Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making

Christoph Oberlack, Diana Sietz, Elisabeth Bürgi Bonanomi, Ariane De Bremond, Jampel Dell'Angelo, Klaus Eisenack, Erle C. Ellis, M. David, Markus Giger, Andreas Heinimann, Christian Kimmich, Marcel Tj Kok, David Manuel Navarrete, Peter Messerli, Patrick Meyfroidt, Tomá! Václavík, Sergio Villamayor-Tomas

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Archetypes are increasingly used as a methodological approach to understand recurrent patterns in variables and processes that shape the sustainability of social-ecological systems. The rapid growth and diversification of archetype analyses has generated variations, inconsistencies, and confusion about the meanings, potential, and limitations of archetypes. Based on a systematic review, a survey, and a workshop series, we provide a consolidated perspective on the core features and diverse meanings of archetype analysis in sustainability research, the motivations behind it, and its policy relevance. We identify three core features of archetype analysis: Recurrent patterns, multiple models, and intermediate abstraction. Two gradients help to apprehend the variety of meanings of archetype analysis that sustainability researchers have developed: (1) understanding archetypes as building blocks or as case typologies and (2) using archetypes for pattern recognition, diagnosis, or scenario development. We demonstrate how archetype analysis has been used to synthesize results from case studies, bridge the gap between global narratives and local realities, foster methodological interplay, and transfer knowledge about sustainability strategies across cases. We also critically examine the potential and limitations of archetype analysis in supporting evidence-based policy making through context-sensitive generalizations with case-level empirical validity. Finally, we identify future priorities, with a view to leveraging the full potential of archetype analysis for supporting sustainable development.

Original languageEnglish
Article number26
Number of pages19
JournalEcology and Society
Volume24
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2019

Fingerprint

policy making
sustainability
pattern recognition
typology
analysis
sustainable development

Keywords

  • Archetype
  • Land systems
  • Social-ecological system
  • Sustainability
  • Vulnerability

Cite this

Oberlack, C., Sietz, D., Bonanomi, E. B., De Bremond, A., Dell'Angelo, J., Eisenack, K., ... Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2019). Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. Ecology and Society, 24(2), [26]. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10747-240226
Oberlack, Christoph ; Sietz, Diana ; Bonanomi, Elisabeth Bürgi ; De Bremond, Ariane ; Dell'Angelo, Jampel ; Eisenack, Klaus ; Ellis, Erle C. ; David, M. ; Giger, Markus ; Heinimann, Andreas ; Kimmich, Christian ; Kok, Marcel Tj ; Navarrete, David Manuel ; Messerli, Peter ; Meyfroidt, Patrick ; Václavík, Tomá! ; Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio. / Archetype analysis in sustainability research : meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. In: Ecology and Society. 2019 ; Vol. 24, No. 2.
@article{366d82e0fc794591bd143b161b21edbf,
title = "Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making",
abstract = "Archetypes are increasingly used as a methodological approach to understand recurrent patterns in variables and processes that shape the sustainability of social-ecological systems. The rapid growth and diversification of archetype analyses has generated variations, inconsistencies, and confusion about the meanings, potential, and limitations of archetypes. Based on a systematic review, a survey, and a workshop series, we provide a consolidated perspective on the core features and diverse meanings of archetype analysis in sustainability research, the motivations behind it, and its policy relevance. We identify three core features of archetype analysis: Recurrent patterns, multiple models, and intermediate abstraction. Two gradients help to apprehend the variety of meanings of archetype analysis that sustainability researchers have developed: (1) understanding archetypes as building blocks or as case typologies and (2) using archetypes for pattern recognition, diagnosis, or scenario development. We demonstrate how archetype analysis has been used to synthesize results from case studies, bridge the gap between global narratives and local realities, foster methodological interplay, and transfer knowledge about sustainability strategies across cases. We also critically examine the potential and limitations of archetype analysis in supporting evidence-based policy making through context-sensitive generalizations with case-level empirical validity. Finally, we identify future priorities, with a view to leveraging the full potential of archetype analysis for supporting sustainable development.",
keywords = "Archetype, Land systems, Social-ecological system, Sustainability, Vulnerability",
author = "Christoph Oberlack and Diana Sietz and Bonanomi, {Elisabeth B{\"u}rgi} and {De Bremond}, Ariane and Jampel Dell'Angelo and Klaus Eisenack and Ellis, {Erle C.} and M. David and Markus Giger and Andreas Heinimann and Christian Kimmich and Kok, {Marcel Tj} and Navarrete, {David Manuel} and Peter Messerli and Patrick Meyfroidt and Tom{\'a}! V{\'a}clav{\'i}k and Sergio Villamayor-Tomas",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5751/ES-10747-240226",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
journal = "Ecology and Society",
issn = "1708-3087",
publisher = "The Resilience Alliance",
number = "2",

