Governing Within Planetary Boundaries : A Comparative Study of Five Municipalities’ Implementation of the Doughnut Model from a Neo-Institutional Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how five municipalities: Tomelilla, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Cornwall, and Nanaimo, interpret and implement Doughnut Economics. The doughnut economics, developed by Kate Raworth, offers an alternative framework for governing societies within the boundaries of social justice and ecological sustainability. The study uses a qualitative text analysis of municipal policy documents, plans, and reports, and analyzes them using a new institutionalist theoretical framework. The results show that while the municipalities share a fundamental understanding of the Doughnut economics their interpretations and applications differ based on local institutional contexts, available resources, and organizational cultures. Common among them is the use of the model as a tool for governance, goal monitoring, and stakeholder dialogue, although the degree of integration and operationalization varies. The study further demonstrates that implementation is shaped by local adaptation, normative legitimization, and varying levels of institutionalization. By highlighting both the similarities and differences in how municipalities apply the Doughnut model, this thesis contributes to the growing field of research on sustainability governance in the public sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".