Risk communication and sustainability science: lessons from the field

Sustainability science aims to help societies across the globe address the increased environmental and health crises and risks that range from poverty to climate change to health pandemics. With the increased magnitude and frequency of these large-scale risks to different societies, scientists and institutions have increasingly recognized the need for improved communication and collaboration among researchers, governments, businesses, and communities. This article argues that risk communication has fundamentally important contributions to make to sustainability science’s mission to create use-inspired, “actionable science” that can lead to solutions. Risk communication research can advance the mission of sustainability science to engage a wide range of stakeholders. This kind of engagement is especially important in the context of addressing sustainability problems that are characterized by high levels of uncertainty and complexity. We introduce three core tenets of risk communication research that are fundamental to advancing sustainability science. Risk communication specifically offers an increased understanding of how system feedbacks, human perceptions, and levels of uncertainty influence the study and design of solutions within social ecological systems.     

Coevolving Ostrom’s social–ecological systems (SES) framework and sustainability science: four key co-benefits

Research on social–ecological systems (SES) is scattered across many disciplines and perspectives. As a result, much of the knowledge generated between different communities is not comparable, mutually aggregate or easily communicated to nonspecialists despite common goals to use academic knowledge for advancing sustainability. This article proposes a conceptual pathway to address this challenge through outlining how the SES research contributions of sustainability science and researchers using Elinor Ostrom’s diagnostic SES framework (SESF) can integrate and co-benefit from explicitly interlinking their development. From a review of the literature, I outline four key co-benefits from their potential to interlink in the following themes: (1) coevolving SES knowledge types, (2) guiding primary research and assessing sustainability, (3) building a boundary object for transdisciplinary sustainability science, and (4) facilitating comparative analysis. The origins of the SESF include seminal empirical work on common property theory, self-organization, and coupled SES interactions. The SESF now serves as a template for diagnosing sustainability challenges and theorizing explanatory relationships on SES components, interactions, and outcomes within and across case studies. Simultaneously, sustainability science has proposed transdisciplinary research agendas, sustainability knowledge types, knowledge coproduction, and sustainability assessment tools to advance transformative change processes. Key challenges for achieving co-beneficial developments in both communities are discussed in relation to each of the four themes. Evident pathways for advancing SES research are also presented along with a guideline for designing SES research within this co-aligned vision.     

Reconnecting with nature for sustainability

Calls for humanity to ‘reconnect to nature’ have grown increasingly louder from both scholars and civil society. Yet, there is relatively little coherence about what reconnecting to nature means, why it should happen and how it can be achieved. We present a conceptual framework to organise existing literature and direct future research on human–nature connections. Five types of connections to nature are identified: material, experiential, cognitive, emotional, and philosophical. These various types have been presented as causes, consequences, or treatments of social and environmental problems. From this conceptual base, we discuss how reconnecting people with nature can function as a treatment for the global environmental crisis. Adopting a social–ecological systems perspective, we draw upon the emerging concept of ‘leverage points’—places in complex systems to intervene to generate change—and explore examples of how actions to reconnect people with nature can help transform society towards sustainability.     

Social-ecological system resonance: a theoretical framework for brokering sustainable solutions

Sustainability science is a solution-oriented discipline. Yet, there are few theory-rich discussions about how this orientation structures the efforts of sustainability science. We argue that Niklas Luhmann’s social system theory, which explains how societies communicate problems, conceptualize solutions, and identify pathways towards implementation of solutions, is valuable in explaining the general structure of sustainability science. From Luhmann, we focus on two key concepts. First, his notion of resonance offers us a way to account for how sustainability science has attended and responded to environmental risks. As a product of resonance, we reveal solution-oriented research as the strategic coordination of capacities, resources, and information. Second, Luhmann’s interests in self-organizing processes explain how sustainability science can simultaneously advance multiple innovations. The value logic that supports this multiplicity of self-organizing activities as a recognition that human and natural systems are complex coupled and mutually influencing. To give form to this theoretical framework, we offer case evidence of renewable energy policy formation in Texas. Although the state’s wealth is rooted in a fossil-fuel heritage, Texas generates more electricity from wind than any US state. It is politically antagonistic towards climate-change policy, yet the state’s reception of wind energy technology illustrates how social and environmental systems can be strategically aligned to generate solutions that address diverse needs simultaneously. This case demonstrates that isolating climate change—as politicians do as a separate and discrete problem—is incapable of achieving sustainable solutions, and resonance offers researchers a framework for conceptualizing, designing, and communicating meaningfully integrated actions.     

