Open research questions in Sustainability and Climate Change Governance

What the literature leaves open

• Narrating plural democratic landscape transformation through a Needs–Care–Justice framework Gonzalo Corte´s-Capano Marcela Brugnach, Noelia Zafra-Calvo, Anna Hausmann, Jacqueline Loos, Received: 1 February 2026 / Revised: 25 May 2026 / Accepted: 16 June 2026 (cid:2) The Author(s) 2026 Abstract Landscapes are relational and contested arenas where systemic crises, competing values and power asymmetries shape contested visions of sustainability.

  Narrating plural democratic landscape transformation through a Needs–Care–Justice framework · 2026 · DOI

• Whilst this study could not establish causality or direction between mode share and A-S action as it relied on cross-sectional data, this effect has been attributed in earlier studies to path dependency theory56 which indicates that high past and present levels of car use lock-in car dependency and shape future actions.

  Beyond vehicle electrification: a global analysis of reported city actions to reduce car use · 2026 · DOI

• As established through the preceding analysis, the prevailing lack of standard operating procedures and formal licensing frameworks for commercial data utilization has left these public-private Jurnal Ilmiah Gema Perencana |…

  Strategic Policy for Strengthening Weather Services Governance through Public–Private Engagement in Indonesia · 2026 · DOI

• Most findings highlighted the requirement of a robust resilient model that encompasses both tradition and modernity, the policymakers in Bhutan may build a robust resilient society that respects traditional knowledge and modern strategies by designing a holistic framework for better resilience capacity. As revealed in the research, the framework may involve diverse stakeholders including the community input and customised to local contexts, upholding relevance and effectiveness. For designing a balanced Middle Path Model, resilience planning and implementing programs are key exercises that consider the involvement of the community and other key stakeholders. Workshops, forums, and participatory methods are encouraged to contribute valuable traditional knowledge in the implementation process. For instance, policymakers may recognize traditional practices within disaster risk reduction policies while drafting the guidelines or integrate these practices alongside contemporary approaches to ensure societal resilience. Moreover, a massive awareness program on the adoption of traditional practices is indispensable in resilience, which may be promoted through academic institutions, social media and community initiatives. Future research may include longitudinal studies to study the long-term impact of the middle path approach (combined strategies of traditional and modern resilience approaches) in terms of efficacy. Finally, the researcher would propose to create an enabling environment among the government agencies, NGOs, and local governments for sharing good practices, resources and knowledge that can establish a healthier resilient society in Bhutan.

  An An Exploratory Study on the Middle Path Approach to Societal Resilience in Bhutan: Balancing Tradition and Modernity · 2026 · DOI

• 47. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. (Free Press, New York, 2003). 48. Beaman, L. & Dillon, A. Diffusion of agricultural information within social networks: Evidence on gender inequalities from Mali. J. Dev. Econ. 133, 147–161 (2018). 49. Hall, J., Matos, S. & Langford, C. H. Social exclusion and transgenic technology: The case of Brazilian agriculture. J. Bus. Ethics 77, 45–63 (2007). 50. Acemoglu, D. & Restrepo, P. Tasks, automation, and the rise in U.S. support for the field research underpinning both case studies. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the support of the CGIAR Science Program on Climate Action (https://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-research-portfolio-2025-2030/ climate-action) and the CGIAR Science Program on Scaling for Impact (https://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-research-portfolio-2025-2030/scaling- impact) for funding staff time during the preparation of this manuscript. Funding for CGIAR Science Programs is provided by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund (https://www.cgiar.org/funders/). wage inequality. Econometrica 90, 1973–2016 (2022). 51. Acosta, M. et al. What does it mean to make a ‘joint’ decision? Unpacking intra-household decision making in agriculture: Implications for policy and practice. J. Dev. Stud. 56, 1210–1229 (2020). 52. Surendran-Padmaja, S., Khed, V. D. & Krishna, V. V. What would others say? Exploring gendered and caste-based social norms in Central India through vignettes. Women’s. Stud. Int. Forum 97, 102692 (2023). 53. Khed, V. D. & Krishna, V. V. Agency and time poverty: Linking decision-making powers and leisure time of male and female farmers of Central India. World Dev. Perspect. 29, 100484 (2023). 54. Sah, U. et al. Mainstreaming women farmers to agricultural extension services in India: Perception of extension personnel. Indian J. Ext. Educ. 51, (2015). 55. Brody, C. et al. Can self-help group programs improve women’s empowerment? A systematic review. J. Dev. Eff. 9, 15–40 (2017). 56. Kumar, N. et al. Pathways from women’s group-based programs to nutrition change in South Asia: a conceptual framework and literature review. Glob. Food Secur. 17, 172–185 (2018). 57. Ashalakshmi, R. K., John, A. & Reshma, T. R. Contribution of microfinance to self help groups for rural development in India. J. Sci. Technol. Manag. 13, 237–241 (2020). 58. Nayak, A. K. & Panigrahi, P. K. Participation in self-help groups and empowerment of women: a structural model analysis. J. Dev. Areas 54, (2020). 59. Raghunathan, K., Kannan, S. & Quisumbing, A. R. Can women’s self- help groups improve access to information, decision-making, and agricultural practices? The Indian case. Agric. Econ. 50, 567–580 (2019).

