international conference on sustainability science

7/29/2019 International Conference on Sustainability Science

1/70

BOOK OF ABSTRACTS


2/70


3/70

Table of Contents

ICSS2010 Outline 2

Brief Programme 4

Key Note Speakers 5

SESSION I - From complex thinking to transformational change: epistemological 10

and methodological challenges for sustainability science

SESSION II - Solution-oriented/transdisciplinary research for sustainable development 20

SESSION III - Innovation for Sustainability: toward a Sustainable Urban Future 29

SESSION IV - Global Sustainability governance 40

SESSION V - Sustainability Science education 48

SESSION VI - Synthesis, cross-cutting Issues and Future of Sustainability Science 52

OPEN FORUM ON SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE 53

PANEL I - Industry and Academia for a transition towards Sustainability 53

PANEL II - People to Science to People: experiences from civil society 55

Ph.D. SESSION 60

ICSS2012 at Arizona State University 65


4/704

Book of abstracts ICSS 2010

ICSS2010 Outline

Francesca FarioliCoordinator o ICSS2010 Scientifc Secretariat

ICSS2010 is a turning point for the consolidation of Sustainability Science. During the three days in Rome, ex-

perts and scholars invited from the leading universities and research centres will discuss the crucial elementsof Sustainability Science through focused and output-oriented sessions. The second day of the conference, the

Open Forum with stakeholders, will be dedicated to the dialogue and integration of civil society, industry and

decision makers into the process of linking knowledge to action for sustainable development.

BACKGROUNDICSS2010 is the second edition of the International Conference on Sustainability Science. The rst edition of

ICSS, has been promoted by the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S) of the University

of Tokyo and co-organized by IR3S-UNU Sustainability Joint Initiative, in February 2009, as a follow up activity

of the Sapporo Sustainability Declaration (SSD) of the G8 University Summit.

The Sapporo Sustainability Declaration, prepared during the G8 University Summit, in 2008, recognized

that sustainability issues represent an urgent political concern and that universities have a fundamental

responsibility in promoting a transition towards a sustainable world. Following the recommendations of

the Sapporo Sustainability Declaration, the rst International Conference on Sustainability Science, held

in Tokyo in February 2009, gathered scholars from international leading universities and research centres

to discuss the different academic approaches and to delineate a framework for integrating and structuring

knowledge for sustainability science.

The strong international participation and the growing vivid interest in Sustainability Science of researchers

and scholars from the leading research institutions around the world encouraged the promoters of ICSS to

assure continuity to the event. ICSS2010 intends to consolidate and develop further the process started during

ICSS2009 in Tokyo. ICSS2010 aims to bring advancement in Sustainability Sciences knowledge structuring as

well a consolidation and formalization of its research Network and solicit the active participation of the different

stakeholders in a process of scientic co-production.

OBJECTIVESICSS2010 has a challenging central ambition: to map and structure the existing knowledge, methodologies, and

research priorities in Sustainability Science. This ambition is motivated by the necessity of contrasting the risk of

dispersion and fragmentation that a domain with such a wide range of research interests such as Sustainability

Science inevitably runs.

The Conference has six primary objectives:

1. Strengthen the framework of sustainability science and identify the epistemological pillars of sustainabilityscience, as well as discuss the methodology aspects.

2. Present case studies of trans-disciplinary research practices to address the complexity of human-nature

interaction

3. Review and discuss the current status of high education in sustainability science with regard to diverse

visions, approaches, and methodologies used

ICSS 2010 Outline


5/705

4. Discuss the possibilities and challenges of an effective collaboration civil society, industry, policy makers -

academia for a transition towards sustainability.

5. Examine the central issues and challenges of global sustainability giving equal attention to the perspecti-

ves of the South

6. Identify specic and concrete activities and instruments to consolidate the collaboration among research

institutions and Networks.

In order to accomplish the objectives, the Conference has been structured in keynote speeches, Sessions and

Panels as illustrated in the gure below. The sessions and panels provide venues to scholars and stakeholders

to discuss, contribute and present knowledge, methods and case studies on challenging issue of sustainability

science.

Session I

Session II

Session III

Session V

Session VI

Panel I

Panel II

Session IV

From complex thinking to transformational change: Epistemological and me-

thodological challenges for sustainability science

Solution-oriented/transdisciplinary research for sustainable development

Innovation for Sustainability

Sustainability science education

Crosscutting issues and Future of Sustainability Science

PH.D Seminar and Poster Session

Industry and Academia for a transition towards sustainability

People to Science to People: experiences from civil society

Global sustainability governance

ICSS 2010 Outline


6/70

June 24:Cloister Hall, Faculty of Engineering Sapienza University of Rome

June 25: Cloister Hall, Faculty of Engineering Sapienza University of Rome

6


Brief Programme

Brief Programme

June 23: Aula Magna, Sapienza University of Rome

09:00 - 09:35

09:35 - 09:45

09:45 - 09:55

09:55 - 10:10

10:10 - 10:20

11:20 - 13:20

14:30 - 16:30

17:00 - 19:00

08:50 - 09:00

09:00 - 11:00

11:30 - 13:30

14:30 - 16:30

17:00 - 19:00

09:00 - 09:30

09:30 - 11:30

12:00 - 13:00

14:00 - 15:30

17:30 - 18:00

18:00 - 18:30

Welcome remarks

Message from General Director of Ministry of Environment

Opening remarks

Key note speech

Video Message from Nobel Prize

Session I: From complex thinking to transformational change:Epistemological and methodological challenges for sustainability science

Lunch break

Session II : Solution-oriented/transdisciplinary researchfor sustainable development

Session III : Innovation for Sustainability

Introduction to the 2nd day of the Conference

Session IV: Global sustainability governance

Session V: Sustainability science education

Lunch break

Panel 1: Industry and Academia for a transition towards sustainability

Panel 2: People to Science to People: experiences from civil society

Key note speech

PhD seminar

PhD Poster SessionLunch break

Lunch break

Session VI: Cross-cutting plenary and future of sustainability science

Open discussion

Announcement of the next edition of ICSS at Arizona State Universityand closing remarks


7/707

Key Note Speakers

ELINOR OSTROM

ELINOR OSTROM is Distinguished Professor, Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Scien-

ce, and Senior Research Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis,Indiana University, Bloomington; and Founding Director, Center for the Study of Institutio-

nal Diversity, Arizona State University. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts

and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of the Sveriges Riksbank

Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009, and the Reimar Lst Award

for International Scholarly and Cultural Exchange. Her books include Governing the Com-

mons; Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources (with Roy Gardner and James Walker); Local Commons and

Global Interdependence (with Robert Keohane); The Commons in the New Millennium (with Nives Dolak);

Understanding Institutional Diversity; and Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple

Methods in Practice (with Amy Poteete and Marco Janssen).

Making Progress in Sustainability ScienceElinor Ostrom, interviewed by Arnim Wiek

Sustainability science is engaged in linking governance efforts from the local to the global level, moving forward

from understanding complex sustainability problems to creating robust solutions for them, as well as developing

strong teaching and learning approaches in this emerging inter- and transdisciplinary eld. Nobel Laureate Elinor

Ostrom reects on the state of the art in sustainability science related to these key challenges in an interview

with Arnim Wiek.

DR HIROSHI KOMIAMA, Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.

Hiroshi Komiyama became Chairman of the Institute of Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.

and President Emeritus at the University of Tokyo in April 2009, after completing four-year

presidency at the University of Tokyo. He received his Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral

degrees all from the University of Tokyo in chemical engineering respectively in 1967, 1969,

and 1972. From 1973 to 1974, he was a post doctoral fellow at the University of California

at Davis. Dr. Komiyama specializes in chemical engineering, advanced material engineering,

and global environment engineering. His research work and papers have received awards

three times from the Society of Chemical Engineers of Japan.

