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.     

Towards adequately framing sustainability goals in research projects: the case of land use studies

Sustainability-oriented undertakings employ a multitude of different definitions and understandings of the term sustainable development. Against this background, the question of which sustainability goals to refer to at project level must be posed. This article discusses this question using the example of research on land use issues. It presents a qualitative in-depth empirical analysis of the underlying sustainability understanding of research projects, and identifies crucial characteristics of the ways researchers deal with the respective normative goals. The notions of sustainable development advanced by such projects featured different foci with respect to the overall meaning of the concept and were influenced by diverse actor and stakeholder perspectives. Further, the identified sustainability conceptions were deliberated on to different extents, and also differed with respect to whether they were explicit or contextualized. Most importantly, the projects differed in how they broached the issue of sustainability goals as part of research. The findings were used to develop a set of guidelines that clarifies how research can be related successfully to the societal vision of sustainable development. The guidelines draw conceptually on general requirements for appropriate sustainability conceptions derived from the Brundtland definition. They offer a tool for reflecting on one’s assumptions with respect to sustainability goals at any stage of research, which is crucial for advancing the seminal field of sustainability science.     

The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach

Transdisciplinary (TD) research is an example of a participatory research approach that has been developed to address the complexity of societal problems through the exchange of knowledge and expertise across diverse groups of societal actors. The concept of knowledge exchange is central to the ability of TD research to produce usable knowledge. There is, however, limited theoretical attention to the processes that enable knowledge exchange, namely learning. In this article, we analyze the “transferability” of knowledge generated in TD research settings from a practice-based approach. In this approach, learning and knowing are seen as situated in social practices, in meaning making processes where the involved participants make sense of what they do and why they do it. We describe and analyze three TD projects, and discuss the role of practitioners’ perspectives in the interpretation of the tasks and realization of TD, and in the consequences this has for the organization of the research process and the usability of its results. The analysis shows that while the project teams were given the same task and framework, they did not understand or enact TD in a similar fashion. The three projects created different goals and organizations. They also resulted in different challenges, which could be identified and analyzed by the use of a practice-based approach to learning. In the conclusions, we identify aspects for both practice and research that are important for creating sufficient conditions for learning in TD research processes so that they can better promote contributions to societal change.     

Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving

Transdisciplinarity is often presented as a way to effectively use scientific research to contribute to societal problem solving for sustainability. The aim of this paper is to critically explore this statement. This is done in two ways. First, a literature survey of transdisciplinary research is used to identify the assumptions that underlie the positive relationship between transdisciplinarity and societal problem solving for sustainability. This mapping identifies the claim that in-depth participation of users and the integration of relevant knowledge from both practice and research in real-world problem contexts produce socially robust results that contribute to sustainability. Second, the ability to live up to this claim is presented and discussed in five case study projects from Mistra Urban Futures, a transdisciplinary center in Göteborg, Sweden. The conclusions show that transdisciplinary processes, which fulfill the above conditions, do produce different types of socially robust knowledge, but this does not necessarily result in the ability to influence change in a sustainable direction. This instead creates a paradox in that the participation of stakeholders and the integration of knowledge from diverse sources require spaces that are both embedded in and insulated from practice and science proper. Such spaces produce results that are not easily aligned with sector-based target groups and formal policy processes. Institutionalizing transdisciplinarity in a boundary organization therefore solves some problems regarding participation and balanced problem ownership. However, it also creates new, hybrid problems, regarding knowledge transfer and scalability, which bridge the boundaries and challenge the praxis of planning and policy making.     