  Why social inclusion matters in sustainable intensification · 2026 · DOI

• 4. 3. Dorosh, P. & Thurlow, J. Beyond agriculture versus non-agriculture: decomposing sectoral growth–poverty linkages in five African countries. World Dev. 109, 440–451 (2018). Ivanic, M. & Martin, W. Sectoral productivity growth and poverty reduction: National and global impacts. World Dev. 109, 429–439 (2018). Ligon, E. & Sadoulet, E. Estimating the relative benefits of agricultural growth on the distribution of expenditures. World Dev. 109, 417–428 (2018). 5. 6. Ortiz-Bobea, A., Ault, T. R., Carrillo, C. M., Chambers, R. G. & Lobell, 7. 8. 9. D. B. Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 306–312 (2021). Perez, C. et al. How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 95–107 (2015). FAO. The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems. (2023). Jones-Garcia, E. & Krishna, V. V. Farmer adoption of sustainable intensification technologies in the maize systems of the Global South. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 8 (2021). 10. Alwang, J. et al. Pathways from research on improved staple crop germplasm to poverty reduction for smallholder farmers. Agric. Syst. 172, 16–27 (2019). 11. Cariappa, A. A. G. & Krishna, V. V. Carbon farming in India: are the existing projects inclusive, additional, and permanent? Clim. Policy 25, 756–771 (2025). 12. Foster, A. D. & Rosenzweig, M. R. Democratization, Elite Capture and Economic Development. NBER Working Paper No. 29797. (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, 2022). 13. Merritt, W. S. et al. Reflecting on an integrated approach to understanding pathways for socially inclusive agricultural intensification. J. Dev. Stud. 58, 1569–1587 (2022). 14. Roth, C. H. et al. Overcoming barriers to social inclusion in agricultural intensification: Reflections on a transdisciplinary community development project from India and Bangladesh. Community Dev. J. 59, 87–107 (2024). 15. Marty, E. et al. Enabling gender and social inclusion in climate and agriculture policy and planning through foresight processes: assessing challenges and leverage points. Clim. Policy 24, 1034–1049 (2024). 26. Jain, M. et al. How much can sustainable intensification increase yields across South Asia? A systematic review of the evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 083004 (2020). 27. Kotu, B. H., Alene, A., Manyong, V., Hoeschle-Zeledon, I. & Larbi, A. Adoption and impacts of sustainable intensification practices in Ghana. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15, 539–554 (2017). 28. Krishna, V. V. & Veettil, P. C. Productivity and efficiency impacts of conservation tillage in northwest Indo-Gangetic Plains. Agric. Syst. 127, 126–138 (2014). 29. Kuyah, S. et al. Innovative agronomic practices for sustainable intensification in sub-Saharan Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 16 (2021). 30. Jat, R. S. et al.

