020), in a changing climate, makes this geological epoch more a matter of trajectories of change, and the state of the future (Bai et al., Reference Bai, van der Leeuw, O’Brien, Berkhout, Biermann, Brondizio, Cudennec, Dearing, Duraiappah, Glaser, Revkin, Steffen and Syvitski2016). The world is changing faster than people recall, have lived, or are willing to accept. Science tells of major change to be expected, with dire warnings of impacts on human well-being (IPCC reports, media reporting on UNFCCC CoP, etc.). Where, in the past, we may have heard stories of the “good old days”, the stories we are now likely to tell are framed by the uncertainty of the future and the well-being of future generations.
Recent scientific literature reflects on the meaning and relevance of the future (of humanity) for virtually all aspects of human existence as part of social-ecological systems (also known as coupled human-natural systems and complex adaptive systems) (Hulme, Reference Hulme2020; Wyborn et al., Reference Wyborn, Davila, Pereira, Lim, Alvarez, Henderson, Luers, Martinez Harms, Maze, Montana, Ryan, Sandbrook, Shaw and Woods2020; Folke et al., Reference Folke, Polasky, Rockström, Galaz, Westley, Lamont, Scheffer, Osterblom, Carpenter, Chapin, Seto, Weber, Crona, Daily, Dasgupta, Gaffney, Gordon, Hoff, Levin, Lubchenco, Steffen and Walker2021). In a sense, the contemporary desire for societal transformation towards sustainability is explicitly about the future of humanity. This has become a scientific currency with which to purchase leverage for change at a systemic scale (e.g., IPCC reports, and IPBES knowledge products). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a product of Anthropocene-related thinking and an expression of the aspiration to collectively achieve desirable sustainable futures. Future sustainability (e.g., as expressed by the achievement of the SDGs by 2030) is increasingly understood to be possible only through human dynamics and governance of social-ecological systems (Biermann et al., Reference Biermann, Bai, Bondre, Broadgate, Arthur Chen, Dube, Erisman, Glaser, van der Hel, Lemos, Seitzinger and Seto2016; Lindkvist et al., Reference Lindkvist, Pellowe, Alexander, Drury, Neill, Finkbeiner, Girón-Nava, González-Mon, Johnson, Pittman, Schill, Wijermans, Bodin, Gelcich and Glaser2022).
This emphasis on futures is also relevant and important to oceans and coasts in the Anthropocene. Even without additional climate change impacts, coastal areas are highly dynamic bio-physical systems (at the land–ocean–atmosphere interface) that are constantly being reshaped by natural forces and human activities (Neumann et al., Reference Neumann, Vafeidis, Zimmermann and Nicholls2015; Newton et al., Reference Newton, Harff, You, Zhang and Wolanski2016; He and Silliman, Reference He and Silliman2019; Kopp et al., Reference Kopp, Gilmore, Little, Lorenzo-Trueba, Ramenzoni and Sweet2019). Coasts offer access to resources, both on land and in the ocean, attract people, human settlement, and economic and recreational activities while also being disproportionately affected by climate change (Barnard et al., Reference Barnard, Dugan, Page, Wood, Hart, Cayan, Erikson, Hubbard, Myers, Melack and Iacobellis2021; Defeo and Elliott, Reference Defeo and Elliott2021; IPCC, 2022). The importance of coasts and oceans is evidenced by the articulation of the SDGs (Neumann et al., Reference Neumann, Ott and Kenchington2017; Haas et al., Reference Haas, Mackay, Novaglio, Fullbrook, Murunga, Sbrocchi, McDonald, McCormack, Alexander, Fudge, Goldsworthy, Boschetti, Dutton, Dutra, McGee, Rousseau, Spain, Stephenson, Vince, Wilcox and Haward2021) and the UN Decade of Ocean Science, among other efforts.