Low Carbon Industrial Revolution

In the 21st century, we human beings are facing a new paradigm: the earths limited resources, the aging of

society and the explosion of intelligence.

Japan has experienced these problems ahead of the rest of the world, and is currently looking for proactive so-

lutions. Hence, I proposed Vision 2050 in 1999. The Vision 2050 consists of three pillars: (1) Improve energy

efciency by three times; (2) Double the use of renewable energy; (3) Establish recycling system of materials.

The Japanese government conditionally conrmed that Japan will submit to 25% GHG reduction by 2020 on

1990 levels under the committee of ministries. Mr. Ozawa, Minister of the Environment of Japan, said The

25% GHG reduction target is challenging but also helps Japan to draw its growth strategy. The target is

achievable. 55% of Japans energy consumption occurs in daily life activities; i.e. household, commercial and

transportation sectors. The remaining 45% of consumption occurs in the manufacturing sectors.

Key Note Speakers


8/708


In addition to GHG concerns, we need to address many problems under the paradigm. I proposed a concept

of Platinum Society. It is a society where environmental problems are solved and elderly persons can live a

lively life. Development of Platinum Society enhances competitiveness of industries and supports economic

growth.

To realize Platinum society, we need to launch a new action in community bases. I proposed Platinum net-

work, an experimental platform for developing Platinum society in collaboration with local municipalities.

We can lead the world in terms of addressing global warming and creation of new industry, by expanding

Platinum network based on cooperation among citizens and application of the latest technologies such asphotovoltaic power generation, fuel cells, heat pump and eco-cars, etc. Platinum network may furthermore

promote cooperation within communities in the world in order to achieve an entirely new urban development

model throughout the world.

PARVIz KOOHAFKAN,Director, Land and Water Division, FAO, Rome

Dr. Parviz Koohafkan is presently the Director of Land and Water Division of FAO and

has a PhD. degree in Ecology from University of Sciences and Techniques of Montpellier,

France, and an engineering degree in Agronomy and Natural Resources Management from

university of Teheran, Iran. Specialized in integrated natural resources management and

sustainable development, Dr. Koohafkan is the author of several books and publications on

biodiversity, agro-ecology, climate change and sustainable development. Dr. Koohafkan is

the pioneer and coordinator of the UN Partnership Initiative on Conservation and Adaptive

Management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) presently implemented in more

than 20 countries.

Poverty-Food Insecurity- Environment Nexus: The Challenges of Sustainability in

AgricultureThe recent nancial crises followed by the food and Climate crisis have attracted increased attention to the im-

pact of globalization on poverty, food security, environmental degradation and threat to world peace, stability

and security. Entering the new millennium, stark contrasts exist between the availability of natural resources

and the demands of billions of humans who require them for their survival. Each day almost a quarter-million

people are added to the roughly 6.4 billion who already exist. Yet the stocks of natural resources that support

human life--food, fresh water, quality soil, energy, and biodiversity--are being degraded and depleted. Of the

worlds one billion hungry, 95 percent are concentrated in developing countries and of the worlds 1.2 billion

extremely poor people, 75 percent live in rural areas and depend largely on agriculture, forestry, sheries and

related activities for survival. Despite large scale urbanization, extreme poverty continues to be mainly a rural

phenomenon. For the rural poor, globalization and the increasing pressures of large industry, markets, and ur-ban consumers have, on balance, been detrimental in many places. These trends have forced small producers

and farm families out of agriculture, or led them to excessive intensication and specialization and increased

vulnerability to price uctuations, the vagaries of weather and pest and disease outbreaks. The concept of Gre-

en Economy has emerged as a sustainable solution for present and future generation that includes conservation

of remaining natural resources and greater consideration of environmental goods and services while addressing

poverty and hunger. While the challenges of sustainable development and poverty reduction are formidable,

we have greater human capacity and ingenuity than at any time in our common history. With the right policies,

investments and political will to reach into poor communities we can meet the formidable challenges of our

century. Maximizing benets and minimizing tradeoffs will require careful science and innovative institutions.

Getting the science right is a critical rst step. This requires understanding the relationships between farmers

actions and their environmental consequences, as well as understanding the socio-economic motives and con-

straints facing suppliers and beneciaries of environmental services. Equally important are the institutional in-

Key Note Speakers


9/709

novations needed to link suppliers and beneciaries. A paradigm shift from high to low carbon foot print society

that internalize ecological costs and improves energy efciency by encouraging new research and development,

creating local markets with increase employment in rural areas is needed to overcome the present unsustainable

growth based on false economic theories.

DR. MIGUEL ALTIERI

Miguel A . Altieri received a BS in Agronomy from the University of Chile and a Ph.D in

Entomology from the University of Florida. He has been a Professor of Agroecology at UC

Berkeley since 1981 in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management

( www.agroeco.organd http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu). Dr. Altieri served as a Scientic Ad-

visor to the Latin American Consortium on Agroecology and Development (CLADES) Chile

an NGO network promoting agroecology as a strategy for small farm sustainable develop-

ment in the region. Currently he is advisor to the FAO-GIAHS program ( Globally Ingenious

Agricultural Heritage Systems) a program devoted at identifying and dynamically conserving traditional farming

systems in the developing world. He is also Director of the US-Brasil Consortium on Agroecology and Sustai-

nable Rural Development (CASRD) an academic-research exchange program involving students and faculty

of UC Berkeley, University of Nebraska, UNICAMP and Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina. He is also the

general coordinator of the Latin American Scientic Society of Agroecology (www.agroeco.org/socla) He is the

author of more than 200 publications, and numerous books including Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable

Agriculture and Biodiversity, Pest Management in Agroecosystems and Agroecology and the Search for a Truly

Sustainable Agriculture.

Agroecology: the scientic basis for a biodiverse, productive, resilient and a re-source conserving and use-efcient agriculture.

There is an urgent need to promote a new agricultural production paradigm in order to ensure the production

of healthy and affordable food for an increasing human population. This challenge will need to be met using a

shrinking arable land base which is also required to produce biofuels, but with less petroleum, less water and

nitrogen and within a scenario of a rapidly changing climate, social unrest and economic uncertainty. The domi-

nant industrial agricultural model and its biotechnological derivations will not be able provide answers to such

challenges.

The agroecological paradigm emerges as the most viable option to design and promote the agroecosytems of

the future that necessarily will need to be:

Multifunctional: in addition to providing food and ber, such agroecosystems will produce ecosystem,

cultural and social services,

Resilient: capable to resist and recover from extreme climatic events and other shocks

Productive and diverse, exhibiting diverse crop-animal combinations in time and space with high rates ofrecycling and land equivalent ratios

Efcient in the use of resources and with high energy ratios

The basis of local food systems closing the circles of production and consumption

Such agroecological systems are the foundation for a durable strategy of food, energy and technological sove-reignty. The science of agroecology, which is dened as the application of ecological concepts and principles to

Key Note Speakers


10/7010


the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems, provides a framework to assess the complexity

of agroecosystems . The idea of agroecology is to go beyond the use of alternative practices and to develop

agroecosystems with a minimal dependence on high agrochemical and energy inputs, emphasizing complex

agricultural systems in which ecological interactions and synergisms between biological components provide

the mechanisms for the systems to sponsor their own soil fertility, productivity and crop protection

Thousands of small peasant and family farmers in Latin America and the developing world already practice

this kind of agriculture, offering uncompensated, environmental, social, cultural and economic benets to lar-

ge sectors of rural and urban areas. In Latin America, new approaches and technologies involving applicationof blended modern agricultural science and indigenous knowledge systems and spearheaded by thousands of

peasant organizations, NGOs and some government and academic institutions and are proving to enhance

food security while conserving natural resources, agrobiodiversity, and soil and water conservation throu-

ghout hundreds of rural communities in the region.

