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.     

Sustainability: definition and five core principles,a systems perspective

A systems perspective is used to discuss the concept of sustainability. From this perspective, it is argued, sustainability can be regarded as a system state that is mediated by specific structures. This is fundamentally different from regarding sustainability merely as a normative goal, as it is presently regarded by most. Insight into the kinds of structures which mediate a system’s state open the door to proactive design of new structures and mechanisms, which are necessary for yielding effective change: in this case, promoting the sustainability agenda. The kind of change required to transform the prevailing trajectory of human affairs is presented as a second order change: a change that requires a major shift, and a complete transformation of the system itself, not only in a few aspects of its behavior. A new definition of sustainability is offered, anchored in the interaction of a population and the carrying capacity of its environment. From this definition, five core sustainability principles are derived, along with their respective policy and operational implications. Together, these principles prescribe the conditions that must be met to attain sustainability as an enduring state. The principles themselves form an integrated, systemic set, which requires them to be acted on simultaneously. A piecemeal approach—focusing on one aspect while neglecting others—is not likely to yield effective results for the whole.     

Theorizing stakeholders of sustainability in the digital age

Stakeholder theory, originally introduced in 1984 by philosopher Edward Freeman, is among the most influential theories today addressing the complex interplay of societal actors. It underwent several transformations and expansions, but the original Freeman model as well as the latest approaches places the corporation at the center positioning the theory as management driven. In this article—from a sustainability science perspective—we argue that sustainability could also be considered as the center, around which societal actors are grouped, because everyone, individuals as well as stakeholders, have a stake in a ‘common future’ that is built on the transformative concept of sustainability. Next to this shift of perspective from corporation to sustainability at the center, we advance the concept of sustainability stakeholders with the new paradigm of the digital age we (are about to) live in: the proposed sustainability-centered stakeholder theory is developed to incorporate novel parameters as brought about by digitalization (such as big data, real-time transparency, algorithmic correlations, predictive analytics, or changing privacy standards). Hence, we classify the stakeholders of sustainability according to their roles as “big data stakeholders:” collectors, generators, and utilizers of big data. This digital sustainability stakeholder model operationalizes the complex interplay between stakeholders focused on their ‘stake’ in sustainability and a common future and illustrates their roles in the digital age. Thus, it offers a normative framework to analyze stakeholders’ responsibility to contribute to, advance, promote, and achieve sustainability.     

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.     

Science, Research, Knowledge and Capacity Building

A small part of the scientific community is seeking hard to enhance the contribution of science, knowledge and capacity building to environmentally sustainable and socially fair human development around the world. Many researchers over the globe share the same commitment – anchored in concerns for the human condition. They believe that science and research can and have influenced sustainability. Therefore their main goals are to seek and build up knowledge, know-how and capacity that might help to feed, nurture, house, educate and employ the world's growing human population while conserving its basic life support systems and biodiversity. They undertake projects, that are essentially integrative, and they try to connect the natural, social and engineering sciences, environment and development of communities, multiple stakeholders, geographic and temporal scales. More generally, scientists engaged in sustainable development are bridging the worlds of knowledge and action. This pro-active, heavily ethics- and wisdom-based "science for sustainability" can be seen as the conclusion of all dialogues and discussions amongst scientists at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 2002 in Johannesburg. The "Plan of Implementation" after WSSD will be based on political will, practical steps and partnerships with time-bound actions. Several "means of implementation" are going to be proofed and initiated: finance, trade, transfer of environmentally sound technology, and, last but not least, science and capacity building.Some characteristics of working scientific sustainability initiatives are that they are regional, place-based and solution-oriented. They are focusing at intermediate scales where multiple stresses intersect, where complexity is manageable, where integration is possible, where innovation happens, and where significant transitions toward sustainability can start bottom-up. And they have a fundamental character, addressing the unity of the nature – society system, asking how that interactive system is evolving and how it can be consciously, if imperfectly, steered through the reflective mobilization and application of appropriate knowledge and know-how. The aims of such sustainability-building initiatives conducted by researchers are: first to make significant progress toward expanding and deepening the research agenda of science and knowledge-building for sustainability; secondly to strengthen the infrastructure and capacity for conducting and applying science, research and technology for sustainability – everywhere in the world where it is needed; and thirdly, to connect science, policy and decision-making more effectively in pursuit of a faster transition towards real sustainable development. The overall characteristic is, that sustainability initiatives are mainly open-ended networks and dialogues for the better future. A world society that tries to turn towards sustainable development has to work hard to refine their clumsy technologies, in "earthing" their responsibility to all creatures and resources, in establishing democratic systems in peace and by heeding human rights, in building up global solidarity through all mankind and in commit themselves to a better life for the next generations.     