The voice of science on the possible future states of the planet has become prominent, and with science – data, information, and knowledge – it is also possible to create a relationship (a story) between people and the state of the future coast. This relationship between people and place requires intangible elements such as trust, agreement, and values (Lacey et al., Reference Lacey, Howden, Cvitanovic and Colvin2017; Pulkkinen et al., Reference Pulkkinen, Undorf, Bender, Wikman-Svahn, Doblas-Reyes, Flynn, Hegerl, Jönsson, Leung, Roussos, Shepherd and Thompson2022), essential components of connection, and creates an incubator for social innovation. Social innovation is any action by individuals, organisations, and networks to generate novel solutions that contribute to changing behaviour across numerous perspectives, across markets and public sectors, and to enhancing bottom-up responsible inventiveness (Olsson et al., Reference Olsson, Moore, Westley and McCarthy2017; Soma et al., Reference Soma, van den Burg, Hoefnagel, Stuiver and van der Heide2018). It has been suggested that within the context of the Anthropocene, social innovations may play a critical role in achieving new pathways to sustainability (Olsson et al., Reference Olsson, Moore, Westley and McCarthy2017).
The objective of this review paper was to identify types of social innovation that are fundamental for establishing and maintaining the connection between people and the coast, which could result in achieving higher degrees of sustainability, now and in the future. We identify social innovations by assessing recent literature on a broad range of topics including transdisciplinary knowledge co-production, human dynamics related to science–society interactions, anthropology, governance systems and legislation. We also propose that social innovations are essential for achieving the SDGs. We suggest a scheme of types of social innovation and how they relate to the SDGs. While we recognise that the impacts of social innovation can be both positive and negative, we focus on its positive impacts. We conclude by proposing that social innovation become part of a new social mandate or science–society compact for achieving coastal sustainability.
Methods
We use a qualitative analysis anchored in the Grounded Theory Method (Glaser and Strauss, Reference Glaser and Strauss2017) to identify broad types of social innovation from the literature. The steps of Grounded Theory include research design, data collection, data ordering, data analysis, and literature comparison. Data (concepts and theory in scientific literature) were collected using purposive sampling that allowed us to inductively identify social innovations. The social innovations that were included were knowable through scientific literature. The outcome of the methodology is presented as a conventional narrative review.
Literature was identified by (1) date range, and by (2) keywords and phrases from bibliographic databases including Scopus and Web of Science. Articles published from 2018 to June 2022 and listed in bibliographic databases were prioritised for inclusion (82% of the 113 references used in this paper). Very recently published literature was prioritised to demonstrate the rapidly increasing emphasis on social innovation to enable sustainability. We also used discretionary search methods such as reference list checking. We did not undertake a systematic review, and search terms (e.g., coast*; OR ocean*; OR marine; AND future; sustainability, climate change, social-ecological) were used as an initial filter to find other papers and branches of inquiry and interest in a snowball sampling approach, which is suitable for the exploratory approach taken here. Grey literature was not considered.
Publications included in the review for the elements identified, for example, legislation, climate change and coasts, are considered indicative of trends in the scientific literature (inclusive of natural and social sciences). Our approach assumes a connection between the coastal land, ocean, and atmosphere as a complex coastal social-ecological system, which provides cross-disciplinary insight into complex environmental problems (Refulio-Coronado et al., Reference Refulio-Coronado, Lacasse, Dalton, Humphries, Basu, Uchida and Uchida2021). Thus, we included papers that have either a coastal or ocean focus, or both. In some instances, papers from other domains, for example, climate change, or not explicitly related to the coast or ocean were also included if they were deemed to indicate a particularly important and relevant trend.
Social innovation for sustainability
The social innovations identified here are not suggested to be discreet from one another and the overlap between them is expected and a positive trait. They can enable a positive relationship between people and the coast, and create conditions that may enable positive transformation towards sustainability. The six types of social innovation are (a) authentic engagement; (b) artful and engaging communication; (c) urging and compelling change; (d) governance for social-ecological systems; (e) anticipation in governance; (f) and, lived experiences and values. We provide some examples of social innovations with a positive impact on the sustainability of Anthropocene coasts in Table 1.