  Why social inclusion matters in sustainable intensification · 2026 · DOI

• socially marginalized scheduled tribes) compiled by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the study evaluates the adoption of maize and its subsequent impact on women’s empowerment. The three main findings are provided below. (cid:129) Proximity to maize demonstration plots significantly increased maize adoption and cultivated area. Specifically, the presence of demonstration plots within 1 km of farmer dwellings was associated with an increased probability of maize adoption by about 8% over the 2017–2019 period, and one percentage increase in the number of demonstration plots within a 1 km radius was associated with a 14% increase in adoption probability. In terms of area, the presence of a demonstration plot within 1 km was associated with an additional 0.21 ha of maize cultivation per household–equivalent to 24% of the average owned land size. This documents the effectiveness of demonstration trials in promoting sustainable intensification and technology adoption among smallholder farmers. (cid:129) Second, maize adoption had a strong positive causal impact on women’s empowerment, as measured by the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI). Women farmers who adopted maize between 2017 and 2019 had a mean empowerment index of 0.76, compared to 0.65 among non-adopters–a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01). Furthermore, 46% of maize adopters were classified as empowered (empowerment index ≥0.80), compared to only 25% of non-adopters. Instrumental variable (IV) regression estimates reveal that maize adoption increased the probability of empowerment by 0.37–0.43 percentage points, highlighting the potential of targeted interventions to promote gender-equitable agrarian development. (cid:129) The introduction of maize as a cash crop through women’s SHGs positively affected household nutrition and household welfare. Maize adoption led to significant increases in calorie intake (32–58% in IV regression models) and in the intake of protein, fat, and key minerals such as calcium, iron, and zinc (10–15% in ordinary least squares, OLS, regression models). The primary transmission mechanism was increased food expenditure, which rose by 80% among households that adopted (IV estimate). However, women in maize-adopting households experienced heavier farming workloads, reducing the time available for food preparation and leisure, a trade-off that was not compensated for by increased male involvement in cooking or by eating outside the household. Conclusion and strategies for inclusive growth The two case studies presented in this paper draw on primary household survey data from Bihar and Odisha, India, to examine how the introduction of new agricultural technologies reshapes labor demand, employment, and broader livelihood outcomes.

  Why social inclusion matters in sustainable intensification · 2026 · DOI

• The perceived rise in farm wages, coupled with the scarcity of family labor, has catalyzed a shift towards labor-saving agricultural technologies such as machinery and herbicides. Herbicide adoption among cereal farmers in the state of Bihar rose by approximately 50 percentage points within a single decade. This shift, while a response to economic factors (especially seasonal labor scarcity), carries significant social implications. There is mounting evidence that the introduction of such technologies has led to the displacement of labor from women and socially marginalized caste groups. For example, research from India has highlighted how mechanization has specifically undercut women’s weeding labor and thus opportunities for income generation46. Similarly, in Malawi, the adoption of herbicides has resulted in the displacement of casual labor43. Against this backdrop, the objectives of this case study are twofold: First, we investigate whether the growing use of herbicides in regions like Bihar, India, has disproportionately affected labor demand for historically marginalized caste groups and women, especially in weed management and other on-farm tasks. Second, we propose a task-based approach to inequality as a robust framework for examining gender and social inclusion within the context of the unintended impacts of agricultural technologies. This approach disaggregates agricultural work into specific tasks (e.g., weeding, planting, harvesting, and herbicide application) and examines how these tasks are allocated across gender and social groups, thereby revealing how technological changes can differentially affect the labor opportunities and incomes of marginalized communities. Drawing on two complementary datasets covering rice, wheat, and maize production in Bihar—a telephone survey of 2000 rice and wheat farmers across 35 districts conducted in 2020/21, and the Maize, Wage Labour and Livelihoods Survey (MWLL) covering 416 maize farmer households and 309 labour households—we document a set of interrelated stylized facts. Data were collected on herbicide adoption patterns, labor hours disaggregated by gender, and the caste identity of both farmers and laborers. We applied a task-based conceptual framework, drawing on previous work46,50 that models production as a set of tasks allocated among labor and capital, to interpret how herbicide adoption restructures task composition along gender and caste lines. The task-based production function approach draws on the theoretical framework developed by Acemoglu and Restrepo50 and Afridi et al.,46 which models agricultural output as a function of sequentially ordered, genderdifferentiated task inputs46,50.