Towards an umbrella science of sustainability

Sustainability research has gained scholarly attention since the 1980s as the new science investigating the changes in social, environmental and economic systems and their impacts on the future of planetary life support systems. Whilst broad literature on sustainability has expanded significantly over the past decades, academic literature developing sustainability as a distinct science has received little attention. After more than two decades of sustainability research, the time has come for us to begin asking reflective questions about what sort of science we call sustainability science. How has the broader research on sustainability contributed to developing sustainability science as a unique discipline within the past two decades? How has the label science promoted or hindered the interdisciplinary project of integrating the natural and social sciences as well as arts and humanities in addressing human nature problems? I argue in this review paper that special efforts need to be made towards the building and positioning of sustainability as an umbrella science for global sustainability research. The benefits of the new sustainability science advocated for in this paper are that; a) it offers a universal definition of sustainability that accounts for both the needs of life and the capacity of planetary life support systems to provide for those needs and b) proposes ways of bridging gaps among different research traditions, facilitating cross disciplinary communication and addressing the challenge of multiple meanings and definitions of concepts facing sustainability research today.     

Dwelling in the biosphere: exploring an embodied human–environment connection in resilience thinking

Resilience has emerged as a prominent paradigm for interpreting and shaping human–environment connections in the context of global environmental change. Resilience emphasizes dynamic spatial and temporal change in social–ecological systems where humans are inextricably interwoven with the environment. While influential, resilience thinking has been critiqued for an under-theorized framing of socio-cultural dynamics. In this paper, we examine how the resilience concepts of planetary boundaries and reconnecting to the biosphere frame human–environment connection in terms of mental representations and biophysical realities. We argue that focusing solely on mental reconnection limits further integration between the social and the ecological, thus countering a foundational commitment in resilience thinking to social–ecological interconnectedness. To address this susceptibility we use Tim Ingold’s ‘dwelling perspective’ to outline an embodied form of human–environment (re)connection. Through dwelling, connections are not solely produced in the mind, but through the ongoing interactivity of mind, body and environment through time. Using this perspective, we position the biosphere as an assemblage that is constantly in the making through the active cohabitation of humans and nonhumans. To illustrate insights that may emerge from this perspective we bring an embodied connection to earth stewardship, given its growing popularity for forging local to global sustainability transformations.     

An ecohydrological adaptive approach to a salt lake in the semiarid grasslands of Argentina: future management perspectives

Past extreme hydrological events, future climate change scenarios and approaches for lake management were studied in the Argentinean Pampa. Anthropogenic climate change will impact water bodies and create enormous challenges for water management. Adaptation strategies are needed urgently to deal with the uncertainties originated by climate change on inland or coastal basins. Only a few studies have addressed practical strategies to mitigate global change impacts on lakes and practically none in South America. The purpose of this work was to discuss management options and seek better adaptive alternatives for the nature reserve Lake Chasicó, and to propose future management experiments and actions at a regional level. The ecohydrological approach is likely to increase the ecological resilience of the lake, dampen climate-driven hydrological variations and reduce eutrophication problems. Future projects should include wetland creation, fish management, water quality control, engineering work studies and education programs. Ecohydrology as an integrative natural science should be considered as a water management strategy to build ecological resilience into water bodies. The building of social-ecological resilience is also crucial for the stability of coupled human-ecological systems. The integration of natural and social sciences into sustainability approaches represents a robust strategy for adapting to climate change.     

Exploring Environmentalism amidst the Clamor of Networks: A Social Network Analysis of Utah Environmental Organizations

Dwelling in a world awash in multiple environmental crises while science and social theory erode the last vestiges of the subject of humanism, it makes sense to imagine our world beyond the lens of humanism and turn to diverse methodologies in order to explore what is going on and how to promote changes that nurture ecological sustainability. In this essay we take on this task in relation to environmental communication. In what follows we explore the contours of the age after humanism, what we term the Age of the Animate Earth. In the wake of the theoretical and actual deconstruction of the subject, we offer networks as a key unit of analysis. From this perspective, we suggest social network analysis (SNA) as one viable method for doing environmental communication studies and perform this move through a SNA of Utah environmental groups.     

