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.     

Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach

In order to discuss how to advance sustainability in engineering, it is necessary to be clear as to what exactly is the science of sustainability. The linkage between sustainability philosophy and scientific principles has, in some ways, been acknowledged in the wider literature. Moreover, the recent scholarship on sustainability in international literature has focused on providing definitions, policies and methods, though from an engineering perspective, there is an obvious need for clarity on how the engineering and science community can integrate the science of sustainability into practice. Prima facie, this article provides an overview of the development of sustainability science through a textual analysis to collate the underlying discourse and ideology cited in literature. While the number one sustainability challenge is to mitigate climate change, compiling a definition genesis of sustainability will assist the engineering community in gaining an understanding in the underlying philosophical frames. The aim of this paper is to analyse sustainability information in the print press, journals, periodicals and textbooks since publication patterns contribute to our understanding of the cognitive aspects of scholarly knowledge development.     

Contributions of sustainability science to the study of environmental health problems

From the ontological point of view, environmental health problems do not differ from problems of unsustainability. This leads us to think that sustainability science could contribute to resolve important questions that studies on environmental health are not resolving. A literature review was made in order to analyse the scope and limitations of studies on environmental health problems. Based on the characteristics of environmental health studies, we highlighted some examples of questions that are being ignored and analysed four contributions that sustainability science could make to solve them. These contributions come from three key components of sustainability science: (1) the unit of analysis—social–ecological systems, (2) a theory—resilience theory and, specifically, social–ecological resilience, (3) and the approaches of complex systems and transdisciplinarity. From a sustainability science perspective, four contributions could be made: environmental health problems are redefined as social–ecological systems; environmental health is assumed to be the result of adaptation processes; the environment and society are recognized as systems, not as matrices of factors; and human action acquires content and structure and, in turn, explains the behaviour of environmental health problems.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

气候正义视域下的气候变化损失与损害救济路径分析

气候变化对生态环境和人类健康造成的影响一直受科学家和国际组织的广泛关注。在现有的科学技术无法确切论证气候变化对环境的总体影响及对小岛和低地国家带来损害情况下,该议题自提出至今的进展都举步维艰。本文对议题谈判进展及各方立场进行梳理,提出未来谈判和规则的制定应以全球气候正义为价值衡量标准,树立整体观上的气候正义理念。并对气候正义内涵进行具体解读:一是以人权保护为维度,指出保护小岛和低地国家的基本人权是实现气候正义的逻辑前提;二是指出应当基于分配正义与矫正正义的传统分析视角,将共同但有区别责任原则作为设定权利与义务分配机制时的基础标准;三是气候正义要求一国在行使权利时应遵循领土无害使用原则,负有不污染和破坏他国环境和生态的义务,如违反便可能引发国家责任或惩戒。本文进而以气候正义为价值指引提出三种救济路径:一是国家责任路径,以国际人权法、国际环境法的规则或原则为法律依据,根据一定的规则,来判断当事国的损害行为或结果是否构成国际法上的国家责任;二是国际环境规制路径,即在《联合国气候变化框架公约》(以下简称《公约》)所确立的遵约与履约机制下解决问题,利用市场机制和激励手段如基金和保险支持制度来救济或补偿损失与损害;三是国际环境争端解决路径,主要以磋商、协商、和解、谈判等非强制性方式及国际仲裁、国际司法的法律手段解决气候争端。在救济路径上,应以全球规制路径为主,以国家责任路径为补充,以环境争端解决方式为程序性保障。中国基于全球气候治理的积极推动者,应表明立场,以共同但有区别责任原则为谈判基础,加强南南合作,履行国际气候承诺,发展低碳经济,积极推进该议题的国际谈判。     

Relative Assessment of Indicators in Sustainability Enhancement (RAISE): a first approach in the manufacturing stage of products

The estimation of the sustainability performance of products requires tools to provide systematic approaches to the definition of impacts, indicators and comparative scenarios from early design stages. This paper illustrates the Relative Assessment of Indicators in Sustainability Enhancement (RAISE) methodology that is based on the measure of negative impacts generated during any product life cycle stage. This approach includes a systematic process for the definition and evaluation of indicators to compare the sustainability performance of products considering each indicator individually and using a holistic index of sustainability to entail an overall comparison between products from manufacturing scenarios. The RAISE method is developed with the aim of assessing sustainability performance of product life cycle stages and incorporating this assessment into the decision-making process when comparing different manufacturing scenarios. A guitar capo manufactured in polymeric material is used as case study to demonstrate the use of the method. In this paper, only the manufacturing stage is considered; however, the method can also be employed in other stages of the life cycle.     

Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a framework

Research aiming at generating effective contributions to sustainable development faces particular complexity related challenges. This article proposes an analytical framework disentangling and structuring complexity issues with which research for sustainable development is confronted. Based on theoretical conceptions from fields like policy sciences and transdisciplinary research as well as on an in-depth analysis of the concept of sustainable development, three meta-perspectives on research for sustainable development are introduced and elaborated. The first perspective focuses on notions of sustainable development, sorting out the problem of unclear or ambiguous interpretations of the general sustainability objectives in specific contexts. The second perspective introduces a broad conception of the policy process representing the way societal change towards sustainable development is brought about. It supports identifying those academic and non-academic actors and stakeholders that are relevant for coming up with effective knowledge contributions. The third perspective identifies different forms of knowledge that are needed to tackle sustainability problems as well as the significance of their mutual interrelations. How the framework perspectives support reflecting on the fundamental complexity issues research for sustainable development is confronted with is illustrated using a case example from natural scientific research in the field of land use. We argue that meeting the complexity inherent in the concept of sustainable development requires joint learning in policy processes, working out shared visions being in line with the core objectives of sustainable development and generating knowledge about empirical, normative and pragmatic aspects.     

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.     

Sustainability assessment as problem structuring: three typical ways

Sustainability assessment (SA) is an increasingly popular term referring to a broad range of approaches to align decision-making with the principles of sustainability. Nevertheless, in public and private sectors sustainability results are still disappointing, and this paper reflects on this problem and proposes a way forward. We argue that, because sustainability issues are generally wicked problems (i.e. a ‘complex of interconnected factors in a pluralistic context’), effective assessments need to be reflexive about the definition of the issue and about the criteria for sustainable solutions. Based on a distinction of policy problems, we characterize SA as a form of problem structuring, and we distinguish three typical ways of problem structuring, corresponding to three different ways of integrating reflexivity in the assessment. We illustrate these routes in three examples. We discuss the way reflexivity is integrated in each example by discussing the mix of methods, SA process and epistemological balance. Rather than merely calling for more stakeholder participation, our aim is to call for more reflexivity integrated into the SA approach, and we conclude by proposing a process map for reflexive sustainability assessment to support this.     

Toward legitimate governance strategies for climate adaptation in the Netherlands: combining insights from a legal,planning, and network perspective

In general, the issue of climate change is characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and multifacetedness. In the Netherlands, climate change is in above highly controversial. These characteristics make it difficult to realize adaptation measures that are perceived as legitimate. In this article, we analyze the main difficulties and dilemmas with regard to the issue of legitimacy in the context of climate adaptation. We conceptualize legitimacy from a legal, a planning, and a network perspective and show how the concept of legitimacy evolves within these three perspectives. From a legal perspective, the focus is on the issues of good governance. From a planning perspective, the focus is on the flexibility, learning, and governance capacity. From a network perspective, issues of dialogue, involvement, and support are important. These perspectives bring in different criteria, which are not easy compatible. We describe and illustrate these legitimacy challenges using an in-depth study of the Dutch IJsseldelta Zuid case. From our case study, we conclude that, from a legitimacy perspective, the often acclaimed necessity to be adaptive and flexible is quite problematic. The same holds true for the plea to mainstream adaptation into other policy domains. In our case study, these strategies give rise to serious challenges in relation to good governance and consensus—two indispensable cornerstones of legitimacy.     

The concept of ecological debt: some steps towards an enriched sustainability paradigm

In this paper, we elaborate on the concept of ecological debt. Starting from the enriching environmental justice perspectives, this grass-roots concept has to offer to sustainability discourse, a broad conceptual discussion is presented resulting in a working definition for ecological debt. In elaborating on this definition, we try both to accommodate these enriching perspectives and to offer a more robust conceptualisation that is applicable in international sustainability discourse. Also, a scientifically sound methodology is presented which allows quantifying different aspects of ecological debt. Finally, both the conceptual analysis as well as the quantification method is applied to the case of climate change.     

