Showing papers in "Sustainability Science in 2019"
TL;DR: The three-pillar conception of sustainability, commonly represented by three intersecting circles with overall sustainability at the centre, has become ubiquitous as discussed by the authors, however, there is no single point of origin of this threepillar conception, but rather a gradual emergence from various critiques in the early academic literature of the economic status quo from both social and ecological perspectives on the one hand, and the quest to reconcile economic growth as a solution to social problems on the part of the United Nations on the other.
Abstract: The three-pillar conception of (social, economic and environmental) sustainability, commonly represented by three intersecting circles with overall sustainability at the centre, has become ubiquitous. With a view of identifying the genesis and theoretical foundations of this conception, this paper reviews and discusses relevant historical sustainability literature. From this we find that there is no single point of origin of this three-pillar conception, but rather a gradual emergence from various critiques in the early academic literature of the economic status quo from both social and ecological perspectives on the one hand, and the quest to reconcile economic growth as a solution to social and ecological problems on the part of the United Nations on the other. The popular three circles diagram appears to have been first presented by Barbier (Environ Conserv 14:101, doi: 10.1017/s0376892900011449, 1987), albeit purposed towards developing nations with foci which differ from modern interpretations. The conceptualisation of three pillars seems to predate this, however. Nowhere have we found a theoretically rigorous description of the three pillars. This is thought to be in part due to the nature of the sustainability discourse arising from broadly different schools of thought historically. The absence of such a theoretically solid conception frustrates approaches towards a theoretically rigorous operationalisation of ‘sustainability’.
1,155 citations
TL;DR: A novel integrated assessment approach is adopted to support the prioritisation of SDG targets through a case study for 22 countries in the Arab region, adopts a multi-criteria analysis decision framework and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each of these analytical approaches, and demonstrates how they can be rapidly combined and applied.
Abstract: The sustainable development goals (SDGs) provide an integrated, evidence-based framework of targets and indicators to support national planning and reporting. For countries to begin implementation of the SDGs, it is critical to build the evidence base for action. The integrated nature of the SDG targets mean that progress towards one target is also linked through complex feedbacks to other targets, placing demands on science and research to support national implementation. A range of different tools and approaches are recommended by experts, and an emerging challenge is to coherently apply and combine these different approaches to support decision-making. This study makes a significant contribution to filling this knowledge gap, adopting a novel integrated assessment approach to support the prioritisation of SDG targets through a case study for 22 countries in the Arab region. The research adopts a multi-criteria analysis decision framework which assesses and prioritises SDG targets based upon their ‘level of urgency’, ‘systemic impact’, and ‘policy gap’. A range of complementary evidence- and science-based approaches are applied within the assessment framework, including baseline assessment and benchmarking of indicators, systems and network analysis of target interlinkages, and mapping of policy alignment and gaps. The study highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each of these analytical approaches, and demonstrates how they can be rapidly combined and applied.
215 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a qualitative research strategy, theory building methodology and various methodological techniques (surveys, policy and literature review, group and individual interviews) were used to evaluate the progress of HEfSD in policy, curriculum and practice.
Abstract: Higher education for sustainable development (HEfSD) is being significantly shaped by the global sustainability agenda. Many higher education institutions, responsible for equipping the next generation of sustainability leaders with knowledge and essential skills, proactively try to action the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in HEfSD policy, curriculum and practice through scattered and isolated initiatives. Yet, these attempts are not strategically supported by a governing approach to HEfSD or coordinated effectively to tackle social and environmental sustainability. These predicaments not only widen the gap between HEfSD policy, curriculum and practice but also exacerbate the complexities between human and environmental interactions compromising overall sustainability. However, these efforts represent a potential for actioning the Global Agenda for Sustainable Development. Based on a qualitative research strategy, theory building methodology and various methodological techniques (surveys, policy and literature review, group and individual interviews), this research suggests that the advancement of HEfSD in policy, curriculum and practice depends largely on a better understanding of existing gaps, target areas, commonalities and differences across regional HEfSD agendas. This will hopefully provide higher education institutions and their stakeholders across regions with some conceptual and practical tools to consider strategically how HEfSD can successfully be integrated into policy, curriculum and practice in alignment with SDGs and with the overall mandate of the Global Agenda for Sustainable Development.
131 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors suggest that the production of knowledge relevant to sustainable development entails analytic engagement with norms and values through four tasks: first, to unravel and critically reflect on the ethical values involved in sustainability, values should increasingly become an empirical and theoretical object of sustainability research; second, to ensure that research on social-ecological systems is related to sustainability values; and third, to find common ground on what sustainability means for specific situations, scientists should engage in deliberative learning processes with societal actors, with a view to jointly reflecting on existing development visions and creating new, contextualized
Abstract: The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development stresses the fundamental role science should play in implementing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals endorsed by the global community. But how can and should researchers respond to this societal demand on science? We argue that answering this question requires systematic engagement with the fundamental normative dimensions of the 2030 Agenda and those of the scientific community—and with the implications these dimensions have for research and practice. We suggest that the production of knowledge relevant to sustainable development entails analytic engagement with norms and values through four tasks. First, to unravel and critically reflect on the ethical values involved in sustainability, values should increasingly become an empirical and theoretical object of sustainability research. Second, to ensure that research on social–ecological systems is related to sustainability values, researchers should reflect on and spell out what sustainability values guide their research, taking into account possible interdependencies, synergies, and trade-offs. Third, to find common ground on what sustainability means for specific situations, scientists should engage in deliberative learning processes with societal actors, with a view to jointly reflecting on existing development visions and creating new, contextualized ones. Fourth, this implies that researchers and scientific disciplines must clarify their own ethical and epistemic values, as this defines accountability and shapes identification of problems, research questions, and results. We believe that ignoring these tasks, whether one is in favor or critical of the 2030 Agenda, will undermine the credibility and relevance of scientific contributions for sustainable development.