Examples of social innovations that facilitate the connection of people to the coast to achieve higher degrees of sustainability
Authentic engagement
Authentic engagement to achieve coastal sustainability is an openness to engage among, and broaden the participation of, people, organisations, government, business sectors and multiple scientific disciplines. It is as much a mindset as it is an approach. The nature of the engagement breaks down power differences, aims to establish trust and acknowledges the value of different knowledge types, among others. For example, transdisciplinarity is appropriate for a society that is aiming to transform to higher degrees of sustainability (e.g., McKinley et al., Reference McKinley, Crowe, Stori, Ballinger, Brew, Blacklaw-Jones, Cameron-Smith, Crowley, Cocco, O’Mahony, McNally, Power and Foley2021), as is the constellation of “co”-concepts (−design, −creation, −production, etc.) that are linked to a transdisciplinary approach (Norström et al., Reference Norström, Cvitanovic, Löf, West, Wyborn, Balvanera, Bednarek, Bennett, Biggs, de Bremond, Campbell, Canadell, Carpenter, Folke, Fulton, Gaffney, Gelcich, Jouffray, Leach, Le Tissier, Martín-López, Louder, Loutre, Meadow, Nagendra, Payne, Peterson, Reyers, Scholes, Speranza, Spierenburg, Stafford-Smith, Tengö, van der Hel, van Putten and Österblom2020; Chambers et al., Reference Chambers, Wyborn, Klenk, Ryan, Serban, Bennett, Brennan, Charli-Joseph, Fernández-Giménez, Galvin, Goldstein, Haller, Hill, Munera, Nel, Österblom, Reid, Riechers, Spierenburg, Tengö, Bennett, Brandeis, Chatterton, Cockburn, Cvitanovic, Dumrongrojwatthana, Paz Durán, Gerber, Green, Gruby, Guerrero, Horcea-Milcu, Montana, Steyaert, Zaehringer, Bednarek, Curran, Fada, Hutton, Leimona, Pickering and Rondeau2022). It also aims to change the way research is done within society, by breaking down disciplinary “comfort zones” between natural sciences and humanities, as well as among sectors of society (Guillotreau et al., Reference Guillotreau, Trouillet, Mahévas and Pardo2020). Authentic engagement creates active, even rightful, roles for society in knowledge production (Albagli and Iwama, Reference Albagli and Iwama2022), and increases the likelihood for sustainability transitions to be equitable and just (Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Blythe, Cisneros-Montemayor, Singh and Sumaila2019).
Artful and engaging communication
There is no one-size-fits-all solution for communicating the outcome of science and making people part of the conversation on solutions for sustainability (Bentz et al., Reference Bentz, do Carmo, Schafenacker, Schirok and Corso2021). Visualising the three-dimensionality of the coast (both wet and dry) requires a combination of cultural local knowledge, artistic science and scientifically inspired art. Furthermore, this multidimensionality of the coast is highly dynamic in the short- and longer term. For example, art-based approaches routed in the social-cultural contexts can activate the human imagination and promote collaboration across disciplines (Galafassi et al., Reference Galafassi, Tàbara, Heras, Iles, Locke and Milkoreit2018; Tosca et al., Reference Tosca, Galvin, Gilbert, Walls, Tyler and Nastan2021). Story-telling, narratives, and dialogues deepen learning, reduce ambiguity, and focus on hybridity, sense-making and the potential for transdisciplinary research to generate shared meaning and foster agency (Galafassi et al., Reference Galafassi, Daw, Thyresson, Rosendo, Chaigneau, Bandeira, Munyi, Gabrielsson and Brown2018; Kelly et al., Reference Kelly, Nettlefold, Mossop, Bettiol, Corney, Cullen-Knox, Fleming, Leith, Melbourne-Thomas, Ogier, van Putten and Pecl2020; Vanderlinden et al., Reference Vanderlinden, Baztan, Chouinard, Cordier, Da Cunha, Huctin, Kane, Kennedy, Nikulkina, Shadrin, Surette, Thiaw and Thomson2020). The use of, for example, narrative scenarios may function as accessible communication tools that aim to foster anticipatory governance capacity (Spijkers et al., Reference Spijkers, Merrie, Wabnitz, Osborne, Mobjörk, Bodin, Selig, Le Billon, Hendrix, Singh, Keys and Morrison2021).