These successful agroecological initiatives constitute spaces of hope that need to be scaled up via horizon-

tal and participatory processes following the guidelines of the campesino a campesino model. In this pro-

cess of massication of the agroecological paradigm, agroecologists play a fundamental role in systemati-

zing the principles that underlie the success of such initiatives, and to translate such principles into practice so

that they can be converted into appropriate technological forms appropriate to the needs and circumstances

of thousands of farmers. Agroecologists also have the social responsibility to inform and motivate decision

makers to promote policies conducive to endogenous and sovereign rural development paths, including the

access of farmers to land, water, seeds, education, research, local markets, etc.

Agroecologists must also educate consumers, because their participation and support for this new type of

agriculture will be crucial and essential to their livelihoods, as the quality of life in cities ( access to safe and

nutritious food, water quality, conservation of oral and faunal biodiversity, carbon sequestration, microcli-

mate, etc) is increasingly dependent on the presence of an agroecologically based agriculture in the urban

periphery.

Natures thresholds have been overwhelmed by accelerated agricultural economic growth and the extreme

modication of landscapes by monocultures and extreme use of polluting agrochemicals. Agroecology provi-

des the scientic basis to revert such processes and restore a more biodiverse and resilient agriculture capableof producing food an ecosystem services so vital for the survival of a planet in crisis.

The scientic community should endorse the emerging agroecological grassroots efforts, and become part of

the growing awareness about the need to design a new agriculture that enhances the environment, preserves

local cultures and associated biodiversity, promotes food sovereignty and the multiple functions of small farm

agriculture. The immediate challenge for our generation is to transform industrial agriculture by transitioning

the worlds food systems away from reliance on fossil fuels, develop an agriculture that is resilient to climatic

variability and promote local forms of agriculture that ensure food sovereignty and the livelihoods of rural

communities.

CORRADO CLINI

Dr. Corrado Clini is Director General of the Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea of

Italy since 1990. He is Chairman of the inter-ministerial task force of the Italian Government

for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Chairman of the G8 - Global Bioenergy Part-

nership since 2006 and Chairman of the European Environment and Health Committee

since 2007. He is Member of the Clinton Global Initiative. He is Visiting professor at the

Department for Environmental Sciences and Engineering Tshingua University Beijing andVisiting Professor at Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Key Note Speakers


11/7011

JILL JGER, Sustainable Europe Research Institute

Jill Jger is a member of the European Sustainability Science Group (www.essg.eu) and a

well-known author on sustainability and policy. She has worked as a consultant on energy,

environment, and climate for national and international organizations. She is also a senior

researcher at SERI in Vienna, Austria. She has served as the Executive Director of the Inter-

national Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, and as Deputy

Director of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Her main eld of interest

is in the linkages between science and policy in the development of responses to global

environmental issues.

Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainability Science

In Europe, in particular, sustainability science is implementation-oriented in areas dealing with persistent pro-

blems of unsustainability that have a high level of complexity. The focus is therefore on the design and running

of processes linking knowledge with action to foster transitions to sustainability. In order to do this, however, a

number of barriers must be overcome. Taking a strategic approach towards specic implementation is still consi-

dered by many to be going beyond the remit of science. Current peer-review and project evaluation procedures

generally do not support this type of work. Funding is generally not available for the long-term, implementation-oriented, goal-searching processes that are needed. Scientists rarely have a mandate to engage in this kind of

work and academic institutions rarely give credit for these hands-on strategic processes of engagement. Some

recent discussions on overcoming these barriers will be presented.

Key Note Speakers


12/7012


SESSION I

SESSION IFrom complex thinking to transformational change:epistemological and methodological challengesfor sustainability scienceChair: ARNIM WIEK, Arizona State UniversityCo-Chair: FRANCESCA FARIOLI, Sapienza University Rome

Background Paper

Preface

The Second International Conference on Sustainability Science (ICSS) has the central aim of mapping and

structuring the existing knowledge, methodology, and research priorities in sustainability science a eld that

seems to become more and more fragmented and disperse. ICSS 2010 aims at mitigating this risk by producing

tangible outputs for the consolidation and advancement of sustainability science.

This Background Paper has three functions:

outlining the central theme of the session, the current state of knowledge (literature overview), and openresearch questions

guidance for the invited speakers to prepare their contributions

ensuring an informed and productive discussion at the conference

Central theme of this session

About a decade ago, the emerging eld of sustainability science has been introducedwith some ambivalenceregarding its epistemology and methodology (Kates et al., 2001). In one stream of its early reception, sustaina-

bility science has been conceptualized as an advanced form of complex system analysis. Turner et al. (2003a)

state in a prominent article on sustainability science and vulnerability analysis: The emergence of sustainabi-

lity science builds toward an understanding of the human environment condition with the dual objectives of

meeting the needs of society while sustaining the life support systems of the planet. (p. 8074; cf. Turner et al.,

2003b, p. 8080). The epistemological goal is enhanced understanding, the methodological approach builds

on advanced analytical-descriptive tools.

Yet, at the same time, Clark and Dickson (2003) spelled out a more transformational agenda according to

which the research community needs to complement its historic role in identifying problems of sustainability

with a greater willingness to join with the development and other communities to work on practical solutions to

those problems (p. 8059).1 This agenda does not imply that sustainability scientists would solve problems or

take decisions on their own, yet, it clearly points in the direction that the epistemological goal of sustainability

science needs to be broader than understanding coupled human-environment systems. The transformational

version suggests that sustainability science goes beyond the questions of how our coupled human-environment

systems have evolved (past), are currently functioning (present), and might further develop (future). As a so-

lution-oriented endeavor, sustainability science addresses the normative question of how these systems ought

to be developed in ways that would accomplish a variety of value-laden goals, for instance, to balance socio-

economic needs and environmental capacities (cf. Gibson, 2006). To this end, sustainability scientists engage

with a broad range of stakeholders to develop joint and coordinated strategies for how to solve sustainability

problems (van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2006).

The co-creation of uncommon types of knowledge is required to succeed on this pathway. These types com-plement descriptive-analytical knowledge (where are we) and provide sustainability actions and transformations


13/7013

with direction (where should we be) and operational structure (how do we get there). This quest is challenged

by critical issues of uncertainty and dissent, as well as asymmetrical power relations that give particular interests

more weight than others. These and other challenges have trapped sustainability science to remain in the safe

space of conventional knowledge production (descriptive-analytical knowledge) and to support the system-

analytical stream of sustainability science mentioned above.

In sum, the eld of sustainability science is still emerging and it is still characterized by the challenge of how

to move from complex systems thinking to transformational change. This session reviews the current state

of the debate, addresses some of the open research questions, and facilitates a synthesis discussion on how tomove from problem analysis to problem solving and what epistemological and methodological challenges this

endeavor entails.

This session is not intended to continue the common theoretical debate. It confronts the theory with empirical

studies in sustainability science by posing the question in how far we truly advance in solving sustainability pro-

blems as opposed to only enhancing our understanding of these problems (see section 5 below).

Current state of knowledge

Sustainable use of landscape and natural resources, mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change

affected regions, or precautionary governance of emerging technologies are complex sustainability challenges

that have driven the evolvement of a new scientic paradigm, i.e. sustainability science, over the last decade

(Kates et al., 2001; Clark and Dickson, 2003; Swart et al., 2004; Komiyama and Takeuchi, 2006; Turner and

Robbins, 2008). Thereby, sustainability science is inspired by concepts of post-normal and mode 2 science

(Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993; Gibbons et al., 1994) and employs corresponding research paradigms such as

participatory, interactive, transdisciplinary, transacademic, collaborative, and community-based research ap-

proaches (Kasemir et al., 2003; Bckstrand, 2003). All these approaches have in common that they endorse

research collaborations among scientists and non-academic stakeholders from business, government, and the

civil society for addressing issues of sustainability. This evolvement can be understood as a response to two

developments that led to the proposal of a new social contract for science (Lubchenco, 1998; Gibbons, 1999):

First, to the asserted claim that science ought to address and solve demanding societal problems, a claim that

is renewed in the context of the global environmental change debate (Liu et al., 2007, p. 646); and second, tothe indication that traditional disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches as well as applied and consultative

(extractive) approaches with restricted stakeholder engagement tend to fail in coping with sustainability chal-

lenges (Gibbons, 1999; Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2006).