124 citations
University of York1, University of Helsinki2, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign3, University of the Free State4, Monash University5, Autonomous University of Barcelona6, University of Surrey7, Aberystwyth University8, University of South Australia9, University of Vermont10, University of Nottingham11, University of Leeds12, Lüneburg University13, University of Tasmania14, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ15, Royal Agricultural University16, University of Melbourne17, Stockholm Environment Institute18
TL;DR: In this article, a transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of "lenses" and "tensions" is introduced to help navigate value diversity. But it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.
Abstract: This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of ‘lenses’ and ‘tensions’ to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the ‘mess’ of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.
111 citations
TL;DR: The emergent transdisciplinary design research (ETDR) as discussed by the authors is a new approach for conducting TDR in contexts characterized by high levels of complexity, conflict and social fluidity.
Abstract: Transdisciplinarity is not a new science per se, but a new methodology for doing science with society A particular challenge in doing science with society is the engagement with non-academic actors to enable joint problem formulation, analysis and transformation How this is achieved differs between contexts The premise of this paper is that transdisciplinary research (TDR) methodologies designed for developed world contexts cannot merely be replicated and transferred to developing world contexts Thus a new approach is needed for conducting TDR in contexts characterised by high levels of complexity, conflict and social fluidity To that end, this paper introduces a new approach to TDR titled emergent transdisciplinary design research (ETDR) A core element of this approach is that the research process is designed as it unfolds, that is, it transforms as it emerges from and within the fluid context The ETDR outlined in this paper emerged through a case study in the informal settlement (slum) of Enkanini in Stellenbosch, South Africa This case study demonstrates the context from and within which the ETDR approach and identifies a set of guiding logics that can be used to guide ETDR approaches in other contexts The study demonstrates that the new logics and guiding principles were not simply derived from the TDR literature, but rather emerged from constant interacting dynamics between theory and practice Learning how to co-design the research process through co-producing transformative knowledge and then implementing strategic interventions to bring about incremental social change is key to theory development in ways that are informed by local contextual dynamics There are, however, risks when undertaking such TDR processes such as under-valuing disciplinary knowledge, transferring risks onto a society, and suppressing ‘truth-to-power’
73 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors differentiate four general perspectives of how and where values are important for transformation related sustainability science, and highlight the dynamic nature and transformational potential of values, emphasizing the need to move beyond general discussions implying that values matter and gain an awareness of the positionality of one's own values perspective when undertaking values related sustainability research.
Abstract: Despite the normative nature of sustainability, values and their role in sustainability transformations are often discussed in vague terms, and when concrete conceptualizations exist, they widely differ across fields of application. To provide guidance for navigating the complexity arising from the various conceptualizations and operationalization of values, here, we differentiate four general perspectives of how and where values are important for transformation related sustainability science. The first perspective, surfacing implicit values, revolves around critical reflection on normative assumptions in scientific practices. Sustainability transformations concern fundamental ethical questions and are unavoidably influenced by assumptions sustainability scientists hold in their interactions with society. The second perspective, negotiating values, is related to the values held by different actors in group decision processes. Developing and implementing solution options to sustainability problems requires multiple values to be accounted for in order to increase civic participation and social legitimacy. The third perspective, eliciting values, focuses on the ascription of values to particular objects or choices related to specific sustainability challenges, for example, valuations of nature. The fourth perspective, transforming through values, highlights the dynamic nature and transformational potential of values. Value change is complex but possible, and may generate systemic shifts in patterns of human behaviours. Explicit recognition of these four interconnected values perspectives can help sustainability scientists to: (1) move beyond general discussions implying that values matter; (2) gain an awareness of the positionality of one’s own values perspective when undertaking values related sustainability research; and (3) reflect on the operationalizations of values in different contexts.
69 citations
TL;DR: This paper conducted a systematic review, screening 140 publications and selecting 29 as relevant for exploring the extent to which relational CES values are inferable through social media, and found that social media data can reveal CES values' plural and relational dimension.
Abstract: There is a deeply relational aspect to the systems people employ for sorting through and prioritizing plural values assigned to social–ecological interactions. Spurred by interpersonal relationships and adhesion to societal core values, such as justice and reciprocity, relational values go beyond instrumental and intrinsic approaches to understanding human behaviour vis-a-vis the environment. Currently, this relational dimension of values is entering the spotlight of the cultural ecosystem services (CES) literature focusing on non-material benefits and values people derive from ecosystems, such as aesthetics and sense of place. Relational values foster reflections on appropriateness and morality of preferences and respective behaviours in contributing to collective flourishment across space and time, holding implications for social–ecological justice and sustainability. Recently, several studies explored the potential of using social media data for assessing values ascribed to CES, but did not look at how this emerging approach could contribute to an enhanced understanding of relational values. In order to take up this goal, we conducted a systematic review, screening 140 publications and selecting 29 as relevant for exploring the extent to which relational CES values are inferable through social media. Our results show that social media data can reveal CES values’ plural and relational dimension. Social media platforms, thus, can be understood as new arenas for the co-construction of values, where relational values stemming from social–ecological interactions are negotiated and defined. Yet, work on their implications for social–ecological justice and sustainability needs to be extended.