Urging and compelling change
Behavioural change may be compelled through the institutionalisation of policy, legislation, and regulations. Humans function better if their actions are bounded (Kotzé and French, Reference Kotzé, French, French and Kotzé2021), and enforceable (legal) boundaries set limits that are meant to achieve, maintain and/or return us to what is perceived to be a desired condition or critical service. Governance systems with institutionalised boundaries must be able to provide guarantees to secure such services (Jentoft, Reference Jentoft2007). Legal and institutional structures can fundamentally shape the adaptive governance of environmental resources at multiple ecological and societal scales (DeCaro et al., Reference DeCaro, Chaffin, Schlager, Garmestani and Ruhl2017). Second, the role of social media and social learning, and moral and ethical suasion (i.e., the ability to persuade) of people, organisations and institutions, are opportunities for socially driven solutions for changing behaviour. They may be of particular relevance where the benefits of the use of legislation are less clear, or where the wielders of ethical suasion hold little practical power other than to influence situations in a positive or negative direction through persuasiveness (see, e.g., Bos et al., Reference Bos, Drupp, Meya and Quaas2020).
Governance for social-ecological systems
Social innovations in governance include the role of authentic engagement and communication as described above. It implies a higher degree of engagement and demands processes of co-creation and implementation of improved, comprehensive, and integrated management plans, enhancement of decision-making processes, and better anticipation and consideration of ambiguity and uncertainty (Haas et al., Reference Haas, Mackay, Novaglio, Fullbrook, Murunga, Sbrocchi, McDonald, McCormack, Alexander, Fudge, Goldsworthy, Boschetti, Dutton, Dutra, McGee, Rousseau, Spain, Stephenson, Vince, Wilcox and Haward2021). The potential for social innovation includes the design of governance systems that combines poly-centric, multi-level, networked governance systems (Partelow et al., Reference Partelow, Schlüter, Armitage, Bavinck, Carlisle, Gruby, Hornidge, Le Tissier, Pittman, Song, Sousa, Văidianu and Van Assche2020) with authentic engagement. It reconceptualises coastal management “units” that reflect social-ecological units, that is, across the land–ocean interface (see Harvey and Clarke, Reference Harvey and Clarke2019), as opposed to purely administrative units.
Anticipation in governance
Purposeful and practical anticipation, and the expertise to do so, has become an indispensable core ingredient of contemporary attempts to govern complex problems (Aykut et al., Reference Aykut, Demortain and Benboudiz2019). For example, anticipatory climate governance is understood to mean the evolution of steering mechanisms in the present to adapt to and/or shape uncertain climate futures (Vervoort and Gupta, Reference Vervoort and Gupta2018). This means drawing on conceptions of the future and considering implications for the present (Muiderman et al., Reference Muiderman, Gupta, Vervoort and Biermann2020). Anticipating future changes in coastal-ocean systems is a substantial challenge for coastal governance, but also essential in the context of accelerating global change. Adaptive management mechanisms such as integrated coastal management (ICM) and ecosystem-based management (EBM) are both approaches that accommodate the dynamic nature of a system. The question arises whether or not, given the role of politics and bureaucracy, the policy implementation cycle of these mechanisms can keep pace with the trajectory of change (Colenbrander and Bavinck, Reference Colenbrander and Bavinck2017; Edwards, Reference Edwards2021). The optimisation of adaptive management approaches to make multiple and dynamic adjustments is already ongoing (e.g., Haasnoot et al., Reference Haasnoot, Kwakkel, Walker and ter Maat2013).