  Why social inclusion matters in sustainable intensification · 2026 · DOI

• The persistence of these gaps points to a fundamental tension at the core of SI: a framework that aspires to be holistic and socially transformative yet remains largely silent on how its benefits and costs are distributed across gender, caste, and class. The sections that follow examine this tension directly, tracing the mechanisms through which SI interventions can either deepen or disrupt existing patterns of socio-economic inequality. Impact heterogeneity and technology-induced marginalization Impact heterogeneity refers to the varied effects that interventions, policies, or practices can have across different individuals or communities38. In the context of SI in agriculture, impact heterogeneity highlights that the benefits and drawbacks of agricultural practices are not uniformly distributed but vary significantly across socioeconomic groups. Differential adoption rates of agricultural technologies across gender, class, and caste—particularly welldocumented in South Asian contexts—are established in the literature, along with their underlying drivers. For instance, women farmers often face constraints in accessing resources, land, and information, which may prevent them from benefiting from SI to the same extent as men, unless specific gender-sensitive approaches are implemented39. Younger, more educated farmers may be more receptive to innovation, while older farmers tend to be more risk-averse toward new technologies, partly due to shorter investment recovery horizons40. The impact of farming technologies can also vary considerably depending on farmers’ economic status41. Wealthier farmers have better access to resources, capital, and markets, allowing them to adopt and benefit from SI practices more readily than their less affluent counterparts. Beyond the marginalization that arises from differential adoption— where SI technologies disproportionately benefit those with greater resources, thereby widening income gaps between affluent and less affluent farming households—certain technology characteristics can generate exclusionary effects independently of who adopts them. Some SI technologies are capital-intensive, scale-dependent, or designed primarily for idealized farming conditions that may not reflect the resource constraints, fragmented landholdings, or labor arrangements of smallholder and marginalized communities in the Global South. Others are inherently laborsaving and hence potentially labor-displacing, substituting human labor with machinery or agrochemicals in ways that eliminate the primary livelihood source of landless laborers, many of whom belong to the most socially marginalized groups. Furthermore, the complexity and knowledgeintensity of many SI practices can create information asymmetries that systematically favor better-connected, better-educated, and more socially dominant farming households, reinforcing existing hierarchies of access and benefit42,43.

  Why social inclusion matters in sustainable intensification · 2026 · DOI

• Using evidence from existing literature and insights from ongoing research projects at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), this Perspective examines the characteristics and impacts of SI in agricultural production systems. We provide examples of how SI practices can lead to more equitable poverty alleviation when technologies and practices are targeted to reach poorer and marginalized segments of society. The two case studies from ongoing SI-oriented research projects on the dissemination and impacts of technologies in eastern India are presented. The first case study is a “trade-off” example, which shows a substantial increase in herbicide use as part of SI leads to the displacement of women laborers of the most marginalized castes. The second case study is an example of a “win-win” in which targeted dissemination of the intensifi- cation of the rice-fallow system with a new cash crop (maize) is carried out through women’s self-help groups, resulting in increased empowerment of women farmers. Rather than providing rigorous causal evidence of social inclusion outcomes, these case studies illustrate mechanisms through which SI interventions can shape distributional impacts across gender and social groups. Intensification vs. sustainable intensification In its traditional sense, agricultural intensification focuses on increasing agricultural output per unit of land through more effective use of material inputs and labor. Key practices associated with intensification include monoculture and intensive use of chemical inputs19. While these practices have been successful in increasing food production, they have often led to adverse environmental effects, including soil degradation, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and increased greenhouse gas emissions20. SI is an alter- native approach to traditional intensification that aims to increase agri- cultural productivity while minimizing negative environmental impacts. Essentially, the goal is to boost food production while maintaining the natural resource base on which long-term agricultural productivity depends21. The expected outcomes of SI include increased TFP in agri- culture, improved soil health, sustained or improved biodiversity and eco- system services, irrigation water conservation, and reduced carbon footprint22. Beyond these productivity and environmental goals, SI should ideally also treat equity and social inclusiveness as explicit goals in their own right— not merely as by-products—addressing the needs of smallholder and women farmers and marginalized communities. While the imperative of inclusive development applies broadly to any technology-driven interven- tion in farming and non-farming sectors, it is particularly relevant to the SI of agriculture for two main reasons. First, since SI is explicitly framed as a holistic approach encompassing social dimensions alongside productivity and environmental ones23, ignoring inclusion outcomes is not merely undesirable but renders the very definition of sustainability incomplete. Second, the specific characteristics of certain intensification technologies— their complexity, input requirements, and scale—can create or even amplify mechanisms of exclusion, such as labor displacement and affordability barriers, which may disproportionately affect already-marginalized communities24,25. However, the influence of SI practices on social inclu- sion and equity remains largely overlooked in the literature. environmental, The diverse impacts of sustainable intensification Below, we delineate SI’s impact across four key dimensions: agronomic, this multi- and social. economic, dimensionality into operational thinking and impact assessment is essential, given that these dimensions can pull in different directions and generate real trade-offs. For instance, an intervention that improves productivity or environmental outcomes while generating adverse social consequences cannot be considered a genuinely sustainable intensification.