Transdisciplinarity as a real-world challenge: a case study on a North–South collaboration

Transdisciplinarity (TD) has become a buzzword, promoted as a suitable approach to address today’s urgent challenges in human-environment interactions. Looking at its practical implementation, however, challenges still remain to be met. Despite the concept’s popularity, it seems difficult to reconcile the idea of knowledge co-production with research realities. Taking a TD research project dealing with sustainable land management in Southern Africa (Angola, Botswana, and Namibia) as a case study, we aim to provide empirically based insights into the real-world application of this collaborative research approach to improve the general understanding of TD research in the making. Based on semi-structured interviews with project partners and stakeholders, we reveal the underlying interests, mismatching institutions and structures of power shaping the TD research process in this North–South collaboration. We identified TD as falling victim to a kind of “tragedy of the commons”, paralysed between existing power structures and conflicting interests, and being considered as extra work instead of an integral task with an inherent value in itself. By demonstrating some of the underlying causes of the challenging practice of TD, we reveal starting points for changes and provide recommendations that aim to set the base for a more reflexive and fruitful TD knowledge co-production.     

Transdisciplinary research in support of land and water management in China and Southeast Asia: evaluation of four research projects

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) aims at identifying implementable solutions to difficult sustainability problems and at fostering social learning. It requires a well-managed collaboration among multidisciplinary scientists and multisectoral stakeholders. Performing TDR is challenging, particularly for foreign researchers working in countries with different institutional and socio-cultural conditions. There is a need to synthesize and share experience among researchers as well as practitioners regarding how TDR can be conducted under specific contexts. In this paper, we aim to evaluate and synthesize our unique experience in conducting TDR projects in Asia. We applied guiding principles of TDR to conduct a formative evaluation of four consortium projects on sustainable land and water management in China, the Philippines, and Vietnam. In all projects, local political conditions restricted the set of stakeholders that could be involved in the research processes. The set of involved stakeholders was also affected by the fact that stakeholders in most cases only participate if they belong to the personal network of the project leaders. Language barriers hampered effective communication between foreign researchers and stakeholders in all projects and thus knowledge integration. The TDR approach and its specific methods were adapted to respond to the specific cultural, social, and political conditions in the research areas, also with the aim to promote trust and interest of the stakeholders throughout the project. Additionally, various measures were implemented to promote collaboration among disciplinary scientists. Based on lessons learned, we provide specific recommendations for the design and implementation of TDR projects in particular in Asia.     

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.     

Sustainable management of construction site big visual data

Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Operation and Ownership (AECOO) team up in a multi-disciplinary collaborative system to create buildings and infrastructure. The participating disciplines have reached a state in which traditional methods and forms of input data introduce entropy that compromises sustainable construction in larger projects. It became difficult to reach planned optimum project duration and costs this way. New approaches based on the systematic digitalization of the building lifecycle, from design to demolition, can solve the problem by involving the concepts of building information modeling (BIM) systems and big data. Previous research on BIM and big data only studied the potential for construction performance. In addition to extending research into systems’ thinking and technical sustainability of big visual data, this paper extends our previous work in the area by introducing a new conceptual and technical framework for sustainable management of construction site big visual data.     

Higher education for today and tomorrow: university appraisal for diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable development

This article serves as a position paper of a consortium of universities in the Asia–Pacific region working to address challenges of sustainable development and rapidly changing social, economic and natural environments. Member universities of ProSPER.Net (Promotion of Sustainability in Postgraduate Education and Research Network) have embarked on a project to develop an alternative university appraisal system that would potentially become a viable alternative to the existing higher education ranking and assessment systems perceived as constraining, yet, powerful. The article discusses the changing landscape for knowledge creation and the need for universities to assume new roles in a new kind of modernity—variously termed as “liquid modernity” (Z. Bauman), “reflexive modernization” (U. Beck) or other neologisms. It recognises that the mainstream ranking and assessment systems are powerful guiding systems for higher education institutions (HEIs) and, if modified, could be a significant force for transformation towards a more sustainable future. Recognising the need for HEIs to address societal challenges and needs, the Alternative University Appraisal (AUA) project of ProSPER.Net starts by reviewing existing models of recognition and appraisal of various aspects of HEIs’ work and aims at creating space for individual and collective reflection on HEI practices and outcomes. In addition to extensive consultations among ProSPER.Net members, as well as with other higher education actors and international organisations addressing higher education for sustainability, cross-sectoral consultations, assessments of the uncertainties and pertinent trends, and engagement with policy-making processes would be required for the AUA system to become a guiding force that shapes higher education of today and tomorrow.     