Lived experiences (and values)
There is a critical role for individuals and communities in achieving local coastal sustainability (Westoby and McNamara, Reference Westoby and McNamara2019; McNamara et al., Reference McNamara, Clissold, Westoby, Piggott-McKellar, Kumar, Clarke, Namoumou, Areki, Joseph, Warrick and Nunn2020; Westoby et al., Reference Westoby, McNamara, Kumar and Nunn2020). Cultural and life experiences encourage greater engagement of individuals and communities (and understanding asymmetries within, to avoid potential conflicts) with issues of sustainability (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Adger, Devine-Wright, Anderies, Barr, Bousquet, Butler, Evans, Marshall and Quinn2019). Collective values, shaped by lived experiences, underpin human actions and constitute leverage points for sustainability transformations (Abson et al., Reference Abson, Fischer, Leventon, Newig, Schomerus, Vilsmaier, von Wehrden, Abernethy, Ives, Jager and Lang2017). We understand that user needs, desires and actions hinge on value propositions formed by specific socio-cultural, climatic, spatial and bio-ecological contexts. As such, science-based interventions, for example, the development of climate services, require this contextual understanding to influence, alter and change behaviours (Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Celliers, Collard, de Jong, Huang-Lachmann, Manez Costa, Rubio-Martin, Ozier-Lafontaine, Garcia Prats, Stelljes, Swart, Wimmermann, Llario and Pulido-Velazquez2022). In most cultures and value systems, the coast is a recognisable entity that is a physical, aesthetic, emotional, and even religious construct, which needs to be considered in scientific approaches that aim at achieving local coastal sustainability (Gillgren et al., Reference Gillgren, Støttrup, Schumacher and Dinesen2018). Littoral societies account for such intertwined characteristics.
Achieving global goals, transformation, and sustainable coastal futures
In this paper, we refer to a combination of emerging or existing social innovations in the Anthropocene that could support efforts to achieve sustainability. None of the social innovations identified here is particularly novel when considered in isolation. For example, there are four decades of published research on local knowledge, ecology, and “storytelling” (Johannes, Reference Johannes1978; Galafassi et al., Reference Galafassi, Daw, Thyresson, Rosendo, Chaigneau, Bandeira, Munyi, Gabrielsson and Brown2018). It has also been shown that formalised legislation often does not sufficiently recognise local forms of governance in coastal areas including customary marine tenure (right to use marine space), local management strategies and local territoriality (Schwarz et al., Reference Schwarz, Gordon and Ramofafia2020; Katikiro et al., Reference Katikiro, Kweka, Minja, Namkesa and Ponte2021). Scientific research has shown that formal management has failed because it has ignored local and informal forms of governance. Similarly, EBM that also considers human and social systems has been demonstrated as a useful approach to managing intact and connected natural systems faced with climate change (Fernandino et al., Reference Fernandino, Elliff and Silva2018; Alexander et al., Reference Alexander, Hobday, Cvitanovic, Ogier, Nash, Cottrell, Fleming, Fudge, Fulton, Frusher, Kelly, MacLeod, Pecl, van Putten, Vince and Watson2019).
However, the overlap between and the use of multiple social innovations offer exciting opportunities. If considered collectively, they can create a connection between people and the coast. This relationship potentially creates the mechanisms and methods to agree on the alternative, shared, negotiated visions for achieving goals of sustainability. The social innovations weave sectors of society together, including science, and in doing so, make it possible for transformation towards greater degrees of sustainability. The mere existence of science and scientific understanding of the changing planetary system is proving to be an insufficient enabler for a societal transformation to sustainability. That is why we seek novel and broader views on social innovations and sustainability, combined with the sciences, to transform society and achieve environmental and social sustainability (Horcea-Milcu et al., Reference Horcea-Milcu, Martín-López, Lam and Lang2020; McKinley et al., Reference McKinley, Acott and Yates2020; Folke et al., Reference Folke, Polasky, Rockström, Galaz, Westley, Lamont, Scheffer, Osterblom, Carpenter, Chapin, Seto, Weber, Crona, Daily, Dasgupta, Gaffney, Gordon, Hoff, Levin, Lubchenco, Steffen and Walker2021).
