Civil society for sustainable change: strategies of NGOs and active citizens to contribute to sustainability transitions

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of transition pathways, type of contribution and associated engagement modes.

Scaling pathway	Type of contribution	Associated engagement mode
Scaling out	Multiplication and connecting	Knowledge building, movement building
Scaling up	Regime shifts	Knowledge building, movement building
Scaling deep	Changing values and norms	Knowledge building, culture building

Figure 1. Theory of change diagram. Inspired by (Kellogg Foundation 2004; Morra Imas and Rist 2009).

Figure 2. Theory of change tiny forest programme.

Figure 3. Theory of change beach clean-ups.

Table 2. Main similarities and differences in the ToC approaches and key success factors of IVN Tiny Forests and beach clean-ups. Numbering for reference purposes.

Theory of change
Similarities	Differences
S1 Clear ToC. S2 Complex mix of actors, including individual citizens, NGOs and government. S3 Dependency on external funding. S4 Public awareness (knowledge building) as basis for change. S5 Participating citizens and volunteers have shorter-term and sometimes different goals compared to the organising NGOs. S6 Social nature of activity, i.e., participants doing “something for the environment” together with others.	D1. TFs focus on scaling out and scaling deep; BCUs focus on scaling up and to a lesser extent on scaling deep. D2. TFs do not focus on institutional transitions; BCUs do. D3.TF see increasing awareness amongst citizens as a goal in itself; for the BCUs this is a means to mobilize citizens and legitimize advocacy. D4.TF aims at a tangible place-based outputs (urban biodiversity); for the BCU the tangible place-based output is merely a means to an end to achieve an institutional transition. D5.IVN needs land (estate) to achieve its aims; a BCU can be done anywhere on a public beach or riverside. D6. BCUs make strategic use of media in support of their aims; for IVN this is less of a focus.
Key success factors
Similarities	Differences
S7 Practical and tangible activity, with a strong connection to the natural environment. S8 Social aspect of activity. S9 Availability of funding. S10 Outreach beyond the participants. S11 Outreach supports advocacy work. S12 Appealing change narrative.	D7.TF connection is more local (neighbourhood) than the BCUs D8. Larger BCUs (BBCT and Clean Rivers Initiative) generate much wider outreach through media attention. D9. TF advocacy at municipal level and not at national level; larger BCUs target national and European level.

Kellogg Foundation. 2004. Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

 Google Scholar

Morra Imas, L. G., and R. C. Rist. 2009. The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development Evaluations. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Anonymised interview summaries and survey results (all in Dutch) are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.