68 citations
TL;DR: For instance, this paper found that around half of residents, tourists and tourist operators surveyed, and almost one quarter of fishers, report significant Reef Grief, while those who rated high aesthetic value of the coral ecosystem report lower levels of reef Grief.
Abstract: It is well established that ecosystems bring meaning and well-being to individuals, often articulated through attachment to place. Degradation and threats to places and ecosystems have been shown to lead to loss of well-being. Here, we suggest that the interactions between ecosystem loss and declining well-being may involve both emotional responses associated with grief, and with observable impacts on mental health. We test these ideas on so-called ecological grief by examining individual emotional response to well-documented and publicized ecological degradation: coral bleaching and mortality in the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. The study focuses both on one off events of coral loss and the prospect of continuing decline on the self-reported well-being of residents living within the ecosystem, visitors, and those whose livelihood is dependent on the marine resource: data from face-to-face surveys of 1870 local residents, 1804 tourists, and telephone surveys of 91 fishers and 94 tourism operators. We hypothesise that the extent to which individuals experience ecological grief is dependent on the meanings or intrinsic values (such as aesthetic, scientific, or biodiversity-based values), and is moderated by their place attachment, place identity, lifestyle dependence, place-based pride, and derived well-being. Results show that around half of residents, tourists and tourist operators surveyed, and almost one quarter of fishers, report significant Reef Grief. Reef Grief is closely and positively associated with place meanings within resident and tourist populations. By contrast respondents who rated high aesthetic value of the coral ecosystem report lower levels of Reef Grief. These findings have significant implications for how individuals and populations experience ecosystem decline and loss within places that are meaningful to them. Given inevitable cumulative future impacts on ecosystems from committed climate change impacts, understanding and managing ecological grief will become increasingly important. This study seeks to lay conceptual and theoretical foundations to identify how ecological grief is manifest and related to meaningful places and the social distribution of such grief across society.
63 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the intersection of religion and social values for sustainability has been explored, with a renewed emphasis on culture as defining and shaping links between people and nature, there has been an increasing level of scholarly attention to the role of religion in defining and understanding social values.
Abstract: Discourse on social values as they relate to environmental and sustainability issues has almost exclusively been conducted in a secular intellectual context. However, with a renewed emphasis on culture as defining and shaping links between people and nature, there has been an increasing level of scholarly attention to the role of religion and spirituality in defining and understanding social values. In this article we explore the intersection of religion and social values for sustainability. First, we consider this nexus as it has been explored in existing scholarship. We acknowledge a body of research that has suggested that many religions are broadly associated with self-transcendent values. However, the degree to which they are translated into pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour varies according to context. Second, we argue that while there is much potential support for human values for sustainability within religious traditions, it is essential that religion is seen as a complex, multi-scalar and multi-dimensional institutional phenomena. Consequently, analysis of the relationship between religion and social values must account for the context of narratives, histories and practices. Third, using this lens, we show how religious perspectives can contribute to operationalising theories of systemic change for sustainability. Finally, we outline key principles for further sustainability research seeking to advance knowledge on the relationship between religion and social values.
61 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors address the limitations of ecosystem services and nature's contributions to people by developing a novel approach to consideration of intrinsic values of nature, which can be articulated by people.
Abstract: This paper addresses central limitations of ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) by developing a novel approach to consideration of intrinsic values of nature. Intrinsic values are seen as bundled with values of ecosystem services and NCP within the Life Framework, an innovative, comprehensive and easy to communicate framework of values. Building on work by John O’Neill, values are conceived of as related to living with, from, in and as the world. These frames are related to but distinct from more formal ethical justifications of intrinsic, instrumental and relational values, which straddle the four Life Frames. Focusing on intrinsic values, we conceive these as ends without reference to humans as valuers, but which nonetheless can be articulated by people. We draw on more-than-human participatory research and post-normal science to promote the articulation and deliberation of perspectives and interests of the more-than-human world by an extended peer community. This clearly differentiates our approach from both rights-based intrinsic value and utilitarian existence value approaches, although it is inclusive of them. The approach is demonstrated by an elaborate integrated marine ecosystem valuation, where we investigate associations between intrinsic and relational values and the four Life frames. The Life Framework, operationalised through the post-normal, more-than-human participatory approach, operationalises articulated intrinsic values in a way that puts them on an equal footing with values of ecosystem services and NCP, providing an opportunity to bridge and reconcile these different types of value through deliberation. This enhances the recognition and procedural justice of valuation, while at the same time retaining the practical advantages that the ecosystem services framework brings.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify two key tensions in the disparate and fragmented ways of understanding the nature of values: context dependence and level of abstractness, and propose a conceptual framework structured by these tensions to orient multiple value concepts in relation to each other.
Abstract: Social values underpin complex social-ecological challenges, such as sustainability. However, there are many ways of conceptualising values and valuing, and this divergence limits conversations across research disciplines, hindering the practical incorporation of values into sustainability decision making. We identify two key tensions in the disparate and fragmented ways of understanding the nature of values: context dependence and level of abstractness. We consider how these tensions apply across a breadth of concepts relevant to understanding the importance of socio-ecological systems to people, including valued attributes and assets, cultural values, and connection to place. We propose a conceptual framework structured by these tensions to orient multiple value concepts in relation to each other. We present the conceptual framework as being ontologically plural, and epistemologically flexible, providing a framework for mapping value concepts across different levels of abstractness and context dependency. The framework offers a means to span the breadth of value concepts and acts as a starting point for fostering cross-disciplinary conversations. We discuss the implications of the framework for researchers engaging with multiple theoretical traditions, as well as for practitioners grappling with how to make sense of what is important to the communities.