The science-inspired social innovations also respond to two contemporary challenges to science and “evidence” guiding decision-making for (coastal) sustainability. First, there is a need for science to inform a human-dominated system. This system is under pressure from climate change and rampant resource extraction, and people tend to be more willing and able to engage with science, not as a dominant force, but as an equal alongside other sources of information (Vanderlinden et al., Reference Vanderlinden, Baztan, Chouinard, Cordier, Da Cunha, Huctin, Kane, Kennedy, Nikulkina, Shadrin, Surette, Thiaw and Thomson2020; Serrao-Neumann et al., Reference Serrao-Neumann, de Araújo Moreira, Dalla Fontana, Torres, Lapola, Nunes, Marengo and Di Giulio2021; Vogel and O’Brien, Reference Vogel and O’Brien2021). The knowledge needs of society are becoming more complex and more dynamic (Mach et al., Reference Mach, Lemos, Meadow, Wyborn, Klenk, Arnott, Ardoin, Fieseler, Moss, Nichols, Stults, Vaughan and Wong-Parodi2020; Pasquier et al., Reference Pasquier, Few, Goulden, Hooton, He and Hiscock2020), and “facts” are no longer enough (Hulme, Reference Hulme2020). Second, there is growing anti-science activism that portrays scientists and science as being “other”, and apart from society and its interests (Hockfield, Reference Hockfield2018; Holt, Reference Holt2018; Hotez, Reference Hotez2021). Science needs to win the hearts and minds of people by using social innovations to connect them with solutions to the challenges they are facing.
Social innovation and the sustainable development goals
We are aware, through science outputs, for example, IPCC reports, of the accelerating rate of change in the earth’s system. If we are to achieve higher degrees of sustainability and meet the SDGs, we must have equally assertive and effective decision- and policy-making. The six types of social innovations are not presented as edifices of truth, complete and comprehensive, or rooted in the absolute. Depending on the context, the social innovations described can stand alone, or can also be inseparable. Complex coastal ecosystems are inhabited by a multilayer mosaic of people, communities, and multi-level government, with unique and often conflicting lived experiences. For some, a coast is a place of business and wealth, and for others a home and a connection to some form of cultural or spiritual reality. The groups and individuals of the social mosaic of the coast are differently motivated, perceive risk differently, and are exposed to multiple but different hazards. This mosaic of social and ecological patterns (a social-ecological system) calls for a deeper understanding of how knowing about the system (science, experience, etc.) can result in actions that sustain its functioning.
Social innovations that authentically engage different coastal users cannot be achieved unless we understand how to talk to each other. How do we communicate value, and present scientific outputs so they can be similarly understood while acknowledging different perspectives and ways of knowing? Only once we engage with the appropriate level of trust and dispersion of power can we design governing systems for complex coastal systems. However, such governing systems cannot be designed for contemporary environmental, financial, and social conditions, but the rate of change in the earth system also demands that our designs for governance and management must now consider an inevitable future state. This raises questions about how to deal with formal and legally entrenched boundaries of actions. What social innovations are required to maintain order and critical services, and how do we establish new societal practices that keep up with the rate of system change?
In terms of the global ambitions for sustainability, the six types of social innovations have the potential to directly contribute to at least seven of the 17 SDGs (Figure 1), although their relevance and potential contribution are not restricted to these. Authentic engagement is most immediately relevant to the Goals related to equality and partnerships (SDGs 5: gender equality, 10: reduced inequalities, and 17: partnership for goals), which have meaningful, equitable participation at their core, but potentially contribute to several other goals, notably those involving (collective) governance and institution-building, which are enhanced by authentic, well-planned engagement (e.g., Reed et al., Reference Reed, Vella, Challies, de Vente, Frewer, Hohenwallner-Ries, Huber, Neumann, Oughton, Sidoli del Ceno and van Delden2018; Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Blythe, Cisneros-Montemayor, Singh and Sumaila2019).
Characters of social innovation that connect people to Anthropocene coasts to achieve higher degrees of sustainability as defined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Artful and engaging communication is of relevance to galvanising collective action and mobilising societal actors as well as developing science–society compacts (SDGs 13: climate action, and 17: partnership for goals), as it serves to bridge different relevant knowledge systems and triggers motivations to achieve greater sustainability (e.g., Paterson et al., Reference Paterson, Le Tissier, Whyte, Robinson, Thielking, Ingram and McCord2020). There is also a case to be made for a narrative that incorporates a greater connection between land, ocean, and climate, as well as the institutions and partnerships (between science and society) that embed social innovations in actions (SDG 17) (Obura, Reference Obura2020).