Regardless indisputable success, a variety of reexive and meta-studies indicate that sustainability science ef-

forts have not yet unfold their full potential (Cash et al., 2003; Blackstock and Carter, 2007; Wiek, 2007; Ro-

binson, 2008). Although being experienced, committed, and equipped with the best intentions, sustainability

science teams have a hard time to perform in line with the new requirements and to achieve their goal to move

from analyzing to solving sustainability problems. The referenced authors argue that these shortcomings are to

a signicant extent caused by incompatibility with the established research institutions and paradigms in place

(rules-in-use). It is assumed that epistemological and methodological standards for issue legitimization and pe-

er-review tend to undermine key features of sustainability science. Albeit we might adhere to some transitional

rules and formats at the early stages of an evolving eld, it seems to be timely to move forward in establishing

new rules and paradigms that adequately respond to the new features of sustainability science.

Epistemological studies have initially pursued to establish a functional typology of knowledge differentiating

and linking (a) analytical (explanatory, systemic, system) knowledge, (b) anticipatory knowledge, (c) normati-

ve (orientation-guiding, goal, target) knowledge, and (d) action-guiding (transformation) knowledge (Burger

and Kamber, 2003; Grunwald, 2004; Grunwald, 2007; Wiek, 2007). More recent studies have focused on the

uncommon knowledge types, namely, normative knowledge (Schultz et al., 2008) and strategic knowledge

(Loorbach, 2010).

Methodological studies have initially developed frameworks of how to link knowledge to action in sustai-

1 The concept of solving sustainability problems and solutions for sustainability problems respectively does not follow a simple command & control

approach, but is based on participation, coordination, iteration, and reexivity (cf. van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2006).


14/7014


SESSION I

nability research (Ravetz, 2000; Scholz et al., 2006; Robinson, 2008; Loorbach, 2010) and later focused on

particular methods in sustainability science, such as scenario analysis (Swart et al., 2004; Guimares Pereira et

al., 2007) and sustainability assessments (Bojorquez-Tapia et al., 2005; Gibson, 2006; Ness et al., 2007). Re-

cent studies have explored the methodology of post-normal science in sustainability science (Farrell, 2008) and

suggested new methodological approaches to problem structuring (Ness, 2010).

Open research questionsAs with any other academic pursuit, the credibility of sustainability science relies on conducting empirical rese-

arch using sound epistemological and methodological foundations. In addition to purposefully and thoroughly

applying methods, a good understanding of the specic strengths and limits of the methods as well as a critical

appraisal of the knowledge generated are required.

The key question remains What type of knowledge and how do we generate knowledge in sustainability scien-

ceto comply with the ambitious transformational program that has been set forth?

Specic epistemological questions address: what type of knowledge is generated (analytical/descriptive, anti-

cipatory, normative, strategic knowledge); does the generated knowledge fulll the promise of leading to real-

world solutions and transformations; what is the reliability and validity of the knowledge; how credible, salient,

and legitimate is the knowledge generated? Etc.

Specic methodological questions address: who interacts with whom, when, on what, how, and to what

extent in sustainability research and problem-solving (stakeholder selection, balancing inputs, intensity of

collaboration, facilitation, mediation and negotiation, etc.); what features do qualify the applied methods

as sustainability method; does the participatory seeting allow to produce different knowledge types that

lead to real-world solutions, e.g., methods for problem identication and structuring, system analysis, sce-

nario construction, option analysis, multi-criteria assessment, strategy building, evaluation, etc. and/or their

combination (that sustainability science must be created through the processes of coproduction in which

scholars and stakeholders interact to dene important questions, relevant evidence, and convincing forms ofargument (Kates et al., 2001))? Etc.

Session contributions

This session calls for epistemological and methodological contributions on sustainability research guided by the

question What type of knowledge and how do we generate knowledge in sustainability scienceto comply

with the ambitious transformational program that has been set forth? We are interested in truly epistemolo-

gical and methodological contributions reecting on the epistemological and methodological challenges related

to sustainability scienceinstead of studies that simply apply or propose methods in sustainability research

(cf. Blackstock and Carter, 2007).

Each session contribution is asked to analyze one or multiple empirical studies in sustainability science and cri-

tically reect on (and make and argument for) how these studies transition from complex systems thinking

to transformational change and actually do sustainability problem-solving. Thereby, the session showcases

a spectrum of current empirical sustainability studies and explores in how far they fulll (or not fulll) the

promise of sustainability science (do we actually solve complex sustainability problems as theory and society

demand?).

The following framework allows to analyze and to compare the epistemological and methodological compo-

nents of sustainability research as well as to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses in order to indicate the

current state of the art as well as future research directions in sustainability science.


15/7015

SESSION I

Each contribution should:

1. briey introduce one or multiple empirical sustainability studies (with or without involvement of the

authors): the topic/eld, collaborating partners, duration, etc. of the study/studies

2. elaborate on

a. what sustainability problem was addressed in the study/studies analyzed (what features do qualify

the problem as a sustainability problem)

b. what sustainability method was used; what participatory setting was applied (who was involved and

how)

c. what results were accomplished; in how far the problem was solved

3. reect on

a. the quality of the process and the results (transparency, inclusiveness, validity, credibility, etc.)

b. the type of real-world changes and transformation that have been accomplished in the study

4. reect on potential improvements if the process or results have not fullled the expectations (what

could/should have been done differently)

A good example for the type of meta-studies we are calling for can be found in Blackstock and Carter (2007,

pp. 346-351).

Structure of the session

1. Arnim Wiek, Arizona State University, USA: Introduction

2. Katharine Farrell, :

3. Fridolin Brand, ETH Zurich, Switzerland:

4. Petra Schweizer-Ries, Saarland University, Germany:

5. Barry Ness, Lund University, Sweden:

6. All: Synthesis of session results (including future research agenda)

References

Bckstrand K., 2003. Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens

in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 3(4): 24-41

Blackstock, K.L., Carter, C.E., 2007. Operationalising sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reec-

ting on three pilot projects. The Geographical Journal 173, 343357.

Burger, P., Kamber, R., 2003. Cognitive integration in transdisciplinary science: Knowledge as a key notion. Is-

sues in Integrative Studies 21: 4373.

Cash, D., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., Guston, D., Jger, J., Mitchell, R., 2003. Knowledge

systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 8086-8091.

Clark, W.C., Dickson, N.M., 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 8059-8061.


16/7016


Farrell, K.N., 2008. The politics of science and sustainable development: Marcuses new science in the 21st

century. Capitalism Nature Socialism19:68-83.

Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 735-755.

Gallopn, G.C., Vessuri, H., 2006. Science for sustainable development: articulating knowledges. In: Guimares

Pereira, A., Guedes Vaz, S., Tognetti, S. (eds.). Interfaces between Science and Society. Shefeld, UK: Greenleaf.

Chapter 2.

Gibbons, M., 1999. Sciences new social contract with society. Nature 402, C81-C84.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1994. The New Production of

Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Gibson, R.B. (2006), Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach, Impact Assessment

and Project Appraisal 24: 170182.

Grunwald, A., 2004. Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: the need for reexivity and learning at

the interface between science and society. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1, 150-167.

Grunwald, A., 2007. Working towards sustainable development in the face of uncertainty and incomplete

knowledge. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9, 245-262.

Guimares Pereira, A., von Schomberg, R., Funtowicz, S., 2007. Foresight knowledge assessment. International

Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3, 53 75.