TL;DR: The relational values concept broadens conceptions of values beyond instrumental and intrinsic values to encompass preferences and principles about human relationships that involve more-than-humans as discussed by the authors, and the social values concept captures a plurality of values related to society and the common good.
Abstract: The ideas of relational values and social values are gaining prominence in sustainability science. Here, we ask: how well do these value conceptions resonate with one Indigenous worldview? The relational values concept broadens conceptions of values beyond instrumental and intrinsic values to encompass preferences and principles about human relationships that involve more-than-humans. The social values concept, an umbrella idea, captures a plurality of values related to society and the common good. After a general description of these two concepts as expressed in the Western peer-reviewed literature, we adopt the lens of relational values to engage with decades of scholarly work and millennia of wisdom based on Indigenous Hawaiian worldviews. We describe five long-standing Hawaiian values that embody notions of appropriate relationships, including human–ecosystem relationships: pono (~ righteousness, balance); hoʻomana (~ creating spirituality); mālama (~ care); kuleana (~ right, responsibility); aloha (~ love, connection). We find that all five resonate deeply with, and help to enrich, relational value concepts. We then draw on these Hawaiian values to discuss differences between relational values and social values frameworks; though both concepts add useful elements to the discourse about values, the relational values concept may be particularly well positioned to represent elements often important to indigenous worldviews—elements such as reciprocity, balance, and extension of “society” beyond human beings. As global processes (e.g., IPBES) commit to better reflecting Indigenous and local knowledge and embrace diverse value concepts as (purported) avenues toward representing values held by diverse communities, our findings suggest that relational values offer special promise and a crucial contribution.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that ESD needs to take current educational systems and today's society with their non-sustainable future-building practices into account, because otherwise ESD would not make any difference to the educational and societal status quo.
Abstract: The call for a kind of education which can contribute to a sustainable future has resulted in the “education for sustainable development” (ESD) campaign. What is implied here is that a sustainable future can be achieved if people are properly educated. ESD ignores the current, popular perception that the future is non-shapeable and determined regarding sustainability issues; ESD presupposes a necessary understanding of a future that can be formed. The logic of standard education supports the perception of a future non-shapeable through the promotion of competencies designed for flexibility. Nevertheless both systems still conceive of education mainly as training, closing down the future. In this contribution, I argue that ESD needs to take current educational systems and today’s society with their non-sustainable future-building practices into account, because otherwise ESD would not make any difference to the educational and societal status quo. My main objective is to show that education must be thought of as something other than just training: considering education predominantly as subjectification holds the possibility for open and alternative futures. In this article, I discuss the potentials of this understanding (and the notion of an open future) for education with a view to sustainability. I explicitly address an interdisciplinary audience with the aim of raising awareness that education is more than training.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyse the similarities and differences of the visions in relation to four dimensions of sociotechnical transformation: meanings, knowings, doings, and organisings.
Abstract: The need to rapidly decarbonise energy systems is widely accepted, yet there is growing criticism of ‘top–down’, technocentric transition visions. Transitions are, such critics claim, unpredictable, contested, and comprise of multiple and competing perspectives. This paper opens up to diverse visions of energy transitions by studying a corpus of 12 visions produced across different ‘institutional settings’ of the state, business, science and technology, and civil society in the UK. We introduce a new analytical framework grounded in relational co-productionist perspectives in science and technology studies (STS) to comparatively analyse the similarities and differences of the visions in relation to four dimensions of sociotechnical transformation: meanings, knowings, doings, and organisings. Whilst research on energy transitions often focuses on dominant imaginaries within political cultures, regimes and centres of power, it is an explicit intention of this paper to also comparatively map the distributed, diverse and counter-hegemonic visions. The paper reveals that what is often presented as a primarily ‘technical’ transition is always normative in bringing forward particular forms of social and political order. Our analysis reveals important distinctions between more ‘centred’ and more decentred or ‘alternative’ imaginaries of the energy transition, differences which reveal the inherently political nature of energy futures. Visions which emerge from civil society settings are shown to be a key locus of diversity in sociotechnical imaginaries and tend to open up to alternative models of progress, social change, and the roles of publics. This emphasises the significant role played by the settings and the make-up of collective practices through which energy visions are co-produced. We suggest that mapping diverse visions to reveal their respective partialities, exclusions and sociopolitical dimensions in this way, can offer a more humble, reflexive, and responsible foundation for practices of future-making and sociotechnical transformations.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose a conceptual framework that helps to shed light on the social and material flows shaping connections between the sectors of WEF, and the actors facilitating these connections.
Abstract: Sustainable use and supply of natural resources dedicated to feeding urban life are becoming increasingly complex in a time of rapid urbanization and climate change. Sustainable governance of Water–Energy–Food (WEF) requires innovative and cross-sectorial systems of provisioning. However, practitioners have often treated WEF as separate domains, while ignoring their interconnectedness. What is missing is an ‘Urban Nexus’ perspective, which assumes that environmental flows of WEF interact and relate to one another in achieving urban sustainable development. This paper contributes to theorizing the urban nexus and to understand its emergence and governance from a more socio-material perspective. It offers a conceptual framework that helps to shed light on the social and material flows shaping connections between the sectors of WEF, and the actors facilitating these connections. The paper suggests that switchers and programmers link and configure the socio-material flows of WEF facilitating the emergence of nexus governance networks and nexus programs. In doing so, the paper provides three examples of cities to test the conceptual framework by analyzing their main challenges and examples around the nexus. It demonstrates that material and social dimensions of WEF might not play an equal role in steering synergies or trade-offs—either material or social flows and their agents can be central in facilitating a nexus or in preventing it to take shape. The paper argues that material-focused methodologies need to be complemented with a social flows analysis that pays attention to the daily practice, policies, ideologies, networks or any kind of socio-cultural meaning shaping WEF provisioning.