Urging and compelling change, including by moral suasion, directly relates to goals with strong moral and ethical dimensions (such as SDGs 5: 10, and 16: peace, justice and strong institutions) and contributes to the forging of strong partnerships based on common interests (SDG 17). However, it also contributes to meeting Goals requiring collective action and drastic changes in behaviour, such as sustainable consumption and production (SDGs 12) (e.g., Ostrom, Reference Ostrom2010). Governance tailored to interconnected, social-ecological systems across the land–ocean interface enhances the sustainability of coastal terrestrial and marine systems and cities (SDGs 11: sustainable cities and communities, 14: life below water, and 15: life on land) (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Cottrell, Eddy and Cisneros-Montemayor2021).
Similarly, anticipation in governance contributes to finding shared and common visions about alternative future states of climate resilience and sustainable coastal social-ecological systems including urban areas (SDGs 11, 13, 14, and 15) (e.g., Vervoort and Gupta, Reference Vervoort and Gupta2018; Levin et al., Reference Levin, Anderies, Adger, Barrett, Bennett, Cardenas, Carpenter, Crepin, Ehrlich, Fischer, Folke, Kautsky, Kling, Nyborg, Polasky, Scheffer, Segerson, Shogren, van den Bergh, Walker, Weber and Wilen2021; Rölfer et al., Reference Rölfer, Celliers and Abson2022). Finally, lived experiences and values – similar to authentic engagement – creates the conditions for justice and equity among societal actors, including intersectional approaches to inequalities, for example, by including actors from different cultural backgrounds, gender, and ages (SDGs 5, 10, and 11) (e.g., Staffa et al., Reference Staffa, Riechers and Martin-Lopez2022). The goals of equity (SDG 10: reduced inequalities), justice (SDG 16) and gender equality (SDG 5) are frequently invoked in one or more of the six types of social innovations, highlighting the intersectionality across all social innovations.
Embedding social innovation
The combination of social innovations identified from the scientific literature relates strongly to transformation and sustainability. However, a missing element or action is needed to embed science-derived or -inspired social innovation as part of societal processes to achieve sustainability. Scientists and the sectors and actors within society have mutual responsibilities as part of a transdisciplinary approach to achieve higher degrees of sustainability. Much has been written about Mode 2 engagement between science and society (Funtowicz and Ravetz, Reference Funtowicz and Ravetz1993), and the responsibilities of scientists to engage with society (Gallopín et al., Reference Gallopín, Funtowicz, O’Connor and Ravetz2008). Equally so, societal actors are also responsible for engaging differently, more broadly, with science and each other, and taking responsibility to integrate science as part of societal processes (e.g., governance, knowledge co-production). Actors within science and society should agree on these roles and responsibilities, who acts and when, or how responsibilities are shared. This is not intended to perpetuate a polarised view of science and society, but rather an agreement and commitment to actions.
One example of such an agreement was previously coined as a science–society contract to achieve targets for sustainability (Lubchenco, Reference Lubchenco1998). There are benefits to a more structured and equal relationship between science and society, for example, a science–society compact (avoiding the possible adversarial connotation of legal contracts). Such a structured relationship can create conditions for sciences to support the transformation of society towards sustainable future coasts. The example of a science–society compact may be a tool with which to govern a fundamental shift from an anthropocentric to a more eco-centric and regenerative social contract, acknowledging society as part of a coupled social-ecological system (Huntjens, Reference Huntjens2021).
Embedding the roles and contributions of science and social innovation in such a deliberative mechanism for engagement may create a social mandate to enable behaviour changes through ownership. This may render the often hard evidenced-based decisions on sustainability (e.g., managed retreat, lifestyle change) bearable in the long term and provide the basis for future climate action (Howarth et al., Reference Howarth, Bryant, Corner, Fankhauser, Gouldson, Whitmarsh and Willis2020), particularly for coastal sustainability.