Problems of cross-scale coastal management in Scandinavia

Transdisciplinary knowledge integration and cross-scale management remain challenges in coastal management after several decades of research and experience with integrated and sustainable coastal management. The aim of this paper is to identify requirements for knowledge integration and development of multi-scale approaches to coastal management through reviewing and re-analysing three Swedish-European research projects: the SUCOZOMA project about sustainable coastal zone management, the FRAP project about conflicts between coastal fishery and species protection, and the SECOA project about solutions to contrasts in coastal metropolitan areas. The strategy of adaptive governance is considered in the light of its ability to assess knowledge requirements for sustainable resource management under conditions of climate change.     

Communities of practice for knowledge co-creation on sustainable dairy farming: features for value creation for farmers

Communities of Practice (CoPs) are a promising concept for transdisciplinary knowledge co-creation in sustainable agricultural development, but empirical evidence from the farmers’ viewpoint is scarce. This paper contributes to empirical insights on the knowledge creation in CoPs as valued by farmers. Using concepts from CoP theory (domain, community, and practice) and the value creation framework (VCF) developed by Wenger et al. (Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Netherlands Ruud de Moor Center Rapport 18:60, 2011), we examined two cases issuing from a European project on sustainable dairy farming. Results indicate regional differences between the two cases and relate CoP features to value creation cycles (immediate, potential, applied, realized and reframing value). They show how specific features regarding domain, community, and practice development can enhance knowledge creation on sustainable agricultural development. Domain development should be considered consciously taking into account the project duration. The community should include actors with specific competencies, such as farmers with an open attitude, researchers with (practical) domain expertise, and advisors with skills as translators between researchers and farmers. The practice development, or the actual knowledge creation, should unify two equally important types of interaction that contribute differently to value creation in CoPs: individual farmer–researcher–advisor interactions and farmer group–advisor interactions. Our research provides both valuable information for designing and managing knowledge co-creation initiatives and anchors further research on competencies and activities required to foster the two types of interactions for knowledge creation.     

Revisiting the “Ozone Hole” Metaphor: From Observational Window to Global Environmental Threat

In 1985, just over 30 years ago, the “ozone hole” made its appearance in the press as a truly global environmental threat. As one of the most important environmental issues of the twentieth century, the “ozone hole” is also a remarkable metaphorical, visual, and imaginary construction. This essay examines the historical trajectory of the famous “ozone hole” from its birth within the astronomical community at the beginning of the twentieth century to its contemporary framing as a global environmental threat. The article provides evidence why metaphors constitute a valuable object of historically informed studies of scientific practice, and shows in particular how metaphorical landscapes shift over time, mapping at the same time larger social and political developments. The essay ends by showing how scientific images and metaphorical framings interact and how they shape scientific and popular discourse on nature, as well as our understanding of the global environment.     

Typology of scientific reflections needed for sustainability science development

Sustainability science is at an early stage of development. Among many other obstacles, there are two prominent issues hindering its advance. There is both a lack of a set of principles for knowledge construction, and a need to implement research to solve real problems. This paper proposes a typology of scientific reflections for meeting these two challenges and contributing to sustainability science development. This typology is made up of four kinds of reflection: practical, instrumental-methodological, theoretical-conceptual, and onto-epistemological. Each kind of reflection is based on a different type of question and gives shape to its respective type of research.     

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.     

Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: lessons learned and ways forward

Pursuing integrated research and decision-making to advance action on the sustainable development goals (SDGs) fundamentally depends on understanding interactions between the SDGs, both negative ones (“trade-offs”) and positive ones (“co-benefits”). This quest, triggered by the 2030 Agenda, has however pointed to a gap in current research and policy analysis regarding how to think systematically about interactions across the SDGs. This paper synthesizes experiences and insights from the application of a new conceptual framework for mapping and assessing SDG interactions using a defined typology and characterization approach. Drawing on results from a major international research study applied to the SDGs on health, energy and the ocean, it analyses how interactions depend on key factors such as geographical context, resource endowments, time horizon and governance. The paper discusses the future potential, barriers and opportunities for applying the approach in scientific research, in policy making and in bridging the two through a global SDG Interactions Knowledge Platform as a key mechanism for assembling, systematizing and aggregating knowledge on interactions.     

Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning process: combining normative,explorative, and participatory scenario approaches

Competing water demands for household consumption as well as the production of food, energy, and other uses pose challenges for water supply and sustainable development in many parts of the world. Designing creative strategies and learning processes for sustainable water governance is thus of prime importance. While this need is uncontested, suitable approaches still have to be found. In this article we present and evaluate a conceptual approach to scenario building aimed at transdisciplinary learning for sustainable water governance. The approach combines normative, explorative, and participatory scenario elements. This combination allows for adequate consideration of stakeholders’ and scientists’ systems, target, and transformation knowledge. Application of the approach in the MontanAqua project in the Swiss Alps confirmed its high potential for co-producing new knowledge and establishing a meaningful and deliberative dialogue between all actors involved. The iterative and combined approach ensured that stakeholders’ knowledge was adequately captured, fed into scientific analysis, and brought back to stakeholders in several cycles, thereby facilitating learning and co-production of new knowledge relevant for both stakeholders and scientists. However, the approach also revealed a number of constraints, including the enormous flexibility required of stakeholders and scientists in order for them to truly engage in the co-production of new knowledge. Overall, the study showed that shifts from strategic to communicative action are possible in an environment of mutual trust. This ultimately depends on creating conditions of interaction that place scientists’ and stakeholders’ knowledge on an equal footing.     

Knowledge-based Journalism in Science and Environmental Reporting: Opportunities and Obstacles

Recent calls for knowledge-based journalism advocate a new level of formal knowledge in news reporting to meet the professional challenges caused by rapid change in the news industry. Scientifically knowledgeable journalism has the potential to redefine the existing science–media relationship. However, the audience for such journalism is unclear, nor is it known how this new journalism would function within rapidly changing newsroom practices. Implementing knowledge-based journalism requires theory-based propositions to show the actual benefits of improved scientific understanding for news consumers and an understanding, from research into professional cultures, of why new practices in journalism are adopted or abandoned. This paper develops that theoretical basis by examining knowledge-based journalism’s potential and some of the intellectual and institutional barriers to it.     

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.     

Wind power projects in Brazil: challenges and opportunities increasing co-benefits and implications for climate and energy policies

The purpose of this article is to analyze the challenges to, and opportunities for, increasing sustainable development (SD) co-benefits delivered by clean development mechanism (CDM) wind power projects in northeastern Brazil and the resulting implications for climate and energy policies. Five methodological phases were met: First, a documentary research was conducted in the main CDM database; second was a literature review, creating the analytical framework and a survey questionnaire needed to assess the SD co-benefits from the projects; third, documentary research was used to enable ex-ante analysis of the SD co-benefits proposed in the CDM Project Design Documents (PDDs); fourth, survey allowed for the analysis of SD co-benefits perceived by project entrepreneurs (ex-post analysis); and finally, a comparison between the ex-ante and ex-post analyses was completed. The results show the importance of carrying out SD co-benefit studies after the implementation of CDM projects in order to learn lessons for new mechanisms of climate governance. The lowest SD co-benefits were water management improvement in the project influence area, soil pollution prevention, health and safety improvements and technology transfer. The greatest opportunities for increasing SD co-benefits come from the environmental licensing process and the strengthening of Corporate Social Responsibility. The greatest challenges are new technology development, stakeholders’ engagement and SD co-benefit audits. We conclude that the improvement of multi-level climate and energy governance plays a key role in increasing SD co-benefits.