  Why social inclusion matters in sustainable intensification · 2026 · DOI

• Why social inclusion matters in sustainable intensification https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-026-00162-9 Vijesh V. Krishna1, Adeeth A. G.

  Why social inclusion matters in sustainable intensification · 2026 · DOI

• Future research could further develop the proposed analytical framework by assigning quantitative weights to the indicators used to assess the manifestation of green organisational culture. In the present study, the maturity of GOC is evaluated through qualitative and quantitative document analysis. However, a weighted indicator model could allow not only identifying the presence of specific cultural features but also measuring their relative significance and the overall degree of organisational maturity. Such an approach would enhance both the analytical precision and the practical applicability of future research in this field.

  Features of Green Organisational Culture in Utena District Municipality: Implications for Social Welfare · 2026 · DOI

• Renewable energy communities (RECs) are legally recognised instruments of decentralised energy transition, but their scaling remains limited by a separation between governance design, economic appraisal, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDM/A).

  Second-Level Renewable Energy Cooperatives for Closing the Governance-Economics-Decision Support Gap: A Systematic Review and MCDM/A Governance Model · 2026 · DOI

• through assertive The case of Yangzhou’s ecological governance along the Yangtze River reveals a complex dynamic in which notable environmental top-down progress has been achieved intervention, yet opportunities for substantive participation and the sustained incorporation of local ecological knowledge remain limited. This asymmetry highlights a central in contemporary Chinese environmental governance: while scienceled enforcement mechanisms can generate measurable ecological improvements, the selective marginalization of community perspectives risks weakening the legitimacy, responsiveness, and tension long-term adaptive capacity of these efforts. The findings of this study suggest that the key problem is not the presence of scientific expertise in governance, but the institutional conditions under which other forms of knowledge are recognized, translated, or excluded. To address this imbalance, a first priority is to strengthen institutional channels through which local observations can enter governance before they are reduced to symbolic consultation or ad hoc complaint. Stakeholder platforms linked to river management agencies could provide more regular opportunities for fishers, village representatives, NGO actors, and local officials to discuss ecological change, pollution concerns, habitat disruption, and implementation challenges. Such forums would be most useful not as ceremonial consultative bodies, but as mechanisms through which local knowledge can inform problem diagnosis and policy adjustment at an earlier stage. A second priority is to move beyond the current pattern of selective and instrumental inclusion. Pilot arrangements for participatory monitoring or localized co-management could create more stable forms of collaboration between communities, scientists, and local authorities. In the Yangzhou context, this could include involving former fishers and long-term residents not only in patrol work, but also in river observation, habitat restoration, and discussions about the interpretation of ecological change. Such initiatives would not replace scientific monitoring, but could broaden the evidentiary basis on which governance decisions are made. Third, there is a need to preserve and document local ecological knowledge before it is further eroded by livelihood transition and generational change. Oral history projects, ecological memory archives, and community-based documentation of seasonal knowledge, pollution observations, and river-use practices could help retain a body of experience that is currently at risk of disappearing. These forms of documentation would also provide a basis for more meaningful dialogue between local actors and scientific institutions, especially where local knowledge is currently dismissed as anecdotal because in recognizable formats. recorded is not it Fourth, more attention should be paid to the distributive and epistemic dimensions of ecological transition. In settings such as Yangzhou, local frustration arose not only from income loss, but also from the perception that communities’ own understandings of degradation drivers—particularly pollution, habitat disturbance, and uneven enforcement—were not taken seriously. Policies that impose ecological sacrifice on local groups are more likely to sustain public trust when they are accompanied by visible action on other sources of degradation and by more credible mechanisms for incorporating community knowledge into evaluation and follow-up. Taken together, these recommendations point toward a more participatory and epistemically plural model of ecological governance. Such a model would not require abandoning state it would require leadership or scientific expertise. Rather, institutional arrangements that allow local experiential knowledge to contribute not only to implementation, but also to problem framing, diagnosis, interpretation, and adaptive adjustment. Reframing Yangtze River governance in this way—from a primarily top-down campaign to a more dialogic and reflexive form of ecological stewardship—would inclusiveness of improve not only governance, but also its long-term resilience and legitimacy.