}

Oberlack, C, Sietz, D, Bonanomi, EB, De Bremond, A, Dell'Angelo, J, Eisenack, K, Ellis, EC, David, M, Giger, M, Heinimann, A, Kimmich, C, Kok, MT, Navarrete, DM, Messerli, P, Meyfroidt, P, Václavík, T & Villamayor-Tomas, S 2019, 'Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making' Ecology and Society, vol. 24, no. 2, 26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10747-240226

Archetype analysis in sustainability research : meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. / Oberlack, Christoph; Sietz, Diana; Bonanomi, Elisabeth Bürgi; De Bremond, Ariane; Dell'Angelo, Jampel; Eisenack, Klaus; Ellis, Erle C.; David, M.; Giger, Markus; Heinimann, Andreas; Kimmich, Christian; Kok, Marcel Tj; Navarrete, David Manuel; Messerli, Peter; Meyfroidt, Patrick; Václavík, Tomá!; Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio.

In: Ecology and Society, Vol. 24, No. 2, 26, 01.07.2019.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Archetype analysis in sustainability research

T2 - meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making

AU - Oberlack, Christoph

AU - Sietz, Diana

AU - Bonanomi, Elisabeth Bürgi

AU - De Bremond, Ariane

AU - Dell'Angelo, Jampel

AU - Eisenack, Klaus

AU - Ellis, Erle C.

AU - David, M.

AU - Giger, Markus

AU - Heinimann, Andreas

AU - Kimmich, Christian

AU - Kok, Marcel Tj

AU - Navarrete, David Manuel

AU - Messerli, Peter

AU - Meyfroidt, Patrick

AU - Václavík, Tomá!

AU - Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - Archetypes are increasingly used as a methodological approach to understand recurrent patterns in variables and processes that shape the sustainability of social-ecological systems. The rapid growth and diversification of archetype analyses has generated variations, inconsistencies, and confusion about the meanings, potential, and limitations of archetypes. Based on a systematic review, a survey, and a workshop series, we provide a consolidated perspective on the core features and diverse meanings of archetype analysis in sustainability research, the motivations behind it, and its policy relevance. We identify three core features of archetype analysis: Recurrent patterns, multiple models, and intermediate abstraction. Two gradients help to apprehend the variety of meanings of archetype analysis that sustainability researchers have developed: (1) understanding archetypes as building blocks or as case typologies and (2) using archetypes for pattern recognition, diagnosis, or scenario development. We demonstrate how archetype analysis has been used to synthesize results from case studies, bridge the gap between global narratives and local realities, foster methodological interplay, and transfer knowledge about sustainability strategies across cases. We also critically examine the potential and limitations of archetype analysis in supporting evidence-based policy making through context-sensitive generalizations with case-level empirical validity. Finally, we identify future priorities, with a view to leveraging the full potential of archetype analysis for supporting sustainable development.

AB - Archetypes are increasingly used as a methodological approach to understand recurrent patterns in variables and processes that shape the sustainability of social-ecological systems. The rapid growth and diversification of archetype analyses has generated variations, inconsistencies, and confusion about the meanings, potential, and limitations of archetypes. Based on a systematic review, a survey, and a workshop series, we provide a consolidated perspective on the core features and diverse meanings of archetype analysis in sustainability research, the motivations behind it, and its policy relevance. We identify three core features of archetype analysis: Recurrent patterns, multiple models, and intermediate abstraction. Two gradients help to apprehend the variety of meanings of archetype analysis that sustainability researchers have developed: (1) understanding archetypes as building blocks or as case typologies and (2) using archetypes for pattern recognition, diagnosis, or scenario development. We demonstrate how archetype analysis has been used to synthesize results from case studies, bridge the gap between global narratives and local realities, foster methodological interplay, and transfer knowledge about sustainability strategies across cases. We also critically examine the potential and limitations of archetype analysis in supporting evidence-based policy making through context-sensitive generalizations with case-level empirical validity. Finally, we identify future priorities, with a view to leveraging the full potential of archetype analysis for supporting sustainable development.

KW - Archetype

KW - Land systems

KW - Social-ecological system

KW - Sustainability

KW - Vulnerability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070838129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070838129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5751/ES-10747-240226

DO - 10.5751/ES-10747-240226

M3 - Article

VL - 24

JO - Ecology and Society

JF - Ecology and Society

SN - 1708-3087

IS - 2

M1 - 26

ER -