“Measuring Sustainability”: A Multi-Criterion Framework

So far, the elementary question of whether one country’s or region’s economy is moving towards sustainability or away from it cannot be answered with unanimous consensus on the ‘measuring rod(s)’ to be employed. The main assumption of this article is that sustainability assessment needs a set of multi-dimensional indicators. From this assumption a question arises: how could such indicators be aggregated? Often, some indicators improve while others deteriorate. For instance, when incomes grow, SO₂ might go down while CO₂ increases. It has to be noted that this is the classical conflictual situation studied in multi-criteria decision theory. The use of a multi-criterion framework for making operational the ‘measuring of sustainability’ is discussed here by means of illustrative examples and more formal arguments.     

The contribution of the sciences,technology and innovation to sustainable development: the application of sustainability science from the perspective of UNESCO’s experience

The contribution of scientific knowledge and innovation to sustainability is demonstrated. Theory, discoveries, programmes and activities in both the natural as well as social sciences fields have greatly helped with the environmental, economic and social challenges of the past and current centuries, especially in the past 50 years or so. Nowadays, we increasingly realize the intimate link between science and society, and the need not only for science to inform policy but also to address requests by governments and the multiple stakeholders confronted with the challenge to achieve sustainable development. Current barriers to how science is conceived and related education is delivered hamper true interdisciplinarity, and the emerging field of sustainability science attempts inter alia to clarify how ‘a new generation of science’ can be designed so as to promote more integrated thinking to tackle complex societal issues. At the international level, and more specifically in the context of the United Nations, the practice of science has always entailed the need to solve problems such as climate change, ozone depletion, disaster risk, lack of food security, biodiversity loss, social instability and ineffective governance—to cite a few. In this regard, science in an intergovernmental context is by definition science that has to assist with the struggle for sustainability. Yet, a higher level of integration and cross-fertilization among disciplines as well as of participation among concerned stakeholders in the design and implementation of science-based programmes and activities carried out by the United Nations (and, in this article, the specific case of its Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—UNESCO—is presented) seems to be needed. The debate on sustainability science carried out in the academic circle and the experience of UNESCO in this area can be mutually supportive in further elucidating how, practically, the approach of sustainability science can enhance the achievement of sustainable development at multiple scales.     

Framing natural assets for advancing sustainability research: translating different perspectives into actions

Sustainability is a key challenge for humanity in the context of complex and unprecedented global changes. Future Earth, an international research initiative aiming to advance global sustainability science, has recently launched knowledge–action networks (KANs) as mechanisms for delivering its research strategy. The research initiative is currently developing a KAN on “natural assets” to facilitate and enable action-oriented research and synthesis towards natural assets sustainability. ‘Natural assets’ has been adopted by Future Earth as an umbrella term aiming to translate and bridge across different knowledge systems and different perspectives on peoples’ relationships with nature. In this paper, we clarify the framing of Future Earth around natural assets emphasizing the recognition on pluralism and identifying the challenges of translating different visions about the role of natural assets, including via policy formulation, for local to global sustainability challenges. This understanding will be useful to develop inter-and transdisciplinary solutions for human–environmental problems by (i) embracing richer collaborative decision processes and building bridges across different perspectives; (ii) giving emphasis on the interactions between biophysical and socioeconomic drivers affecting the future trends of investments and disinvestments in natural assets; and (iii) focusing on social equity, power relationships for effective application of the natural assets approach. This understanding also intends to inform the scope of the natural asset KAN’s research agenda to mobilize the translation of research into co-designed action for sustainability.     

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.     

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.     

Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science

Envisioning how a desirable future might look is a long-standing effort in human evolution and social change. Utopian thought and visions provide direction for actions and behavior; more so, they create identity and community. Accordingly, the discourse on sustainability and sustainable development has recognized that positive visions about our societies’ future are an influential, if not indispensable, stimulus for change. Visioning is, thus, considered a key method in sustainability research and problem solving, for instance, in transformational sustainability science or in planning for urban sustainability. Yet, quality criteria for sustainability visions and guidelines on how to rigorously craft such visions are scattered over different strands of the literature and some are insufficiently developed. The goal of this article is to review and synthesize such quality criteria and design guidelines to inform sustainability visioning methodology. The review provides a concise reference framework for sustainability students, researchers, and professionals on how to enhance their sustainability visioning practices.     

On the road to ‘research municipalities’: analysing transdisciplinarity in municipal ecosystem services and adaptation planning

Transdisciplinary research and collaboration is widely acknowledged as a critical success factor for solution-oriented approaches that can tackle complex sustainability challenges, such as biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate-related hazards. In this context, city governments’ engagement in transdisciplinarity is generally seen as a key condition for societal transformation towards sustainability. However, empirical evidence is rare. This paper presents a self-assessment of a joint research project on ecosystem services and climate adaptation planning (ECOSIMP) undertaken by four universities and seven Swedish municipalities. We apply a set of design principles and guiding questions for transdisciplinary sustainability projects and, on this basis, identify key aspects for supporting university–municipality collaboration. We show that: (1) selecting the number and type of project stakeholders requires more explicit consideration of the purpose of societal actors’ participation; (2) concrete, interim benefits for participating practitioners and organisations need to be continuously discussed; (3) promoting the ‘inter’, i.e., interdisciplinary and inter-city learning, can support transdisciplinarity and, ultimately, urban sustainability and long-term change. In this context, we found that design principles for transdisciplinarity have the potential to (4) mitigate project shortcomings, even when transdisciplinarity is not an explicit aim, and (5) address differences and allow new voices to be heard. We propose additional guiding questions to address shortcomings and inspire reflexivity in transdisciplinary projects.     

Modeling normativity in sustainability: a comparison of the sustainable development goals,the Paris agreement,and the papal encyclical

The idea of sustainability is intrinsically normative. Thus, understanding the role of normativity in sustainability discourses is crucial for further developing sustainability science. In this article, we analyze three important documents that aim to advance sustainability and explore how they organize norms in relation to sustainability. The three documents are: the Pope’s Encyclical Laudato Si’, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. We show that understanding the role of different types of norms in the three documents can help understand normative features of both scientific and non-scientific sustainability discourses. We present the diverse system of norms in a model that interrelates three different levels: macro, meso, and micro. Our model highlights how several processes affect the normative orientation of nations and societies at the meso-level in different ways. For instance, individual ethical norms at the micro-level, such as personal responsibility, may help decelerate unsustainable consumerism at the aggregate meso-level. We also show that techno-scientific norms at the macro-level representing global indicators for sustainability may accelerate innovations. We suggest that our model can help better organize normative features of sustainability discourses and, therefore, to contribute to the further development of sustainability science.     

Regional Research Capacity -Building inSustainability Science:Facts, Gaps, and Futures in Northeast Asia

Evidence shows that some conceptual ideas relevant to both local and global sustainability have been adopted in some official documents in northeast Asian nations, particularly China, South Korea, and Japan. This seems to be a very positive signal for the future development of sustainability science in this region. However,studyes show that there are still some major gaps there. One is the problem of how to build up the regional research capacity of sustainability science among northeast Asian research institutes across different disciplines as well as different political systems. Another is how to shift the conceptual frameworks of sustainability science into the operational policy frameworks. There are four major obstacles to the enhancement of regional research capacity-building in sustainability science. In order to build up the regional research capacity in sustainability science and to realize both local and global goals of the sustainable development in northeast Asia, this paper proposes some ba     

Assessing sustainability in nature-inspired design

In the field of sustainable product development, a new perspective for approaching sustainability has been advocated, challenging designers and engineers to aim beyond ‘reducing unsustainability’. Several design strategies – including Biomimicry and Cradle to Cradle – have been suggested for developing truly sustainable, or ‘beneficial’, products. But do these strategies help in developing such products, and how to assess their ‘sustainability’? Based on a review of the objectives in nature-inspired design, we argue that assessing environmental sustainability is not straightforward. Whereas both Biomimicry and Cradle to Cradle build on the perspective of ‘achieving sustainability’, current life-cycle assessment-based tools are geared towards reducing current impacts. As a consequence, existing tools are insufficiently equipped for the purpose of the assessment: they do not cover some of the main results that nature-inspired design is set out to accomplish. To be able to include these results, we propose two new constituents to current life-cycle-based product assessment: assessing against conditions of sustainability and assessing ‘achievement’, the extent to which these conditions of sustainability have been achieved. Furthermore, the product context needs to be included for assessing beneficial impacts. This article discusses how these constituents can contribute to an assessment tool that enables designers and engineers to assess the development of environmentally sustainable solutions.     