  Whose knowledge matters? negotiating local experience and scientific expertise in Yangtze River ecological governance · 2026 · DOI

• Nevertheless, these developments remain tentative: binding commitments are scarce, climate finance flows remain inequitable, and most Nationally Determined Contributions have so far tended to address food‐related emissions and vulnerabilities in a partial and uneven manner, rather than integrating them systematically.

  Integrating food systems into the international climate law and policy framework · 2026 · DOI

• research avenues includes the continued Despite the comprehensive international structures established by the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, the effective implementation of international climate action, however, faces very serious challenges. This lack of financial resources, insufficient political dedication, and the variation of the circumstances in each country. Moreover, the intersection of climate change with other developmental priorities usually triggers trade-offs that can hinder simultaneous progress in most SDGs. Although the study seeks to offer a global picture, the literature at hand is not evenly spread, and the focus is more in specific areas (e.g., Europe and Asia) and relatively less of the low-income and highly vulnerable areas. 5.8 Critical analysis of EIO effectiveness and structural constraints 6.1 Research gaps and future research priorities Environmental International Organizations (EIOs) have a key role in promoting climate governance and SDGs 614, but their functionality is limited by structural constraints.

  Environmental international organizations in climate change governance: a systematic review of their contributions to SDGs 6–14 · 2026 · DOI

• We only examined a subsample of the entire body of litera- ture pertaining to human perception of interconnectedness. It is possible that if we had looked at the entire body of literature, we may have found different results. However, as detailed in Materials and methods, we used concept saturation to track when we stopped finding new types of interconnectedness in the review. Concept saturation is a widely used and accepted criterion in qualitative research to indicate the point at which further data collection is unnec- essary, since more data is unlikely to yield new findings. Since we stopped finding new types of interconnectedness at paper n = 8, yet included 100 papers in the study, we are confident that our results are an adequate characterization of the body of literature, while acknowledging that we did not conduct a comprehensive review. If we had continued to find new types of interconnectedness, we would have con- tinued to add randomly selected articles to the sample. Our use of random sampling in selecting articles for our subset strengthens our confidence in the assertion that our review is an adequate characterization since articles in the entire body of literature had an equal chance of being chosen for the review. Given these limitations, the proposed typology 1 3Sustainability Science represents a synthesis of the sampled literature rather than an exhaustive classification of the entire field. We acknowledge that our focus on English-language peer-reviewed articles is another limitation of this review. We are also aware that our positionality as white women working in academic contexts in the United States may have influenced our methodological decisions and our interpreta- tion of the results.

  Perception of interconnectedness: a new typology and tools across disciplines · 2026 · DOI

• Data & sources substitutes for structural RE additions; sustainability + MRV integrity are decisive require MRV + sustainability safeguards; ensure parallel RE capacity acceleration Resources, 2023). Regulation No. 12/2023 on biomass co firing in CFPPs.

  From UNFCCC rules to domestic delivery: An institutional economics explanation of Indonesia’s commitment and implementation gap in emission reduction · 2026 · DOI

• This research is designed to provide an institutional and documentary-based explanation rather than a causal econometric estimate. Accordingly, findings should be interpreted as mechanism-based inferences grounded in documentary evidence and descriptive emissions trends, not as quantified causal effects. The approach prioritizes traceability, coherence of interpretation, and plausibility of institutional mechanisms, appropriate for the study’s objective to explain how UNFCCC governance influences domestic commitment structures and delivery constraints in Indonesia. A further limitation is that documentary evidence may reflect formal design more clearly than informal practices; however, this is addressed by triangulating across legal texts, regulatory instruments, and institutional reports that capture implementation conditions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS UNFCCC as a Global Institutional Driver of Domestic Policy Direction UNFCCC operates not only as a diplomatic arena but as a rule setting institutional architecture that reorganizes domestic expectations about credible climate action. Under the Paris Agreement’s pledge and review logic, national performance becomes the binding locus of climate governance: targets are domestically determined, yet their credibility is continuously tested through transparency, periodic review, and expectations of progression (Bodansky, 2016; Falkner, 2016; Keohane and Victor, 2016). This architecture effectively positions the UNFCCC regime as a “meta institution” that standardizes what must be made legible (targets, inventories, policies, and support) and thereby creates structured pressure for domestic reforms in data systems, coordination routines, and financing arrangements (Konrad et al., 2022; Winkler et al., 2017). A central mechanism of this influence is the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF), which functions as governance by information: it shapes what states must report, how progress is assessed, and how implementation support is tracked, with downstream effects on domestic administrative routines and policy coherence (Winkler et al., 2017). In practice, countries experience dual pressures. The first is normative, demonstrating ambition consistent with global expectations. The second is operational, building domestic systems capable of converting commitments into measurable outcomes. This duality is precisely where institutional capacity becomes decisive and where commitment implementation gaps tend to emerge, particularly in emerging economies confronting growth energy security trade offs (Hale, 2020; Keohane and Victor, 2016). Indonesia’s Domestic Legal Basis Indonesia’s domestic legal anchoring of the Paris Agreement is clear: Law No.