Kasemir, B., Jager, J., Jaeger, C.C., & Gardner, M.T. (2003). Public Participation in Sustainability Science A

Handbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kates, R W, W C Clark, R Corell, J M Hall, C C Jaeger, I Lowe, J J McCarthy, H J Schellnhuber, B Bolin, N M Dick-

son, S Faucheux, G C Gallopin, A Grubler, B Huntley, J Jager, N S Jodha, R E Kasperson, A Mabogunje, P Matson,

H Mooney, B Moore III, R ORiordan and U Svendin 2001. Sustainability Science. Science, 291, 641-642.

van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of

Environment and Resources 31, 445-477.

Komiyama, H., Takeuchi, K., 2006. Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1, 1-6.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., et al., 2007. Coupled human and natural systems. AM-

BIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36, 639649.

Lubchenco, J., 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279,

491-497.

Modvar, C., Gallopn, G.C., 2005. Sustainable Development: Epistemological Challenges to Science and Tech-

nology. Report of the Workshop on Sustainable Development: Epistemological Challenges to Science and Tech-

nology, 13-15 October 2004, ECLAC, Santiago, Chile.

Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalua, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2007. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment.

Ecological Economics 60: 498508.

Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2010. Structuring problems in sustainability science: The multilevel DPSIR

SESSION I


17/7017

framework. Geoforum 41: 479488.

Ravetz, J. 2000. Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 20: 3164.

Robinson, J., 2008. Being undisciplined Transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures 40,

70-86.

Scholz, R.W., Lang, D. Wiek, A. Walter, A., Stauffacher, M. 2006. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of

sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Edu-

cation 7: 226251.

Schultz J., Brand F.S., Kopfmueller J. & Ott K., 2008. Building a Theory of Sustainable Development: Two

salient conceptions within the German discourse. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Deve-

lopment 7: 465-482.

Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., Robinson, J., 2004. The problem of the future Sustainability science and scenario analy-

sis. Global Environmental Change 14, 137-146.

Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., et al., 2003a. A framework for vulnera-

bility analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100: 8074-8079.

Turner, B.L., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L. et al., 2003b. Illustrating the coupled

human-environment system for vulnerability analysis Three case studies. Proceedings of the National Aca-

demy of Sciences USA 100: 8080-8085.

Turner II BL, Robbins P., 2008. Land-change science and political ecology: Similarities, differences, and implica-

tions for sustainability science. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33: 295-316

Wiek, A., 2007. Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation Experiences from

transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 16, 52-57.

SESSION I


18/7018


Chair: ARNIM WIEK, Arizona State University, School of Sustainability

Dr. Wiek is an Assistant Professor at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State Univer-

sity. He has conducted sustainability research on emerging technologies, urban develop-

ment, land use conicts, resource governance, and climate change in Europe, Canada,

USA, Sri Lanka, and Costa Rica. He carries out research in close collaboration with non-

academic partners from government, business, and the civil society. He had prior research

engagements at ETH Zurich, the University of British Columbia, and the University of

Tokyo.

From complex systems thinking to transformational change: Epistemological andmethodological challenges in sustainability science Introduction to Session I

About a decade ago, the eld of sustainability science has been launchedwith some ambivalence regarding its

epistemology and methodology. In one stream of its early reception, sustainability science has been conceptua-

lized as an advanced form of complex system analysis with the epistemological goal to enhance understanding

and the methodological approach to apply analytical-descriptive tools. At the same time, a more transforma-

tional agenda has been proposed according to which the research community needs to complement its hi-

storic role in identifying problems of sustainability with a greater willingness to join with the development and

other communities to work on practical solutions to those problems (Clark and Dickson, 2003, p. 8059). This

agenda points in the direction that the epistemological goal needs to be broader than understanding coupled

human-environment systems. As a solution-oriented endeavor, sustainability science addresses the normative

question of how coupled human-environment systems ought to be developed in ways that comply with a set

of commonly shared goals.

The co-creation of uncommon types of knowledge is required to succeed on this pathway. These types comple-

ment descriptive-analytical knowledge (where are we) and provide sustainability actions and transformations

with direction (where should we be) and operational structure (how do we get there). As sustainability science

is still emerging, this session reviews the current state of the debate, addresses some of the open research que-

stions, and facilitates a synthesis discussion on how to move from from complex systems thinking to transfor-mational change, and what epistemological and methodological challenges this endeavor entails. The session

confronts the theoretical debate with empirical studies in sustainability science by posing the question in how

far we truly advance in solving sustainability problems as opposed to only enhancing our understanding of these

problems.

Co-Chair: FRANCESCA FARIOLI

Coordinator of the Research Unit Energy, Environment and Development at CIRPS-In-teruniversity Research Centre for Sustainable Development, Sapienza University of Rome,

PhD. Professor of energy sustainability at Marconi University, Rome. She has conducted

research on energy for sustainable development, sustainability assessment and policy im-

plications (CDM and bioenergy). Her approach aims to bridge research, practice and policy.

She forms part of experts for indicators development and good practices for the Global

Bioenergy Partnership and BEFSCI FAO project.

SESSION I


19/7019

BARR NESS,LUCSUS,Lund UniversityBarry Ness is a researcher at the Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS) at Lund Univer-

sity in Sweden. He received his Ph.D. in Sustainability Science from Lund in 2008. Barrys

past research experience has focused on amongst other areas understanding the myriad

tools that exist for assessing sustainability and structuring complex sustainability challenges

through multi-scale and level perspectives. Recent research focuses on the governance of

large-scale land acquisition projects in the Global South for food and biofuels production as

well as the epistemological and methodological development of sustainability science. Barry

is an Earth System Governance Fellow and has an active role teaching in the LUMES Masters program at Lund

University, with particular ties to the energy, methods and sustainability science courses.

The EU MATISSE (WP 6) project as a catalyst for transformational change?

The presentation concentrates on how the EU FP6 Matisse project, and in particular work package 6, moves

from complex systems thinking to transformational change. The analysis nds that no single sustainability

challenge of the Ebro River Basin in Spain (object of focus) was necessarily solved. It does show however that

insights were gained through the creation and application of a participatory agent-based gaming tool made up

of system dynamics modeling, GIS data (e.g. hydrological) and different agent (cultural theory) types. Sociallearning in the more specic forms ofsustainability learning and transition learning took place through use of

the gaming tool by stakeholder groups; social learning amongst work package partners (interdisciplinarity) also

occurred through the fusing of the engineering, natural and social sciences in the creation of the gaming tool.

Suggested improvements for the work package include amongst others the earlier delivery of the gaming tool

in order to create more sophisticated insights into participatory processes, as well as augmented boundary-

spanning efforts by project participants and funding organizations in sustainability problem-solving efforts.

KATHARINE N. FARRELL,Autonomous University of Barcelonaand Central European University

Katharine N. Farrell is an Ecological Economist and Political Theorist, holding three honours degrees and one

degree by research and is a member of Pi Sigma Alpha. Her work focuses on the political economy of knowledge

in environmental governance, ecological political economy, inter- and transdisciplinary research methodology,

and the role of time and tradition in processes and principles of economic production. She is currently a Post-

doctoral Researcher with the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University

of Barcelona and a Lecturer in Ecological Economics at the Central European University, in Budapest.

Seeing is Believing: a meta-assessment of the methodological and epistemologicalstrengths and weakness of a consciously self-reective participatory modellingexercise

This paper is a contribution toward a comparative assessment of applied sustainability science projects, which is

being carried out in collaboration, amongst the panellists for this session. Following specications issued by the

session chair, and additional criteria drawn from the authors own empirical and theoretical work, it considers

the structure, results and overall effectiveness of the applied sustainability science project reported upon in

Serrat-Capdevila, A., A. Browning-Aiken, K. Lansey, T. Finan, and J. B. Valds. 2009. Increasing socialecologi-

cal resilience by placing science at the decision table: the role of the San Pedro Basin (Arizona) decision-support

system model Ecology and Society 14(1): 37. The aims and objectives of the project are rst reviewed and thenconsidered within the context of the framework provided to the session contributors: what qualies this work as

SESSION I


20/7020


asustainability science; what sustainability science method(s) was/were used; what results were accomplished;

in how far the problem was solved; reections on - the quality of the process and the results, the type of real-

world changes and transformation that have been accomplished through the study and potential improvements.