Closing remarks: novel approaches to complex societal change and sustainability

This paper summarizes some personal impressions of the 7th conference of the International Complex Systems Society, co-organized with “Future Earth”, held in Stockholm on August 24–26, 2017. The main point is that it is urgent and important to consider the sustainability conundrum as long-term, society-driven one, and to place societal dynamics at the core of how we, as a global society, came to this point, how ongoing dynamics are driving us towards a tipping point, and which role the Information and Communication Technology revolution plays in that process. A much wider involvement of the social sciences is essential. This also requires major changes in our thinking about sustainability—we need to develop an approach in which change is the natural state of affairs and societies attempt to impose stability on the dynamics involved. We need to focus on learning from the past, about the present, but above all for the future. And we need to shift from an entity-focused approach to a relational one, which pays more attention to contexts and networks. Other issues raised by such a shift in our thinking are about the role of science, the adoption of complex systems approaches and a few others that the paper points to.     

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.     

Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories

Over the last decade, sustainability science has emerged as an interdisciplinary and innovative field attempting to conduct problem-driven research that links knowledge to action. As the institutional dimensions of sustainability science continue to gain momentum, this article provides an analysis of emerging research agendas in sustainability science and an opportunity for reflection on future pathways for the field. Based on in-depth interviews with leading researchers in the field and a content analysis of the relevant literature, this article examines how sustainability scientists bound the social, political and normative dimensions of sustainability as they construct research agendas and look to link knowledge to social action. Many scientists position sustainability science as serving universal values related to sustainability and providing knowledge that is crucial to societal decision-making. The implications of these findings are discussed with an eye towards creating a space for a more democratic and reflexive research agenda for sustainability.     

Regional Research Capacity-Building in Sustainability Science: Facts,Gaps, and Futures in Northeast Asia

Abstract

Evidence shows that some conceptual ideas relevant to both local and global sustainability have been adopted in some official documents in northeast Asian nations, particularly China, South Korea, and Japan. This seems to be a very positive signal for the future development of sustainability science in this region. However, studyes show that there are still some major gaps there. One is the problem of how to build up the regional research capacity of sustainability science among northeast Asian research institutes across different disciplines as well as different political systems. Another is how to shift the conceptual frameworks of sustainability science into the operational policy frameworks. There are four major obstacles to the enhancement of regional research capacity-building in sustainability science. In order to build up the regional research capacity in sustainability science and to realize both local and global goals of the sustainable development in northeast Asia, this paper proposes some basic frameworks, including regional institutional innovations, establishment of a regional sustainability information network, initiatives of the regional assessment programme, and focus on the regional education and training of sustainability knowledge.     

Sisters in sustainability: municipal partnerships for social,environmental, and economic growth

While debates about sustainable development tend to focus on national- and international-scale problems, sustainability programs and research generally focus on the regional, county, municipal, or even household level. Less research has focused on evaluating the benefits of pairing two cities (i.e., sister city partnerships) with different needs and capabilities to jointly enhance the potential for sustainable practices between the cities. Given shrinking state and federal budgets and the nascent national climate policy, how might US cities use existing resources to achieve greater levels of sustainability? This paper presents a new data-driven mathematical tool—the partnership assessment for intra-regional sustainability—that city planners can use to explore the prospects for improving sustainability practices by leveraging existing resources and establishing synergistic partnerships with neighboring cities. The efficacy of the tool is assessed through the presentation of a Southern California case study and the results of a psychological survey of Southern California residents. Results indicate that cities of different size and scale would benefit from synergistic sustainability programs that pool the resources and needs of both cities. The paper concludes with a discussion of potential societal implications, methodological issues, and barriers to implementation.