A conceptual framework for analyzing deltas as coupled social–ecological systems: an example from the Amazon River Delta

At the nexus of watersheds, land, coastal areas, oceans, and human settlements, river delta regions pose specific challenges to environmental governance and sustainability. Using the Amazon Estuary-Delta region (AD) as our focus, we reflect on the challenges created by the high degree of functional interdependencies shaping social–ecological dynamics of delta regions. The article introduces the initial design of a conceptual framework to analyze delta regions as coupled social–ecological systems (SES). The first part of the framework is used to define a delta SES according to a problem and/or collective action dilemma. Five components can be used to define a delta SES: social–economic systems, governance systems, ecosystems-resource systems, topographic-hydrological systems, and oceanic-climate systems. These components are used in association with six types of telecoupling conditions: socio-demographic, economic, governance, ecological, material, and climatic-hydrological. The second part of the framework presents a strategy for the analysis of collective action problems in delta regions, from sub-delta/local to delta to basin levels. This framework is intended to support both case studies and comparative analysis. The article provides illustrative applications of the framework to the AD. First, we apply the framework to define and characterize the AD as coupled SES. We then utilize the framework to diagnose an example of collective action problem related to the impacts of urban growth, and urban and industrial pollution on small-scale fishing resources. We argue that the functional interdependencies characteristic of delta regions require new approaches to understand, diagnose, and evaluate the current and future impacts of social–ecological changes and potential solutions to the sustainability dilemmas of delta regions.     

Learning for change: an educational contribution to sustainability science

Transition to sustainability is a search for ways to improve the social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society toward a more sustainable future and, thus, a process of social learning in its broadest sense. Accordingly, it is not only learning that is at issue but education and educational science, of which the latter is about exploring the preconditions of and opportunities for learning and education—whether individual or social, in formal or informal settings. Analyzing how educational science deals with the challenge of sustainability leads to two complementary approaches: the ‘outside-in’ approach sees the idea of sustainability influencing educational practice and the way the relationship of learning and teaching is reviewed, theoretically as well as within the social context. In an ‘inside-out’ approach, an overview is given of how educational science can contribute to the field of sustainability science. An examination of the literature on education and sustainability shows that, while sustainability features prominently in one form or another across all sectors, only little work can be found dealing with the contributions of educational science within sustainability science. However, as sustainability is a concept that not only influences educational practices but also invites disciplinary contributions to foster inter- and transdisciplinary research within the sustainability discourse, the question remains as to how and to what extent educational science in particular can contribute to sustainability science in terms of an ‘inside-out’ approach. In this paper, we reconstruct the emergence of education for sustainable development as a distinctive field of educational science and introduce and discuss three areas of sustainability research and throw into relief the unique contribution that educational science can make to individual action and behavior change, to organizational change and social learning, and, finally, to inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration.     

The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda

Over the last decade, sustainability science has been at the leading edge of widespread efforts from the social and natural sciences to produce use-inspired research. Yet, how knowledge generated by sustainability science and allied fields will contribute to transitions toward sustainability remains a critical theoretical and empirical question for basic and applied research. This article explores the limitations of sustainability science research to move the field beyond the analysis of problems in coupled systems to interrogate the social, political and technological dimensions of linking knowledge and action. Over the next decade, sustainability science can strengthen its empirical, theoretical and practical contributions by developing along four research pathways focused on the role of values in science and decision-making for sustainability: how communities at various scales envision and pursue sustainable futures; how socio-technical change can be fostered at multiple scales; the promotion of social and institutional learning for sustainable development.     

Does community resilience decrease social–ecological vulnerability? Adaptation pathways trade-off in the Bolivian Altiplano

Worsening climate change impacts and environmental degradation are increasingly supporting policies and plans in framing a linear understanding of resilience building and vulnerability reduction. However, adaptations to different but interacting drivers of change are unclear in the mix of opportunities and threats related to increasing connections, emerging technologies, new patterns of dependency and possible lock-in effects. This paper discusses a more open-ended understanding of the relationship between resilience and vulnerability, highlighting emerging trade-offs among adaptive capacities and exposures to different (and new) threats as they relate to social–ecological sustainability. The transition of the Southern Bolivian Altiplano, from being a remote rural area of subsistence farming to a global leader in quinoa production and exportation, has been taken as a study case. Results from 18 workshops organised within different communities provide insights about a range of trade-offs between community resilience attributes and social–ecological vulnerability induced from land use changes, livestock strategies, communities’ behavioural change and institutions’ emerging policies. The main theoretical advances of the paper relate to the need for critically framing multiple threat exposures and adaptive capacity trade-offs, contributing to arguing the usually positive meaning of resilience, and taking into account “to whom or to what is positive which adaptation” and “which trade-off should be accepted, and why”. Framing adaptive pathways through these questions would serve as a tool for addressing sustainable development goals, while avoiding lock-ins or unsustainable path dependencies.     

