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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

生态示范区可持续发展指标体系和数学模型--以安徽省岳西县国家级生态示范区为例

为评价、监控和考核生态示范区可持续发展水平、进程和成效,构建了一套量化评价指标体系和指数叠加、功效系数、模糊综合评价等三种数学模型,并以安徽省岳西县国家级生态示范区为例研究生态示范区多时空尺度的可持续发展态势。结果表明在基准水平年（2000）、近期目标年（2005）和远景目标年（2010）生态示范区复合系统的可持续发展度（0.268、0.541、0.859）、可持续功效系数（0.711、0.812、0.949）和可持续发展隶属度（0.129、0.332、\{0.671\}）都逐步增加,而且在不同规划年限中均以自然子系统可持续发展态势为最优,这与该县生态环境优越、经济社会水平低、发展潜力大的客观实际非常符合。     

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

Legitimacy is widely regarded as a founding principle of ‘good’ and effective governance, yet despite intense academic debate and policy discourse, the concept remains conceptually confusing and poorly articulated in practice. To bridge this gap, this research performed an interpretive thematic analysis of academic scholarship across public administration, public policy, law, political science, and geography. Four core themes were identified in relation to representative deliberation, procedural and distributive equity and justice, and socio-political acceptability, with numerous sub-themes therein. In an attempt to clarify conceptual confusion, this paper grounds these theoretical debates in the context of flood risk governance where numerous legitimacy dilemmas exist. A number of questions are presented as conceptual ‘signposts’ to encourage reflexive governance in the future. Thus, more broadly, we assert the importance of bringing legitimacy to the forefront of contemporary flood risk governance discourse and practice, moving beyond the realm of academic reflection.

     

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.     

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.     

Ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability: an overview and conceptual framework

Can ecological distribution conflicts turn into forces for sustainability? This overview paper addresses in a systematic conceptual manner the question of why, through whom, how, and when conflicts over the use of the environment may take an active role in shaping transitions toward sustainability. It presents a conceptual framework that schematically maps out the linkages between (a) patterns of (unsustainable) social metabolism, (b) the emergence of ecological distribution conflicts, (c) the rise of environmental justice movements, and (d) their potential contributions for sustainability transitions. The ways how these four processes can influence each other are multi-faceted and often not a foretold story. Yet, ecological distribution conflicts can have an important role for sustainability, because they relentlessly bring to light conflicting values over the environment as well as unsustainable resource uses affecting people and the planet. Environmental justice movements, born out of such conflicts, become key actors in politicizing such unsustainable resource uses, but moreover, they take sometimes also radical actions to stop them. By drawing on creative forms of mobilizations and diverse repertoires of action to effectively reduce unsustainabilities, they can turn from ‘victims’ of environmental injustices into ‘warriors’ for sustainability. But when will improvements in sustainability be lasting? By looking at the overall dynamics between the four processes, we aim to foster a more systematic understanding of the dynamics and roles of ecological distribution conflicts within sustainability processes.     

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     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Monsanto’s Biotechnology Politics: Discourses of Legitimation

Since the first product became commercially available in 1995, biotechnology has become the fastest growing crop technology, dominating large shares of the global agricultural market. The development of biotechnology, however, has given rise to questions regarding human and ecological safety, culminating in local and global political battles. While researchers interested in biotech politics have focused on areas such as media framing, social movements, and campaign work, less attention has been paid to how the industry has historically promoted and legitimized this swift proliferation. In this study, we conduct a discourse analysis of documents available on live and archived websites to discern the legitimation strategies employed by one important corporate actor, Monsanto. Findings show that for nearly two decades, Monsanto consistently employed discursive resources that concealed details about actors and action, reflected trends among experts in global sustainability discourse, and reshaped narratives to promote itself, products, and biotechnology in general.     

A perspective on radical transformations to sustainability: resistances,movements and alternatives

A transformation to sustainability calls for radical and systemic societal shifts. Yet what this entails in practice and who the agents of this radical transformation are require further elaboration. This article recenters the role of environmental justice movements in transformations, arguing that the systemic, multi-dimensional and intersectional approach inherent in EJ activism is uniquely placed to contribute to the realization of equitable sustainable futures. Based on a perspective of conflict as productive, and a “conflict transformation” approach that can address the root issues of ecological conflicts and promote the emergence of alternatives, we lay out a conceptual framework for understanding transformations through a power analysis that aims to confront and subvert hegemonic power relations; that is, multi-dimensional and intersectional; balancing ecological concerns with social, economic, cultural and democratic spheres; and is multi-scalar, and mindful of impacts across place and space. Such a framework can help analyze and recognize the contribution of grassroots EJ movements to societal transformations to sustainability and support and aid radical transformation processes. While transitions literature tends to focus on artifacts and technologies, we suggest that a resistance-centred perspective focuses on the creation of new subjectivities, power relations, values and institutions. This recenters the agency of those who are engaged in the creation and recuperation of ecological and new ways of being in the world in the needed transformation.     

Evidence for the prevalence of the sustainability concept in European corporate responsibility reporting

This paper empirically examines the terminology used in the titles of corporate social responsibility (CSR)/sustainability reports in Europe. Our data supports the claim of the rise of the sustainability concept in corporate communication in comparison to other concepts. In detail this research analysed CSR/sustainability reports to support Matten and Moon’s [Acad Manage Rev 33(2):404–424, 2008] hypothesis regarding a recent European trend towards a more voluntary and explicit CSR practice. The second and main objective of the research was to describe statistically significant trends in the use of terms and concepts in CSR/sustainability reporting to better understand how European companies interpret CSR and sustainability and how they communicate it to their stakeholders. To this end, a content analysis was conducted on 329 CSR/sustainability reports from 50 leading European companies from Euro Stoxx 50 that were published between the beginning of online CSR/sustainability reporting in 1998 and 2010. Our data analysis clearly indicates that the use of social and environment-related terms occurred more frequently in the past and demonstrates the establishment of sustainability in corporate non-financial reporting. Based on the results of our empirical research, the final discussion explores the development and diffusion of the sustainability concept in both the academic and business fields and examines economic, environmental, and social implications. Different propositions are presented to explain the recent rise of the sustainability concept in European CSR/sustainability reporting, adding to the formation of sustainability as a concept and as a science.     

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.     

The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice

Sustainability principles are at the forefront of regional planning. In Hawaii, the movement toward “sustainability” gave way to revisiting the State Plan. This paper uses a case study of the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan (Hawaii 2050) to illustrate how adopting popular notions of sustainability, without critical examination of how the respective policy frames diverge or interrelate, can lead to “tautological traps.” In the case of Hawaii 2050, the “triple-bottom-line” (embedded within sustainable development) became the dominant sustainability frame during the solicitation of public input and was thus used to guide the planning discourse. The application of triple-bottom-line concepts at the level of policy and planning led to a process that polarized economic and environmental interests. While the goals of sustainable development and the use of triple-bottom-line concepts are useful for planners, we argue that they should be applied within the parameters of ecological sustainability in a US regional context, lest resulting plans continue to allow the momentum of development to override ecological concerns.