  From UNFCCC rules to domestic delivery: An institutional economics explanation of Indonesia’s commitment and implementation gap in emission reduction · 2026 · DOI

• Conclusion of market-based This study demonstrated that the legitimacy and effectiveness climate mechanisms (MBMs) are shaped not only by technical rigour or regulatory reform alone. Through a qualitative discourse analysis of 108 documents spanning 2021 to 2025, the research revealed that narrative dynamics, specifically distortion, asymmetry, advocacy-driven closure, and narrative extraction, play decisive roles in how MBMs are perceived, contested, and ultimately governed. The evidence shows that crisis-oriented narratives, while numerically fewer, are disproportionately amplified through media, advocacy, and policy channels, shaping market behaviour and public perceptions to a greater extent than either reform-oriented or technical-neutral perspectives (Boykoff et al., 2021; Ejaz et al., 2025). Narrative distortion, where project-level integrity issues are generalised and amplified into systemwide claims of failure, undermines trust even when technical deficiencies are limited or contextspecific (Treen et al., 2020; Lamb et al., 2020; Wetterberg et al., 2024). Advocacy-driven closure, particularly within Type B civil society and media collaborations, prestructures inquiry towards predetermined abolitionist conclusions, systematically excluding co-benefit evidence and reinforcing binary the permanence critique (Blum, 2020; Greenfield, 2024b; Streck et al., 2025). Narrative asymmetry persists as Global North actors dominate and discourse marginalising and community-level evidence (Newell et al., 2021; Sovacool et al., 2022; Fricker, 2007). Narrative extraction is also recurrent, with communities and invoked as discursive projects material, often with minimal recognition of their agency or contribution.

  Narrative Dynamics and Carbon Market Legitimacy: Distortion, Asymmetry, and Advocacy-Driven Closure in Market-Based Climate Mechanisms · 2026 · DOI

• REFERENCES Battocletti, V., Enriques, L., & Romano, A. (2024). The voluntary carbon market: Market failures and policy implications. University of Colorado Law Review, 95(3), 519–588. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/lawreview/v ol95/iss3/2 Bernstein, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2022). The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments. Nature Climate Change, 12(11), 1002–1008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01440-5 BeZero Carbon. (2025). BeZero Carbon Ratings Transition Study 2024. https://bezerocarbon. com/insights/bezero-carbon-ratingstransition-study-2024 Biedenkopf, K. (2021). Polish climate policy narratives: Uniqueness, alternative pathways, and nascent polarisation.

  Narrative Dynamics and Carbon Market Legitimacy: Distortion, Asymmetry, and Advocacy-Driven Closure in Market-Based Climate Mechanisms · 2026 · DOI

• in mainstream discourse. rarely amplified that are A more subtle form of asymmetry operates where Type B advocacy, while claiming to represent Global South interests, systematically excludes or downplays community-generated evidence of cobenefits when it conflicts with abolitionist frames (Blum, 2020; Kreibich & Hermwille, 2021). The omission of Kasigau’s strong co-benefit record by such advocacy constitutes a form of testimonial injustice (Fricker, 2007). This process is further reinforced by the tendency of international institutions to act as gatekeepers, filtering which Southern perspectives are considered credible or legitimate (Jasanoff, 2004; Fleischman et al., 2020). The Yurok Tribe Forest Carbon Project illustrate how the amplification of local narratives can shape market legitimacy (Fleischman et al., 2020). Where indigenous sovereignty and community co-benefits are amplified, legitimacy and local perspectives are ignored or oversimplified, legitimacy is undermined.