TL;DR: In this paper, a conceptional framework uses the theoretical concepts of imaginaries, practices, and structures to study the possible futures of sustainability, specifically modernization, transformation, and control, as well as possible interdependencies between these developments.
Abstract: In the last three decades, sustainability has become a guiding principle for states, organizations, companies, and social movements as well as a general ideal for social change. While sustainability seems to be a rather inevitable path of development, there is no consensus over the goals and visions of the future associated with this concept. Proponents of a “Green Economy,” for instance, regard economic growth as a prerequisite for sustainable development and advocate a modernization of society, which implies moderate adjustments toward a sustainable economy within the current institutional framework. Critics of this ecological modernization approach see the imperative of economic growth as an obstacle for sustainable development and instead support a fundamental transformation of society. A third perspective tries to solve the problems of sustainable development with wide-ranging politics of control, using concepts such as “ecological state of emergency” or enforcing resilience measures for vulnerable populations while creating safe enclaves for a privileged few. These three possible ideal typical trajectories of social change—modernization, transformation, and control—are not fixed yet, but rather represent different and highly contested imaginaries of the future. These imaginaries then structure distinctive practices of sustainability in the fields of politics, the economy, civil society, and science. These practices in turn are interdependent with specific structures, such as material infrastructures or the ecological system of the earth. The proposed conceptional framework uses the theoretical concepts of imaginaries, practices, and structures to study the possible futures of sustainability, specifically modernization, transformation, and control, as well as possible interdependencies between these developments. It focuses on sustainability as a sociological category indicative for understanding socioeconomic change, the emergence of new conflicts, inequalities, hierarchies, and justification patterns that result from including sustainable criteria into different fields, institutions, and value systems. Deciphering futures of sustainability does not aim at providing prognoses or forecasts, but intents to work out an analytical concept that asks how contemporary societies change when they are guided by imaginaries of sustainability.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a review and synthesis of the learnings about praxis that have emerged from The Silwood Group, a consortium of conservation professionals, professional evaluators, and complexity and systems thinkers.
Abstract: Achieving nature conservation goals require grappling with ‘wicked’ problems. These intractable problems arise from the complexity and dynamism of the social–ecological systems in which they are embedded. To enhance their ability to address these problems, conservation professionals are increasingly looking to the transdisciplines of systems thinking and evaluation, which provide philosophies, theories, methods, tools and approaches that show promise for addressing intractable problems in a variety of other sectors. These transdisciplines come together especially around praxis, i.e., the process by which a theory or idea is enacted, embodied or realized. We present a review and synthesis of the learnings about praxis that have emerged from The Silwood Group, a consortium of conservation professionals, professional evaluators, and complexity and systems thinkers. The Silwood Group believes that for conservation activities to achieve ambitious goals, we should benefit nature without compromising the well-being of people, and that framing a praxis for conservation in the context of social–ecological systems will provide the greatest potential for positive impact. The learnings are presented as four key principles of a ‘praxis for effective conservation’. The four principles are: (1) attend to the whole with humility; (2) engage constructively with the values, cultures, politics, and histories of stakeholders; (3) learn through evaluative, systemic enquiry, and (4) exercise wisdom in judgement and action. We also provide descriptions and references for tools and methods to support such praxis and discuss how the thinking and approaches used by conservation professionals can be transformed to achieve greater effectiveness.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compare different methods and approaches for mapping sense of place in river landscapes and subsequently address the question of how these studies can inform participatory processes in river landscape planning and management.
Abstract: River landscapes are complex social-ecological systems with many benefits for people. A common challenge is to integrate social values in river planning and management. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the meaning and significance of place in river recreation and how people feel emotionally and spiritually connected to river landscapes. Based on five European case studies, this study compares different methods and approaches for mapping sense of place in river landscapes and subsequently addresses the question of how these studies can inform participatory processes. The case studies are set in diverse geographical, institutional and policy contexts, including the planning and evaluation of river restoration projects in Switzerland, Denmark, Germany and Spain and the monitoring of the effects of newly constructed river dams in the Netherlands. This comparative study is a first step in understanding the breadth of analytical and spatial approaches that can be used to assess sense of place in river landscapes and their implications for resilient river landscape planning and management.
TL;DR: The role of sense of place in social-ecological systems is explored in this article, where the authors discuss the role of people's relationships to place in recognizing and responding to these sustainability challenges.