Providing sound theoretical roots to sustainability science: systems science and (second-order) cybernetics

After its infant stage, a new science usually starts reflexing on its identity and theoretical roots. Sustainability science is not an exception, and the needs of self-reflection are even more pressing because of its inter- and trans-disciplinary characters, which involve a plenty of different approaches, theories and practices. In fact, such a variety does not provide a consistent ground for its future development. Without a solid grounding on a reliable base, the plethora of different theories that currently crowds its arena could in the near future produce a rejection from disciplinary specialized researchers, thus confining sustainability science to a scientific fad. Convincing theoretical roots can be found in systems science and cybernetics, and in particular second-order cybernetics, once amended from autopoiesis theory and radical constructivism, which raise serious doubts of validity and applicability. If sustainability science acknowledged its systemic and cybernetic nature and adopted second-order cybernetics in its amended version, it would gain a powerful reference paradigm and a theoretical common denominator and language to support its researchers and facilitate their knowledge exchange. From their part, systems science and cybernetics would be better understood and embraced as powerful sources of knowledge for understanding modern challenging problems, and second-order cybernetics, after decades of scarce relevance for other scientific disciplines, would be revitalized and would finally evolve adequately in a promising science and social practice.     

A review of vulnerability indicators for deltaic social–ecological systems

The sustainability of deltas worldwide is under threat due to the consequences of global environmental change (including climate change) and human interventions in deltaic landscapes. Understanding these systems is becoming increasingly important to assess threats to and opportunities for long-term sustainable development. Here, we propose a simplified, yet inclusive social–ecological system (SES)-centered risk and vulnerability framework and a list of indicators proven to be useful in past delta assessments. In total, 236 indicators were identified through a structured review of peer-reviewed literature performed for three globally relevant deltas—the Mekong, the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna and the Amazon. These are meant to serve as a preliminary “library” of potential indicators to be used for future vulnerability assessments. Based on the reviewed studies, we identified disparities in the availability of indicators to populate some of the vulnerability domains of the proposed framework, as comprehensive social–ecological assessments were seldom implemented in the past. Even in assessments explicitly aiming to capture both the social and the ecological system, there were many more indicators for social susceptibility and coping/adaptive capacities as compared to those relevant for characterizing ecosystem susceptibility or robustness. Moreover, there is a lack of multi-hazard approaches accounting for the specific vulnerability profile of sub-delta areas. We advocate for more comprehensive, truly social–ecological assessments which respond to multi-hazard settings and recognize within-delta differences in vulnerability and risk. Such assessments could make use of the proposed framework and list of indicators as a starting point and amend it with new indicators that would allow capturing the complexity as well as the multi-hazard exposure in a typical delta SES.     

Multiscale system dynamics of humans and nature in The Bahamas: perturbation, knowledge, panarchy and resilience

The analysis of the dynamic interactions between social systems, integrated by governance and communication, and biophysical systems, connected by material and energy flows, remains a challenge. In this paper, we draw on the heuristic models of the “adaptive renewal cycle” and “panarchy” [Gunderson and Holling (eds) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, 2002], which are embedded in the theory of complex adaptive systems. Taking island development research in The Bahamas as a case study, we investigate environmental stressors, knowledge and social response in the context of three distinct social–ecological subsystems: (1) the interaction between tropical storms/hurricanes and the social system of disaster preparedness/management; (2) coastal ecosystem degradation coupled with land development; and (3) the fishery, in which we also consider the impact of a recent biological invasion, the Indo-Pacific red lionfish. The findings demonstrate the complexity of panarchical relations and the crucial role of diverse and uncertain knowledge systems and underlying mental models of risk and environment for resilience and sustainability. These are acquired at different scales and form key variables of change. This also applies to processes of communication. Bringing together the various constantly evolving multi-level knowledge systems for effective communication and decision-making remains a major challenge.     

Social-ecological resilience and the quest for sustainability as object of science

The term ‘sustainability science’ has been employed to refer to a scientific trend, movement or program aimed at studying problems related to human–nature interactions. However, since it does not have its own set of principles for knowledge building and lack of a definition of a study object, sustainability science is not a science, at least in the usual sense of the word. A study object is the conceptual delimitation of the problems tackled by a science, and therefore, its search in the context of a science of sustainability requires exploring different notions of sustainability. This article presents different perspectives on the concept of sustainability and analyzes the viability to assume them as study object of sustainability science. Such exploration demands concepts based on a processual ontology that directs the researcher toward the dynamic, historic and temporal and social-ecological character of problems of unsustainability. The concept of social-ecological resilience seems to comply with such requirements.     