A science–society compact may help to define the use of all the elements described in this paper to achieve higher degrees of sustainability and the SDGs. We maintain that achieving the SDGs does not become possible until we connect science to society, and through data, information and knowledge connect society with the environment, including the coast. These connections need to be forged under conditions of contested politics, everyday foundations of action, constant change, increasing degrees of urgency, and flexibility and appetite for social innovation such as we never needed previously (Nightingale et al., Reference Nightingale, Eriksen, Taylor, Forsyth, Pelling, Newsham, Boyd, Brown, Harvey, Jones, Bezner Kerr, Mehta, Naess, Ockwell, Scoones, Tanner and Whitfield2019).
Conclusion
Recent literature is replete with references to the future, various states of the future, and the agency needed to achieve desirable visions of such futures. We already know that compared to inland systems, coastal areas will be disproportionality more affected by global change and human activities, as we approach the middle of the twenty-first century. Social innovation’s role in achieving higher degrees of sustainability is recognised, and the academic literature is reporting on a growing need for eco-centric and regenerative social action. The role of social innovations is inescapably part of human intentions to achieve higher degrees of sustainability, especially for coasts in the Anthropocene.
The six types of social innovation cannot be considered in isolation from one another, from the global efforts to understand and govern Earth systems, or the local actions to manage and live with global change impacts. We suggest a much higher degree of organising social innovations is needed. This also means exploring how they collectively enable human action based on diverse knowledge types. Knowing about social innovation is not enough, and there is a need and opportunity to embed such innovations within society using a science–society compact. Finally, in summarising the six types of social innovations, it is important to note that there are conceivably many additional types of social innovations that may support or enable a trajectory towards sustainable coastal futures. Education, awareness, and literacy are just some elements that can still be added (Westley et al., Reference Westley, Olsson, Folke, Homer-Dixon, Vredenburg, Loorbach, Thompson, Nilsson, Lambin, Sendzimir, Banerjee, Galaz and van der Leeuw2011; Kelly et al., Reference Kelly, Evans, Alexander, Bettiol, Corney, Cullen-Knox, Cvitanovic, de Salas, Emad, Fullbrook, Garcia, Ison, Ling, Macleod, Meyer, Murray, Murunga, Nash, Norris, Oellermann, Scott, Stark, Wood and Pecl2021; Stephenson et al., Reference Stephenson, Hobday, Allison, Armitage, Brooks, Bundy, Cvitanovic, Dickey-Collas, de Miranda Grilli, Gomez, Jarre, Kaikkonen, Kelly, López, Muhl, Pennino, Tam and van Putten2021).
Open peer review
To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.12.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Maraja Riechers is acknowledged for providing comments on the early drafts of the paper. Dr. Martin Le Tissier was part of an early conversation that eventually turned into the outline for this paper. The Coastal Futures Working Group (2020–2022), supported by the German Committee Future Earth (DKN) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), (of which authors L.C. and S.F. are members) is acknowledged for providing a platform for collaboration in understanding ‘Coastal Futures’.
Author contribution
L.C. was responsible for the conceptual development of the paper, and most of the drafting. M.M., L.R., S.A. and S.F. contributed to conceptual development throughout the process and assisted with drafting and continuously reviewing the text.
Financial support
L.C. and L.R. acknowledge funding from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon project I2B CoastalClimateServices@GERICS.
Competing interest
The authors declare none.
Open access
Comments
Please accept the submission of the manuscript entitled ‘Social innovations that connect people to coasts in the Anthropocene'
This paper reflects on the need for sustainability of the coasts in the Anthropocene. It considers the increasing need for science to engage with society in order to achieve sustainable coastal futures. In the human-dominated system of the future, it is clear that fact, or scientific evidence alone is not sufficient for society to adapt and transform towards higher degrees of sustainability.
We propose that there are interventions and actions at the science-society interface that are needed to enable such higher degrees of sustainability. The paper identifies six social innovations that, together with scientific evidence, can substantially increase the ability of society to transform to coastal sustainability. These six social innovations are also critical for enabling the achievement of the SDGs. The six innovations proposed in this paper can be bound together with social action and interest in a new science-society contract for sustainable coasts in the Anthropocene.
Dr Louis Celliers (louis.celliers@hereon.de) is the corresponding author of this manuscript. None of the authors are declaring conflict of interest.
Do not hesitate to contact me should you require any additional information.