From global sustainability research matrix to typology: a tool to analyze coastal and marine social-ecological systems

An attempt is made to develop a coastal and marine social-ecological typology. An explicitly regional focus is taken to explore how a regionally grounded, multi-scale analysis may support multi-level local to global sustainability efforts. A case study from Indonesia exemplifies this approach. Social-ecological sustainability problems, caused by drivers at different earth system levels, lead the way into the proposed typology. A social-ecological system consists of a biogeophysical territory, an identified issue and the associated social agents. It can extend across disciplines as well as across spatial and institutional levels and scales. A global sustainability research matrix, which is based on ecozones and problem types, can thus be constructed and serves as a research-driven multi-level typology. The regional application links directly to stakeholder agendas at the problem level. It is argued that some of the central functions of coastal and marine social-ecological systems are resource provision, livelihood access, and storm and erosion protection, which need special attention in a coastal and marine social-ecological typology, as exemplified in the Indonesian case study used. This contribution is an exploratory research to propose steps toward such a typology. It is extended to the social-ecological subsystems—natural, social, governance—and applied to additional cases. A two-dimensional, hierarchical typology is proposed as a tool to analyze, compare and classify coastal and marine systems. A policy typology is added to assess changes. A governance baseline is assumed to foster normative sustainability goals. A subsystems appraisal typology is meant to evaluate action results. Finally, unresolved methodological questions are discussed.     

Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science

The science of sustainability has inevitably emerged as a vibrant field of research and education that transcends disciplinary boundaries and focuses increasingly on understanding the dynamics of social-ecological systems (SES). Yet, sustainability remains an elusive concept, and its nature seems unclear for the most part. In order to truly mobilize people and nations towards sustainability, we place emphasis on the necessity of understanding the nature, cost and principles of ‘visioneering’—the engineering of a clear vision. In SES, purpose is the most important pillar, which gives birth to vision—the key to fulfilling the systems’ mission. Such a systems perspective leads us to redefine resilience as jumping back to the original purpose, for which SES do not necessarily retain the same structures and functioning after disturbances. A sustainable future will require purpose-driven transformation of society at all scales, guided by the best foresight, with insight based on hindsight that science can provide. Visioneering with resilience-based systems thinking will provide communities with a logical framework for understanding their interconnections and purposes, envisioning a sustainable web of life, and eventually dancing with the systems.     

Investigating the role of smartness for sustainability: insights from the Smart Grid domain

Over the past decades, information and communication technologies (ICT) established themselves as the key force towards more effective and efficient usage of resources in our society, namely via better use of available information, automation, stakeholder involvement, and decision support. By analyzing recent advancements in knowledge offered by ICT, it is possible to identify their strong correlation with the principles, aims, and interests of sustainability science, which can be highly inspired by ICT-intensive domains. In this paper, we study the theoretical background on system thinking as an interpretative lens able to support better understanding of dimensions and dynamics involved in the domain of sustainability, and examine the role of ICT in advancing sustainability goals. Then, we analyze the domain of the Smart Grid as a prominent example of complex technological contribution in face of the challenges of sustainability, and present the insights from this domain, which are turned into sustainability guidelines for other domains, linking smartness, and sustainability in the light of systems thinking and Smart Grid experience. In summary, the core recommendation of this work is the employment of information technology to widen the scope of the sustainability “game” by sliding activities in time and space, and in engaging more “players” in the game, which is now made possible thanks to the advancement in ICT.     

A Systems Based Framework to Examine The Multi-contextural Application of the Sustainability Concept

A conceptual framework is generated through systems principles to explain sustainability’s wide diversity of interpretation and contextual application. Sustainability is reduced to a literal interpretation as the ability to sustain, and then expressed in simple systems as the ability of one system to sustain another system over time. This reinforces the importance of time in the sustainability debate, and suggests the concept can be legitimately applied to timeframes that have absolute limits. The framework is expanded to complex systems as the changing ability of one or many systems to sustain the changing requirements of one or many systems, over time. This accommodates multiple relations and system dynamics, and hints at the extraordinary complexity encompassed by the sustainability concept. Practical implications relate to the evolving meaning of sustainability, the need for continual change to remain sustainable, and that the sustainability concept can be validly applied to virtually any context or situation that exhibits a dimension of continuity. Derived criteria useful for clarifying contextual applications of sustainability include stating the how, what, why, who and for how long of sustainability, along with indicating the most appropriate hierarchical tier at which the concept is being applied.