In keeping with earlier works of the author, this is structured to address two aspects of effectiveness: 1. metho-

dological concerning the overall epistemological robustness of the empirically entailed aspects of the work

and 2. political concerning the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the politically entailed aspects of

the work. The example is found to be of high quality on both counts. The paper concludes with reections on

possible reasons for this and also raises some cautions regarding problems of quality that do arise with the ap-proach taken in the study project.

FRIDOLIN S. BRAND, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

Dr. Fridolin S. Brand is working since 2009 as a postdoc researcher and lecturer at the

Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED); Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI) at

the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich in Switzerland. From 1999 to 2005

Fridolin Brand studied biology and philosophy at the universities of Mainz, Greifswald (Ger-

many) and Perth (Australia). From 2005 to 2009, he worked at the Chair of Landscape

Ecology at the Technische Universitt Mnchen in Germany with a PhD on Resilience and

Sustainable Development: an Ecological Inquiry.

Moving towards a solution-oriented mode of sustainability science: Evidence onopportunities and challenges from two case studies in Switerland and Germany

Sustainability science can achieve progress if it moves towards a solution-oriented endeavor, which implies

shifting from pure complex systems thinking to also targeting transformational change [1]. Based on evidence

from two case studies, the CCES-MOUNTLAND project in Switzerland and the Risk Habitat Megacity Research

Initiative in Germany, I will formulate several hypotheses central to achieve progress in sustainability science in

terms of solution-orientation. First, in order to get a better understanding of how systems ought to develop,

sustainability science needs an intense academic discourse and transdisciplinary learning process on building

a well-founded Theory of Sustainable Development. Such theory building opposes hundreds of stipulative

denitions of the current literature, as it aims to provide good and convincing arguments for every layer of a

theory (i.e. idea, conception, rules, guidelines, applications, special concepts, monitoring) [2]. Second, we have

to nd ways to enhance knowledge integration of different types of epistemics (e.g. scientic and experiential

knowledge, utilizing and relating disciplinary knowledge from the social, natural, and engineering sciences) [3].

Third, sustainability science should establish a transdisciplinary mode and carry out transdisciplinary processes

involving scientists, decision-makers and the overall public. This includes joint problem denition, problem re-

presentation, and the development of orientations for sustainable transformations [4]. This presentation willalso highlight further issues illustrating chances and pitfalls for achieving progress in sustainability science.

[1] Wiek, A. From complex thinking to transformational change: epistemological and methodological challenges

in sustainability science. Background paper for session 1 at the Second International Conference on Sustainabi-

lity Science ICSS 2010.

[2] Schultz J., Brand F.S., Kopfmller J. & Ott K. (2008). Building a Theory of Sustainable Development: Two

Salient Conceptions within the German Discourse International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Deve-

lopment, 7 (4): 465 482.

[3] Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies

as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability

in Higher Education, 7(3), 226-251.

SESSION I


21/7021

[4] Scholz, R. W. (in press). Environmental literacy in science and society: From knowledge to decisions. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prof. Dr. PETRA SCHWEIzER-RIES als Juniorprofessorin,University of Saarland/University of Magdeburg, Germany

Petra Schweizer-Ries is a social and behavioural scientist who has been working on rene-wable energy technologies for over 15 years. She worked with the Fraunhofer Institute for

Solar Energy Systems (ISE) from 1992 until 2002, where she founded an interdisciplinary

work group on rural electrication. Since 2002 she has been a Junior Professor for Environ-

mental Psychology at the University of Magdeburg, Germany. There, she leads a research

group working on different social aspects of energy distribution and introduction in rural

and grid-connected areas. She currently represents the chair for Sustainable Development

at the University of Saarland, Germany.

How to support complex sustainable development processes Research on energysustainable communities

Unsustainable energy systems result in global emissions, rely on resources with limited availability and accessi-

bility, and imply high risks for public health and the environment (e.g., coal and nuclear power). Sustainability

science is concerned with the question of how to transition from unsustainable energy systems (supply and use)

towards sustainable ones that do not deplete the energy resources available. At the same time, sustainability

science aims at facilitating these transition processes in ways that community change supports social develop-

ment (empowering end-users) and not bring about unwanted consequences (misbalanced power structures).

This requires thorough research on transition strategies that account for coherence, efciency, and sufciency.

The talk presents community-oriented research on energy transitions with case studies from Africa, Asia, Latin

America, and Europe. The studies deal with balancing technical solutions and social distributional issues within

a developmental process. The analysis identies success factors and failures concerning socio-technical systems

change via scientic co-production of knowledge (action-research).

SESSION I


22/7022


SESSION IISolution-oriented/transdisciplinary researchfor sustainable development

Chair: PIM MARTENS, Maastricht UniversityCo-chair: SILVIA MACCHI, Sapienza University of Rome

Background Paper

Introduction

It is clear that in making the concept of sustainable development concrete, one has to take into account a

number of practical elements and obstacles. Thus there is little doubt that integrated approaches are needed

to support sustainable development. Questions as to exactly how such integration underpinned by the right

research - should be conceived and put into effect have so far been the preserve of a select group.

In order to realize the high level of expectations, a new research paradigm is needed that is better able to reect

the complexity and the multidimensional character of sustainable development. The new paradigm must be

able to encompass different magnitudes of scales (of time, space and function), multiple balances (dynamics),

multiple actors (interests) and multiple failures (systemic faults).

This new paradigm emerges from a scientic sub-current that characterizes the evolution of science in general

a shift from mode-1 to mode-2 science (see Table 1) (Gibbons 1994). Mode-1 science is completely acade-

mic in nature, monodisciplinary and the scientists themselves are mainly responsible for their own scientic

performance. In mode-2 science, which is at core both inter- and intra-disciplinary, the scientists form a part of

a heterogeneous network. Their scientic tasks are part of an extensive process of knowledge production and

they are also responsible for more than merely scientic production.

Another paradigm that is gaining increasing inuence is what is known as post-normal science. It is impossibleto eradicate uncertainty from decision-making processes, and therefore it must be adequately managed through

organized participatory processes in which different kinds of knowledge not only scientic knowledge come

into play. As a result, those making policy are as well informed as possible about complex social problems of

major importance.

Table 1: Several properties of mode-1 and mode-2 science

Mode-1 science Mode-2 science

Academic Academic and socialMono-disciplinary Trans- and interdisciplinary

Technocratic Participative

Certain Uncertain

Predictive Exploratory

SESSION II


23/7023

The research programme that is beginning to emerge from this movement is known as Sustainability Science.

Sustainability is characterized by a number of shared research principles. Shared here implies a broad recogni-

tion by a growing group of people who in a steadily extending network are active in the area of sustainability

science. The central elements of sustainability science are:

inter-, intra- and transdisciplinary research

co-production of knowledge

co-evolution of a complex system and its environment

learning through doing and doing through learning

system innovation instead of system optimalization

Simply stated, this new model can be represented as co-evolution, co-production and co-learning. The theory

of complex systems can be employed as an umbrella mechanism to bring together the various different parts

of the sustainability puzzle.