Abstract: We live in a human-dominated world and the pace and scale of changes to the biosphere, from climate change to landuse change, are staggering. Accelerated socio-economic changes accompanying global change threaten the ecological life support systems on which we depend (Steffen et al. 2015) but also the character of the particular places which we care about (Adger et al. 2011). The rapid and novel challenges of the Anthropocene are also manifested, perceived, and responded to differently in particular places, mediated by biophysical as well as social and economic facets of the place itself (Wilbanks 2015). What is the role of people’s relationships to place in recognizing and responding to these sustainability challenges? Sense of place has been shown to be a key factor in adaptation to ecosystem changes and transformations, as well as playing an important role in people’s motivation to act on behalf of local environments (Adger et al. 2013; Chapin and Knapp 2015; Masterson et al. 2017). The connections between people, place, and nature also help us to understand social motivations and identify and develop pathways towards sustainability (Brown 2015; Jones et al. 2016). In this special feature, we mobilize theory and empirical findings on sense of place to shed light on the role of such relationships in the dynamics of social–ecological systems. While there is increasing interest in the relevance and complexity of the relationship between people and place in the context of rapid and interconnected global changes defining the Anthropocene (e.g., Hausmann et al. 2016; Masterson et al. 2017; Raymond et al. 2017), the evidence is scattered. There is a need to consolidate theory, assess different methodological tools, as well as develop the evidence base for the role of sense of place in social–ecological dynamics (Stedman 2016). This work needs to be done with attention to different socio-economic and cultural contexts, as both the sense of place and the sustainability literatures are biased towards cases from ‘developed’ countries in the global North. Fostering stewardship of resources and land needs to be a priority across the globe, which requires understanding how different people and cultures relate to their environments. We need to examine these expressions of sense of place and its interaction with social–ecological change and how they can nurture active engagement and care of places (our focus here), biodiversity, and ecology. Social–ecological system (SES) approaches view humans both as part of and actively shaping the ecosystems they depend on for development and well-being (Folke 2006; Folke et al. 2016; Norström et al. 2017). Responding to sustainability issues requires understanding their roots in intertwined social and ecological dynamics. This has resulted in a plethora of theoretical constructs: fast and slow variables, referring to the indicators of primary concern for managing SES (e.g., crop productivity) versus factors that underpin them and often change more slowly (e.g., amount of organic soil matter) (Walker et al. 2012); non-linear dynamics, where thresholds in a system can make a small change and can trigger a major disruption (Duit and Galaz 2008); resilience, i.e., the capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop (Folke 2006); stewardship, referring to strategies for sustaining ecosystem services under uncertainty and change (Chapin et al. 2010; but see Peçanha Enqvist et al. 2018 for Sense of place in social-ecological systems: From theory to empirical exploration
TL;DR: Relational value (RV) has recently been introduced as a third class of values for understanding values of nature and are thought to sit alongside more familiar axiological categories such as instrumental and intrinsic value as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Relational value (RV) has recently been introduced as a third class of values for understanding values of nature and are thought to sit alongside more familiar axiological categories such as instrumental and intrinsic value. The concept has quickly gained ground in and promises to better capture how people and collectives perceive of their wellbeing and make choices that involve the natural world. While the idea of relational value is not without merits, its initial and current conceptualization raises questions about how it relates to existing value concepts. Here, we start from an interdisciplinary perspective and delineate how the concept can contribute to addressing problems in three fields that deal with environmental values in different ways: environmental ethics; ecosystem services valuation; and environmental psychology. We provide an overview of value concepts in each field and show how relational value has been described or applied. Our analysis shows that value concepts are used to solve different problems in the three fields, and these differences have implications for how relational value can be framed and situated in values theory. These differences involve e.g., the descriptive question of how people value nature versus the normative questions of why nature should be valued. We show how the concept can be seen as solving the problem of narrow conceptualizations of intrinsic and instrumental value in ecosystem services valuation and suggest that RV can be conceived of as an epistemological framing rather than a values concept. The concept also has potential to function as a ‘boundary object’ to provide cross-fertilization of disciplinary perspectives.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors review and assess the nature's contributions to people (NCP) in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) and highlight new insights that can be uncovered through the adoptions of socio-cultural valuation methods and analysis of local knowledge (ILK) knowledge.
Abstract: Assessments of the value of nature (e.g., TEEB. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations, London, 2010) have tended to focus on the instrumental values of ecosystem services. However, recent academic and policy debate have highlighted a wider range of values (e.g., relational and intrinsic values), valuation methods (e.g., socio-cultural methods), and worldviews [e.g., indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems]. To account for these new perspectives, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has developed the concept of ‘Nature’s contributions to people’ (NCP), which aims to be a more inclusive approach to understanding and accounting for the diversity of values held by different stakeholders. In this paper, we aim to critically appraise the merits of the IPBES conceptual framework by reviewing of the findings the IPBES Europe and Central Asia (ECA) assessment. Our objectives are: (1) To review and assess the instrumental and relational values of NCP in Europe and Central Asia? (2) To consider what additional insights into the value of NCP are gained through the inclusion of socio-cultural valuations and ILK? Our analysis demonstrates that the ECA assessment captures a wide range of instrumental and relational values of NCP; however, we acknowledge variation in the availability of this value evidence. We also highlight new insights that can be uncovered through the adoptions of socio-cultural valuation methods and analysis of ILK knowledge. We conclude that the NCP paradigm, with its focus on instrumental and relational values, treats values more holistically than previous assessments such as TEEB (2010). For example, by giving a ‘voice’ to ILK holders, we demonstrated new types of NCP such as carrion removal, along with evidence of relational values including sense of place, identity, symbolic values and sacredness. While the ECA assessments may be defined as an example of a ‘Multiple evidence base’ approach to valuation of ecosystem assessments, the ECA assessment fails to demonstrate how to incorporate this wider range of values in decision-making processes.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors used the "Story and Simulation" approach to build four short-term, landscape-scale scenarios for 2030, which include a "Business as Usual (BAU)" and three alternative scenarios, namely "Market forces", "Delta Republic" and "Green Sundarban".