Benefits from and threats to European treeline ecosystem services: an exploratory study of stakeholders and governance

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) is being increasingly applied in environmental governance and science. To safeguard key ES in changing and complex social–ecological systems such as treeline areas, we need to (1) map key ES in different types of treeline landscapes, (2) identify the stakeholders benefiting from and threatening ES, and (3) examine how ES could be governed more sustainably. We explore these questions in European treeline areas by using quantitative and qualitative social science techniques to analyse responses from a survey of local scientific experts in 20 altitudinal and polar treeline areas in 15 European countries. In contrast to the prevalent consideration of treeline areas as a single type of a social–ecological system, we show that European treeline areas can be divided into two types that significantly differ in the delivery of ES. Our analyses allowed us to categorize stakeholders according to their benefits from and threats to ES; “Green key players” formed the most numerous group, while smaller number of stakeholder groups was categorized as “Harmless crowd”, “Occasional stressors”, and “Risky users”. However, behaviour of stakeholders is very much site-specific. Of 595 pairs of stakeholders analysed, we found <5 EU-wide “Allies” and “Opponents”. Recommendations for improved governance include adjusting governance instruments to specific problems in divergent treeline systems and creating participatory structures where stakeholders better interact with scientists and can genuinely influence management decisions.     

Community-led reforestation: cultivating the potential of virtuous cycles to confer resilience in disaster disrupted social–ecological systems

Human relationships with trees can result in widespread citizen-led reforestation projects that catalyze social–biological-reinforcing feedback loops and set in motion virtuous cycles that restore perturbed social–ecological systems. These virtuous cycles confer resilience in such systems that counterbalance the tendency for vicious cycles to be triggered by destructive behavior and neglect. Given this argument, we ask: how do we cultivate the potential for virtuous cycles to confer resilience in social–ecological systems? To answer this question, we review feedback mechanisms and identify virtuous cycles catalyzed via ecological restoration to highlight their importance to the resilience of social–ecological systems. We then conceptualize these cycles with a causal map (also known as a causal loop diagram) illustrating an example where restoration activities and civic ecology practices contributed to feedbacks and virtuous cycles. Following from this example, we discuss approaches for recognizing and investing in virtuous cycles that accompany social–ecological systems and outline approaches for managing such cycles.     

Whose values count: is a theory of social choice for sustainability science possible?

If sustainability science is to mature as a discipline, it will be important for practitioners to discuss and eventually agree upon the fundamentals of the paradigm on which the new discipline is based. Since sustainability is fundamentally a normative assertion about tradeoffs among values, how society chooses the specifics among these tradeoffs is central to the sustainability problem. Whose values should count in making social decisions and how should the multiplicity of values that exist be known and used in that decision process? Given the vast spatial domains and temporal domains at work in the sustainability problem, we need some means of reconciling the inevitably divergent choices depending on whose values we count, how we know what those values are, and how we count them in making social decisions. We propose an approach to dealing with these questions based on Rawls (A theory of justice. Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1971) and explore the problems inherent in a social choice theory for sustainability science.     

The scientific challenge of bridging the gap from the local to the earth system level: lessons from the study of mangroves and people in North Brazil

This article aims to address the challenges of sustainable earth system governance from a multi-scale level perspective. The local to regional system level reviews findings from a social–ecological system approach of a mangrove ecosystem in North Brazil. Seven challenges (Glaser et al. in Mangrove dynamics and management in North Brazil. Ecological studies series. Springer, Berlin, pp 307–388, 2010) that could provide relevant knowledge to society were identified. Their respective justification and recommendations are presented here. Further, these “challenges from the field” are linked and discussed with those challenges on earth system level elaborated by the International Council for Science in 2010. There it was stressed that sustainability problems are increasingly caused by drivers from multiple spatial and institutional levels in a single global human–nature system. The comparison between the global and local to regional challenges shows that most of these are reappearing disregarding the level of analysis, indicating that there is a universal core of global change problems. However, there are gaps visible which hamper the effective connections across the different spatial levels. These pertain to the subjects of knowledge generation and stakeholder inclusion. The final section elaborates on these recognized gaps and their science–policy dimensions. The article closes with the identification of a number of factors which currently impede global sustainability efforts: shortcomings in inter- and transdisciplinary research practice, lack of consistent structures for earth system governance and shortcomings in dealing with upscaling challenges whilst remaining locally relevant. A blueprint for a globally focused but regionally informed social–ecological analysis framework remains to be worked out.