Integrated analysis of sustainability

This new paradigm has far-reaching consequences for the methods and techniques that need to be developed

before an integrated analysis of sustainability can be carried out. These new methods and techniques can also

be characterized as follows:

from supply- to demand-driven

from technocratic to participant

from objective to subjective

from predictive to exploratory

from certain to uncertain

In short, the character of our instruments of integrated analysis is changing. Whereas previous generations of

these instruments were considered as truth machines, the current and future generations will be seen more as

heuristic instruments, as aids in the acquisition of better insight into complex problems of sustainability. At each

stage in the research of sustainability science, new methods and techniques will need to be used, extended or

invented. The methodologies that are used and developed in the integrated assessmentcommunity are highly

suitable for this purpose.

Roughly, there are a number of different kinds of methods for the integrated assessment of sustainability:

analytic methods, participative methods and more managerial methods. Analytic methods mainly look at the

nature of sustainable development, employing among other approaches the theory of complexity. In participa-

tive research approaches, non-scientists such as policy-makers, representatives from the business world, social

organizations and citizens also play an active role. The more managerial methods are used to investigate the

policy aspects and the controllability of sustainable transitions.

An example of an analytic instrument for the assessment of sustainability is the integrated assessment model

which allows one to describe and explain changes between periods of dynamic balance. This model consists of

a system-dynamic representation of the driving forces, system changes, consequences, feed-backs, potential

lock-ins and lock-outs of a particular development in a specic area. Another analytic instrument is the scenario

that describes sustainable and unsustainable developments, including unexpected events, changes and lines of

fracture.

Participatory methods differ according to the aim of the study and its participants. Thus negotiation processes

SESSION II


24/7024


are mimicked in so-called policy exercises, whether or not these are supported by simulations. In the method

of mutual learning, the analysis is enriched by the integration of the knowledge possessed by participants from

diverse areas of expertise.

An example of a new kind of policy instrument is provided by transition management (Rotmans, Kemp et al.

2001). Transition management is a visionary, evolutionary learning process that is progressively constructed by

the undertaking following steps:

I. develop a long-term vision of sustainable development and a common agenda (macro-scale)

II. formulate and execute a local experiment in renewal that could perhaps contribute to the transition to

sustainability (micro-scale)

III. evaluate and learn from these experiments

IV. put together the vision and the strategy for sustainability, based on what has been learned (this boils

down to a cyclicalsearch and learn process that one might call evolutionary steering: a new kind of

planning with understanding, based on learning by doing and doing through learning).

But now that the rst steps towards an integrated sustainability science have been taken, there is a prospect of

making some major leaps forward.

Operationalizing Sustainability

Following publication of the Brundtland Report, numerous attempts were made to operationalize sustainable

development. The most popular and common attempt is the triangular concept with the three pillars eco-

nomy, environment, and society, which in recent years has in some contexts come to be referred to as the

P3 concept of people, planet, prots.

Economy refers to jobs and wealth; environment to environmental qualities, biodiversity, and natures

resources; and society to health, social cohesion, and opportunities for self-development attributable to edu-

cation and freedom.

The pillar-focused approaches have gained great popularity, particularly in business circles, but they have often

suffered from insufcient attention to overlaps and interdependencies and a tendency to facilitate continued

separation of societal, economic, and ecological analyses. Alternative depictions stressing interconnections and

consideration of institutional aspectsas in the SCENE model of (Grosskurth and Rotmans 2005) offer useful

ways forward.

Concerns with the poor and the weak that should be part of the sustainability debate do not feature prominently

in the pillar approaches. These are, however, captured by the four principles of (Newman and Kenworthy 1993):

The elimination of poverty, especially in the Third World, is necessary not just on human grounds but asan environmental issue

The First World must reduce its consumption of resources and production of wastes

Global cooperation on environmental issues is no longer a soft option

Change towards sustainability can occur only with community-based approaches that take local cultures

seriously

An interesting aspect of the above denition is the attention given to local cultures and community-based de-

cision making, a strategy that renders sustainable development less technocratic.

The requirements of sustainable development are multiple and interconnected. The main dimensions can be said

to consist of maintaining the integrity of biophysical systems; offering better services for more people; and pro-

SESSION II


25/7025

viding freedom from hunger, nuisance, and deprivation. To these one may add choice, opportunity, and access

to decision makingaspects of equity within and across generations.

Towards a transdiciplinary strategy for sustainable development

A research framework for sustainability science will need to be further built on existing sciences and scientic

programmes. Principal opportunities and policies for transitions to sustainability are multiple, cumulative and

interactive. We need more, however, before we can study the sustainability of the interaction between the pla-

net and its ecosystems and peoples.

It should be clear that sustainability science will have to be above all an integrative science, a science which sets

out to break down the barriers that divide the traditional sciences. It will have to promote the integration betwe-

en such different scientic disciplines as economics, earth sciences, biology, social sciences and technology.

The same can be said for sectoral approaches, in which such closely linked aspects of human activity as energy,

agriculture, health and transport are still dealt with as separate subjects.

The most signicant threats to sustainability appear in certain regions, with their specic social and ecological

characteristics. In fact, a sustainable transition will often have to occur within the local surroundings. Howe-

ver, sustainability science has to promote integration on a larger geographical scale in order to get beyond the

sometimes easy but nally articial division between global and local perspectives. Regardless of what spatialscale is found most suitable for the investigation of any particular sustainability issues, gaining insight into the

linkages between events on both the macro and the micro scale is one of the major challenges facing sustaina-

bility science.

Finally, sustainability science must ensure the integration of different styles of knowledge creation in order to

bridge the gulf between science, practice and politics.

In other words, it has to transcend existing barriers in sectors, scientic disciplines, and perspectives.

Sustainable policy

If we look at the consequences of this new vision of sustainability for policy, we can note the following. It is

important for policy-makers both in politics and in the business community that specic policy aims along

with their associated time limits are clearly determined. Several possibilities are shown in the diagram below

(Figure 1). One of the options the policy-maker has and this is not so far from the current situation is to go

for short-term goals and simple or cheap means of achieving them. In contrast to such an approach, a more

pro-active, innovative standpoint can be adopted that pursues longer-term goals, taking into account develop-

ments on different levels of scale and in different sectors. Unquestionably, sustainable development demands

the latter approach.

To facilitate decision-making, sustainability scientists must assist in the task of making concrete both problems

and solutions on all relevant temporal and spatial scales. This means that sustainability at the systemic level

must be assessed, bringing to bear the following procedural elements: analysis of deeper-lying structures of the

system,projection into the future and assessmentof sustainable and unsustainable trends. Evaluation of the

effects of sustainable policy and the design of possible solutions through sustainable strategies also belong here.

Fortunately, integrated approaches to sustainability issues in such areas as environment and development are

not entirely new. For example, research has already been carried out into the interactions between urban, rural,

industrial and natural ecosystems in order to gain more insight into policy implications for the management of

water. The search for integrated theories that combine different disciplinary strengths is an excellent way of

creating a better basis for decision-making on sustainability.

Conclusion

From an anthropocentric point of view, sustainable development is about human betterment or progress. It

reects social consensus of what is unsustainable and what constitutes improvement, and therefore cannotbe translated into a blueprint or a dened end state for the achievement of which criteria can be derived and

SESSION II


26/7026


unambiguous decisions taken (Voss and Kemp 2006).

Sustainable development is often seen as being about protection of amenities (including cultural diversity), but,

as this article argues, it is equally about continued advancement and creation: a better and more just world.

Both the protection of amenities and the creation of new and better services for more people require innovation

in governance institutions and in sociotechnical systems (regime changes). Attempts to achieve these objectives

should be carried out in a prudent, reexive manner to avoid new problems and to make sure that actions taken

lead to progress.