Abstract: The paper narrates an empirical research conducted for developing four alternative socio-ecological scenarios for the lower Gangetic delta in India (aka the Indian Sundarban). We used the ‘Story and Simulation (SAS) approach’ to build four short-term, landscape-scale scenarios for 2030, which include a ‘Business as Usual (BAU)’, and three alternative scenarios, namely ‘Market forces’, ‘Delta Republic’ and ‘Green Sundarban’. The storylines were built after careful screening of existing development and conservation plans, as well as by consulting local government officials. The storylines were then simulated using the Multi-Layer Perceptron–Markov Chain Analysis (MLP–MCA) model, with a multitude of factors, constraints, and attributes for each scenario. Historical and current land use maps of 2006 and 2016, derived from Landsat series (ETM+ and OLI), were used as the fundamental input to the model, which were also utilized to locate decadal changes, create several independent driver variables, calculate transition potentials and ultimately to develop future land use maps. To generate the scenarios, we used a Linear Programming (LP)-based land demand optimization method to alter the transition potential matrix. Our results indicated considerable loss of mud/tidal flats and viz.-a-viz. increase in river/water areas under all the four scenarios. We further observed moderate to a significant expansion of aquaculture for all the scenarios, with an almost two-fold increase under the Market forces scenario. In addition, three of the four scenarios indicated moderate loss of mangroves. The future extent of mangroves may vary from 1997.92 km2 (BAU) to 2172.25 km2 (Green Sundarban), which indicates to 3.72% overall decline (0.31% decline/year) to 4.67% (or 0.38% increase/year) overall gain from the present extent. As such, the Green Sundarban scenario was identified to the best possible pathway to serve the conservation interests and future sustainability of the delta. The results from the scenario analysis remain imperative to understand, plan and prepare for the plausible alternative regional futures, thereby optimizing conservation and development through proactive policy planning.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that these new frameworks represent the most important institutional innovation to emerge in recent years, and they mark a shift away from international rule-making towards a system based on goal setting.
Abstract: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate are the key international agreements to deliver a sustainable future. They are a compromise between the scientifically necessary and politically possible to achieve global sustainability. Agreed in 2015, they constitute a radical departure for international policy with no precedents and are beginning to shape national policy, civil society and business decisions. We argue that these new frameworks represent the most important institutional innovation to emerge in recent years. They mark a shift away from international rule-making towards a system based on goal setting. This reflects a theory of societal steering or what we commonly think of as governance that differs sharply from mainstream regulatory systems by Pauwelyn et al. (Eur J Int Law 24:733–763, 2014). Given that achieving the Paris Agreement and the SDGs will require transformation of societies at all levels, it remains unclear how existing instruments, policies, and even institutions will adapt to this new global governance strategy. The key to success, we argue, will be “action coherence”, whereby actions initiated to fulfill individual SDGs are coherent across efforts to achieve the full set of SDGs over the long run.
TL;DR: In the first year of the COST Action TD1408 “Interdisciplinarity in research programming and funding cycles” (INTREPID), the authors describes the similarities and differences between interpretations of inter- and transdisciplinsarity.
Abstract: Inter- and transdisciplinarity are increasingly relevant concepts and research practices within academia. Although there is a consensus about the need to apply these practices, there is no agreement over definitions. Building on the outcomes of the first year of the COST Action TD1408 “Interdisciplinarity in research programming and funding cycles” (INTREPID), this paper describes the similarities and differences between interpretations of inter- and transdisciplinarity. Drawing on literature review and empirical results from participatory workshops involving INTREPID Network members from 27 different countries, the paper shows that diverse definitions of inter-and transdisciplinarity coexist within scientific literature and are reproduced by researchers and practitioners within the network. The recognition of this diversity did not hinder the definition of basic requirements for inter- and transdisciplinarity. We present five basic units considered as building blocks for this type of research. These building blocks are: (1) creation of collective glossaries, (2) definition of boundary objects, (3) use of combined problem- and solution-oriented approaches, (4) inclusion of a facilitator of inter-and transdisciplinary research within the team and (5) promotion of reflexivity by accompanying research. These were considered five basic units for effective inter- and transdisciplinary research although the 4th building block was also considered as “matrix” that holds all the others together.
TL;DR: The authors argue that the plurality of social values can be conceptualised along many different dimensions, with reference to value, epistemic and procedural lenses, resulting in the potential for different forms of value articulations and pathways of value expression.
Abstract: This special feature provides an impression of the plurality of social values for sustainability, taking into account theoretical traditions within mainstream and heterodox economics; positive, social and environmental psychology; human geography; anthropology; sociology; religious and indigenous studies and business management. Papers in this issue respond to questions of: how do we conceptualise social values; how do we integrate or share social values; what are processes for learning about and mechanisms for forming and changing social values; and what are the associations between social values and behaviour or well-being? Consistent with post-normal science, we suggest that there is no one correct way of conceptualising, assessing, integrating or activating social values for sustainability. We present five arguments: (1) the plurality of social values can be conceptualised along many different dimensions, with reference to value, epistemic and procedural lenses; (2) values are nested in different hierarchies, resulting in the potential for different forms of value articulations and pathways of value expression; (3) not all social values are pre-formed and readily drawn upon, instead needing pathways of deliberation or intervention to be activated; (4) social values may change through different processes or pathways of intervention, and; (5) power matters in the formation and assessment of social values. We discuss the tensions that arise when attempting to integrate different perspectives and introduce the notion of ‘navigation’ to begin to address these tensions. Navigation requires scholars to adopt a more critical and reflexive approach to value enquiry than is currently espoused in sustainability science and practice.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors apply a participatory scenario development framework in two parts of the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot: Taita Hills in Kenya and Jimma rural area in Ethiopia.