  Narrative Dynamics and Carbon Market Legitimacy: Distortion, Asymmetry, and Advocacy-Driven Closure in Market-Based Climate Mechanisms · 2026 · DOI

• The mechanism analysis (Table 8) shows that environmental regulation strengthens the GFP-UER relationship, but does not specify which regulatory instruments (emissions trading, command-and-control standards, voluntary programs) drive these interaction effects in demonstration cities. Disaggregating the ENV variable into specific policy instruments would clarify optimal regulatory combinations with fiscal measures.

  Impact of green fiscal policy on urban ecological resilience—evidence from China’s “comprehensive demonstration cities for energy conservation and emission reduction fiscal policy” · 2026 · DOI

• The quasi-natural experiment design uses 2011 as the policy implementation cutoff for comprehensive demonstration cities, but the paper does not report parallel trends testing or robustness checks validating the validity of the difference-in-differences assumption. Explicit pre-treatment covariate balance tests and placebo analyses using falsified cutoff years would strengthen causal inference claims.

  Impact of green fiscal policy on urban ecological resilience—evidence from China’s “comprehensive demonstration cities for energy conservation and emission reduction fiscal policy” · 2026 · DOI

• While the paper demonstrates differential GFP effectiveness across city size categories (large cities vs. small/medium cities), it does not examine whether the same policy mechanisms and magnitudes apply to prefecture-level cities versus provincial capitals or coastal versus inland urban centers. Regional heterogeneity beyond city size classification needs explicit investigation to refine policy targeting.

  Impact of green fiscal policy on urban ecological resilience—evidence from China’s “comprehensive demonstration cities for energy conservation and emission reduction fiscal policy” · 2026 · DOI

Most-cited papers in Sustainability and Climate Change Governance

• Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons · Policy Studies Journal · 2017 · 483 citations
• Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future · Business & Society · 2022 · 466 citations
• State and Municipal Climate Change Plans: The First Generation · Journal of the American Planning Association · 2008 · 280 citations
• Building dynamic capabilities to cope with environmental uncertainty: The role of strategic foresight · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · 2020 · 234 citations
• Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Conditions for success · AMBIO · 2015 · 219 citations
• Urban Sustainability: Learning from Best Practice? · Environment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2006 · 215 citations
• (Un)Sustainability and Organization Studies: Towards a Radical Engagement · Organization Studies · 2020 · 204 citations
• Ecosystem Legitimacy Emergence: A Collective Action View · Journal of Management · 2021 · 198 citations
• States on Steroids: The Intergovernmental Odyssey of American Climate Policy · Review of Policy Research · 2008 · 181 citations
• A ‘green’ chameleon: Exploring the many disciplinary definitions, goals, and forms of “green infrastructure” · Landscape and Urban Planning · 2021 · 173 citations

Most recent work

• A new framework for collaborative climate governance: linking consensus building and collective action · Policy & Politics · 2026
• Against the planetary: carbon fetishism and the politics of false solutions · The Journal of Peasant Studies · 2026
• Developing the global North: social–ecological justice, post-capitalist aspirations, and the politics of capabilities · Review of Social Economy · 2026
• Inclusion or Exclusion of External Voices in Decision-Making on the EU Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products (EUDR): Heard, but Not Listened To · Interventions économiques · 2026
• Exploring the role of institutional governance in enhancing sustainability performance of health and sanitation projects in Uganda: a qualitative inquiry · Social Responsibility Journal · 2026
• From action to legislation: challenges and enhancements of the regulatory frameworks concerning China’s blue carbon sink trading · Frontiers in Marine Science · 2026
• Mobilising for local energy democracy in the United States: confronting political lock-in and private capture in the campaign for public power · Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society · 2026
• Arts-based methods for just co-creation of sustainable futures · Futures · 2026
• What Drives Forum Rule Adaptation: Investigating the Influence of the Forum Founder and Polycentric Governance Linkages in Dutch Strategic Spatial Planning · Policy Studies Journal · 2026
• The Inclusion Trade‐Off: Comparing the Design and Functionality of Collaborative Governance Forums · Policy Studies Journal · 2026

Related topics in Environmental Science