Sustainability science, based on integrated assessment, may help to identify directions in which change is nee-

ded. But the sustainability of new trajectories is not guaranteed. We need more reexive modes of governance

to make sure that the trajectories are indeed sustainable. Sustainability science can guide decision making, pro-

viding provisional knowledge about social problems, the desirability of new systems of provision, and the long-

term effects of interventionsissues on which science has no denitive answer. We do not think that sustainable

development can be objectied using mode-1 science. To try to do so would go against the grain of sustainable

development as a deeply normative process that requires attention to long-term effects across various scales

(e.g., geographic, functional systems, time). Sustainability may be understood as a specic kind of problem fra-

ming that emphasizes the interconnectedness of different issues and scales, as well as the long-term and indirect

effects of actions that need to be accounted for as part of decision making (Voss and Kemp 2006).

References

Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in comtemporary

science. London, Sage.

Grosskurth, J. and J. Rotmans (2005). The scene model: getting grip on sustainable development in policy

making. Environment, development and sustainability 7: 135-151.

Kemp, R. and P. Martens (2007). Sustainable development: How to manage something that is subjective and

never can be achieved? Science, Practice and Policy 2(2): 1-10.

Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: science or ction? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 2(1): 1-5.

Newman, P. and J. Kenworthy (1993). Sustainability and Cities. Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Wa-

shington, DC, Island Press.

Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, et al. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy.

Foresight 3(1): 15-31.

Voss, J.-P. and R. Kemp (2006). Sustainability and reexive governance: introduction. Reexive Governance for

Sustainable Development. J.-P. Voss, D. Bauknecht and R. Kemp. Northampton MA Edward Elgar: 3-28.

1Based on Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: science or ction? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 2(1): 1-5. & Kemp, R. and P. Martens (2007).

Sustainable development: How to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Science, Practice and Policy 2(2): 1-10.2 At the United Nations summit in Johannesburg in 2005, the P3 concept of people, planet, prot was changed into people, planet, and prosperity.

SESSION II


27/7027

Chair: PIM MARTENS

Pim Martens is Director of the International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustai-

nable development (ICIS), Maastricht University. He holds the chair Sustainable Develop-

ment at the Maastricht University, is a guest professor at Leuphana University Lneburg,

and a Leverhulme professor at Aberystwyth University, Wales. Prof. Martens is project-

leader and principal investigator of several projects related to sustainable development and

sustainability science, globalisation, environmental change and society.

Co-chair: SILVIA MACCHI

Associate Professor of Regional Planning and Urban Policies at Sapienza University of Rome,

Faculty of Engineering. Member of the scientic board of the Interuniversity Research Center

for Sustainable Development (CIRPS/Sapienza), where she coordinates the section on Po-

licies for the Empowerment of Women and the PhD Program on Sustainable Development

and International Cooperation. Member of the International Network for Urban Research

and Action (INURA). Referee for the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.

Consultant in the eld of Gender and Development to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

and other International Organization.

DANIEL J. LANG, Institute for Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research,Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany

Since January 1st 2010 Dr. Daniel J. Lang is Professor for Transdisciplinary Sustainability

Research at the Department of Sustainability Sciences at Leuphana University Lueneburg,

Germany.

Daniel rst studied geo-ecology at the University of Bayreuth, Germany (pre-diploma) and

later Environmental Sciences at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (MSc). He did his PhD at the Insti-

tute for Environmental Decisions, Natural and Social Science Interface at ETH Zurich (Dr. Sc.

ETH) where he continued his career as post-doc and senior researcher. In 2008 Daniel spent

three months as research afliate at the Center for Industrial Ecology at Yale University.A core question of Daniels research and teaching activities is how scientists from different disciplines as well as

actors from outside academia can work together and learn from each other in order to contribute to coping with

the fundamental sustainability challenges of the 21st century. Relevant topics of Daniels research are sustaina-

ble governance of physical resource as well as sustainability transitions of communities and regions.

Challenges and Potentials of Transdisciplinary Sustainability ResearchUnderstanding and Further Developing Interfaces

Sustainability science is an emerging eld aiming to cope with fundamental societal challenges of the 21 th cen-

tury. There is broad consensus that approaching these challenges requires new ways of knowledge production,

integration, and use that goes beyond established disciplinary and even interdisciplinary research. Transdisci-plinary Research aims at meeting this requirement in enabling mutual learning processes among scientists from

SESSION II


28/7028


different disciplines and relevant actors from outside academia. In the rst part of this presentation better un-

derstanding and further developingvarious interfaces, specically between natural and social sciences, science

and society, qualitative and quantitative research, intuitive and formal approaches, is dened as key challenges

of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research. In the second part a concrete example of a transdisciplinary project

is presented, which revolves around the development and implementation of a landll rating system in Switzer-

land. This system is theoretically based on a systemic sustainability assessment approach (Sustainability Poten-

tial Analysis) that was adopted and further developed together with key stakeholders form waste management

to become a feasible, transparent and broadly accepted rating tool. In the last part some insights gained in thisproject are reected with regards to the outlined challenges of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research. The

project clearly indicates that theory and practice do not necessarily contradict each other, but sound theoreti-

cal, methodological as well as process-related foundations are needed if the full potential of Transdisciplinary

Sustainability Research should be used.

Dr. PETER MOLL, science development

Peter Moll is an independent international consultant and scholar. He has 20 years of experience with working

in implementation- oriented research projects while specializing in managing interfaces between knowledge and

action. This concerns stakeholder integration work, communication, and continuation work beyond the limits

of a research project and programme. Clients include et al the Global Environment Facility, World Bank, UNDP,

the European Commission, European research ministries and international foundations operating in research on

sustainable development. Thematically the focus lies on Sustainability Science, Global Change (climate change,

biodiversity, water, land use & land management) and Development Research. Peters work experience covers

Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Implementation-oriented research: Lessons learned from the Coffee project

The presentation takes the concrete work experience of a seven-year project on sustainable use of forest coffee

resources in the montane rainforests of Ethiopia as a starting point. From this experience some lessons learned

are presented that concern:

options and needs for successful involvement of stakeholders

communication for reaching beyond the science community

strategies for bridging some of the many science - policy gaps and

the concrete work with continuation strategies.

The presentation will briey summarize the scientic work of this project and elaborate from there on those

lessons learned. The idea behind this procedure is to provide as many as possible entry points for feed-back of

the audience and for subsequent discussion on the questions raised as well as on possible solutions presented.

SESSION II


29/7029

Professor CHRISTOPHER J THOMAS, Aberystwyth University, UK

Chris Thomas is CIRRE Research Professor in Ecological Modelling, Aberystwyth University,

Wales, UK.

My group employs a broad range of modelling, analytical and geographic techniques (e.g.

spatial modelling, Geographic Information Systems, remote sensing and image processing)

in addition to traditional eld ecological methods. Coupling mathematical ecology with ge-

ography provides exciting opportunit ies to link theory to the real world. However, it is clear

that the research agenda for many complex ecological systems spans a number of discipli-

nary boundaries. A focus of recent work is on mapping and modelling malaria risk at landscape and continental

scales., particularly in Africa.

Co-authors. Christine Dunn is Senior Lecturer in Medical Geography at Durham University leading projects in

the Kilombero and Jennifer Hateld is Associate Dean, International/Global Health and director of both the He-

alth and Society Program and the Global Health Program at Calgary University, leading projects in Ngorogoro.

Transdisciplinary approaches to climate change and disease in rural Tanania.

Eco-Health is a promising model for development research, leading to more sustainable outcomes in

improving peoples lives as well as the natural environment. This transdisciplinary approach is very well

suited to applied, local projects, but can we also use this model to integrate complex environmental

science into sustainable development, and at a range of scales (e.g. regional to local)? A good example

of this challenge is in climate change, where complex issues in the science (e.g. modelling, scaling, uncer-

tainty) mesh with complex interactions on the ground (e.g. culture, economy, education, food security,

health, poverty, governance). As scientists, we need to devote more effort to this interface if we are to

understand vulnerability and recognise opportunities to enhance adaptation and resilience. One prac-

tical obstacle in the research domain is the perennial problem of truly integrating physical, social and

economic science. Advances in spatial technology offer a partial solution

international conference on sustainability science

Documents