Abstract: African mountains are characterized by high levels of biodiversity and provide ecosystem services to millions of people. Due to steep environmental gradients, growing human populations and geographical isolation, these coupled socio-ecological systems are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. The capacity of local stakeholders to anticipate future changes and to assess their potential impacts is paramount for enhancing adaptation and resilience. Here we apply a participatory scenario development framework in two parts of the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot: Taita Hills in Kenya and Jimma rural area in Ethiopia. In each area, we facilitated local stakeholders in envisioning adaptation scenarios under projected climate changes by mid-21st century, and assessed the potential impacts of these pathways on land use and land cover. In the Taita Hills, under a business-as-usual scenario, human population and activities concentrate at high elevation, triggering cascade effects on remnant forest cover, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Alternative adaptation scenarios envisage reforestation associated with either improved agricultural practices or ecosystem restoration. In the Jimma area, rising temperatures are expected to disrupt traditional coffee production under a business-as-usual scenario, resulting in the loss of coffee-forest canopies and reduction of forest-dependent biodiversity. Alternative adaptation scenarios envisage either expansion of commercial coffee plantations or expansion of agroforestry, including traditional coffee farming. In the both Taita and Jimma, adaptation pathways present trade-offs between provisioning, supporting and regulating services, and between livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. Our findings encourage the use of multidisciplinary, bottom-up approaches for developing locally tailored, climate-smart and sustainable adaptation pathways.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the first attempt at creating a participatory intergenerational deliberation practice by creating "imaginary future generation" groups to represent future generations and negotiate with present-generation groups regarding future visions and associated decision making.
Abstract: Coping with intergenerational conflicts is one of the fundamental keys to building a sustainable society. However, current decision-making systems tend to be inclined towards the preferences of present generations, simply because future generations do not yet exist and therefore cannot participate in present-day negotiating processes. In this paper, with an aim towards reconciling possible intergenerational conflicts, we present the first attempt at creating a participatory intergenerational deliberation practice by creating “imaginary future generation” groups to represent future generations and negotiate with present-generation groups regarding future visions and associated decision making. To accomplish this, a series of workshops were organized in a local municipality in Japan in which participating imaginary future-generation groups and present-generation groups first deliberated separately, and then worked together, to form a consensus over prioritizing policy measures associated with their separate visions of the municipality in 2060. We then analyzed deliberation and consensus-building processes used and observed a stark contrast in deliberation styles and priorities between the groups. For example, imaginary future-generation-group measures were primarily characterized by utilizing existing local resources, while the present-generation groups aimed more at solving current problems. Notably, the consensus-building processes resulted in choosing more than half of the measures originally proposed by the imaginary future-generation groups, thereby indicating that decision-making preferences had shifted to future generations. We contend that our approach, which is based on introducing imaginary future-generation groups as stakeholders, could provide indicators towards coping with intergenerational conflicts via present-day decision-making processes.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify two potential gaps between SDG 6 targets and what will be measured by the relevant indicators, and between what is being measured in'means of implementation' indicators and what the key means of implementation achievements of many countries are expected to be under SDG6.
Abstract: Monitoring national-level progress of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 through internationally agreed indicators has been the focus of intense scrutiny and considerable resourcing by international organisations and national governments, suggesting a ‘race for indicators’ has begun. However, in the eyes of many water experts, SDG 6 indicators are far from perfect. It is important to systematically identify and prioritise the gaps and weaknesses in the SDG 6 indicator framework to address them effectively. This paper identifies two potential gaps: first, between the aspirations captured in SDG 6 targets and what will be measured by the relevant indicators; and second, between what is being measured in ‘means of implementation’ indicators and what the key means of implementation achievements of many countries are expected to be under SDG 6. Three existing mechanisms—complementary indicators, international support and an integrated approach—are briefly described, and it is proposed that they may potentially be harnessed to assist national governments to address the two types of gaps identified for SDG 6. There is also an opportunity for stakeholders to help erase the gaps in a comprehensive review of SDG indicators, though how open and participatory the full review process will be is not yet clear.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a systematic literature review of sharing practices in the context of sustainable and resilient societies and discuss the potential contribution of sharing to building sustainable and resiliency.
Abstract: Sharing of resources, goods, services, experiences and knowledge is one of the fundamental practices that has been widely embedded in human nature. With the advance of information and communication technology, the realm of sharing has expanded drastically, which has led to the evolution of the ‘sharing paradigm’. In spite of the increasing attention on the new sharing phenomenon and its potential contribution to a sustainable and resilient society, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of varied sharing practices in the context of sustainability and resilience. This study maps out the academic landscape of sharing studies and examines what and how we share by a systematic literature review. Based on the review of 297 peer-reviewed papers, we explore the features of varied sharing practices identified in academia. We also discuss research gaps in sharing paradigm studies and the potential contribution of sharing to building sustainable and resilient societies. Our results show regional and sectoral imbalances in the sharing studies. The findings also illustrate that sharing of manufactured goods and accommodations, and access-based sharing with monetary compensation via intermediaries such as online platforms are predominant. Our evaluation provides a bird’s-eye view of existing sharing studies and practices, enabling the discovery of new opportunities for sustainable and resilient societies.