Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Initial design process of the sustainability science ontology for knowledge-sharing to support co-deliberation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Implementation of the sustainability science (SS) approach is often difficult because of poor communication between experts from different academic fields. We focused on ontology engineering as a method of knowledge structuring that supports the co-deliberation process. However, SS is too broad for a few experts to construct an ontology because SS targets and covers almost all existing research fields from the viewpoint of problem-solving. The N-iteration process is required for completing an SS ontology. In the present paper, we discuss the initial design process for constructing an ontology on SS from the aspect of a knowledge-sharing tool to support co-deliberation. First, we identified the SS ontology by referring to the existing literature. Second, we traced the structuring process of the SS ontology, which is independent of the existing research domain. Third, we compared the SS ontology with existing ontologies or concept structures on SS. Fourth, we assessed the SS ontology produced in the initial process in terms of relevance and coverage and addressed areas for improvement in order to facilitate co-deliberation among researchers from different domains. As a result of developing the SS ontology and applying it to the mapping tool that we developed based on the ontology, we found the following three points: the SS ontology enables us to define concepts relevant to SS without overlapping by distinguishing part-of and attribute-of relationships at the upper level of the ontology; the SS-based mapping tool successfully represents the potential countermeasures required by the targeted problem for all scientific fields except experimental engineering; however, the SS ontology requires further improvement in order to represent the conceptual linkage arising from compound and secondary problems and the fulfillment of classes at the lower hierarchy of Shortage problem, and requires slots for the entire hierarchy. In addition, based on the discussion of the areas for improvement, we found that missing slots and classes should be added in the process in which we use or improve tools corresponding to a variety of requirements for supporting co-deliberation. In this way, we are able to propose an incremental process for constructing the SS ontology from the aspect of a knowledge-sharing tool to support co-deliberation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An ontology does not include databases nor knowledge bases; therefore, it does not encompass any data, sentences, or stories. An ontology is composed of concepts and relationships together with axioms.

  2. An ontology consists of concepts and relationships that are needed in order to describe the target world. One of the main components of an ontology is a taxonomic hierarchy of concepts representing things existing in the target world that are determined to be important and organized by identifying is-a relationships (super-sub relationships) between them. An is-a hierarchy describes the categorization of the concepts.

    The introduction of other relationships refines the definition of the concepts. For example, part-of relationships, which are also called has-part relationships, and attribute-of relationships are used to show the concept’s parts and attributes, respectively. These relationships can be used to explicate is-a relationships that give the categorization. Figure 3 explicates that Resource desolation problem is defined by target and state, which are represented by using a part-of and an attribute-of relationship, respectively, and that the categorization of Resource desolation problem is determined by target, which is represented using a part-of relationship for Exhaustion of fossil fuels and Depletion of mineral resources. In this example, target includes a context-dependent concept played by another entity, called a role. These relationships and roles are described as slots in Hozo. When there is an is-a relationship between two classes, its subclass inherits the part-of and attribute-of slots from its superclass. In addition, a class constraint indicates to constrain the class referred to by a role. In this way, concepts can be defined during the process of ontology building through inheritance and specialization.

  3. For example, in the case of the role of the teacher, the role concept refers to the role that a person can play, such as the “teacher role”, whereas the role holder indicates the person who plays the “teacher role” (Mizoguchi 2005).

  4. ID6 should be a causal chain starting from Shortage of technology in measurement and prediction in a normal situation.

  5. This case starts from Shortage problem for the same reason as case ID6. Normally, ID36 should be the causal chain starting from Shortage of assessment standard.

  6. Solar power generation (PV) is generally viewed as a “measure” related to “choice” in order to be discussed in the context of choosing solar power generation from among the many kinds of renewable energy sources.

  7. For example, Respondent 3 addressed the fact that experts tend to think in terms of their own specialties and that differences in interest present a barrier to collaboration. These correspond to differences in the directions and targets of discussion and differences in the targets of interest, respectively. Respondent 15 also addressed the difference in direction between experts in collaboration. Respondent 24 asserted the difference between the two types of academic perspectives: the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of pluralism in academia. As a concrete example, Respondent 24 revealed a conflict between researchers seeking an optimized solution and researchers focusing on how a certain problem is proposed. As a result of this conflict, there are differences in direction, frame, and cognition. Respondent 27 asserted the difference in the targeting scale between experts in biotechnology, chemistry, fairing, and processing. “The difference in scales” refers to the difference in granularity, which is caused by the difference in targets of focus. As such, experts with different targets of focus from each other recognize different points as being important. Respondent 27 also referred to this point. In addition, Respondent 27 showed the case of collaboration with experts in the medical field to be such a case (Kumazawa et al. 2012).

References

  • Athanasiadis IN, Rizzoli A-E, Janssen S, Andersen E, Villa F (2009) Ontology for seamless integration of agricultural data and models. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on metadata and semantic research, MTSR 2009, Milan, Italy, October 1–2, 2009, pp 282–293

  • Choucri N (2003) Mapping sustainability, global system for sustainable development. Home page at: http://gssd.mit.edu/

  • Choucri N, Mistree D, Haghseta F, Mezher T, Baker WR, Ortiz CI (eds) (2007) Mapping sustainability: knowledge e-networking and the value chain. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(6):1737–1738

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Berg M, Cheong O, van Kreveld M, Overmars M (2008) Computational geometry: algorithms and applications. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster J (1998) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glavič P, Lukman R (2007) Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J Clean Prod 15(18):1875–1885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harashina S (2000) Kankyo assessment. The Society for the Promotion of the Open University of Japan

  • Hirota K, Kozaki K, Mizoguchi R (2008) Development of a conceptual map creation tool for overlooking ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence (JSAI 2008), Asahikawa, Japan, June 2008, pp 1–4

  • Hirota K, Kozaki K, Saito O, Mizoguchi R (2009) Development of ontology exploration tool for overlooking domain-knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, (JSAI 2009), Takamatsu, Japan, June 2009, pp 1–4

  • Holsapple CW, Joshi KD (2002) A collaborative approach to ontology design. Commun ACM 45(2):42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hübenthal U (1994) Interdisciplinary thought. Issues Integr Stud 12:55–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen S, Ewert F, Li H, Athanasiadis IN, Wien JJF, Thérond O, Knapen MJR, Bezlepkina I, Alkan-Olsson J, Rizzoli AE, Belhouchette H, Svensson M, van Ittersum MK (2009a) Defining assessment projects and scenarios for policy support: use of ontology in Integrated Assessment and Modelling. Environ Model Softw 24(12):1491–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen S, Andersen E, Athanasiadis IN, van Ittersum MK (2009b) A database for integrated assessment of European agricultural systems. Environ Sci Policy 12:573–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kajikawa Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain Sci 3(2):215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grübler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Environment and development: sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Martens P (2007) Sustainable development: how to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 3(2):5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura Y (2012) Ontology no Hukyuu to Ouyou. Ohmsha (in Japanese)

  • Klein JT (2004) Interdisciplinarity and complexity: an evolving relationship. Emerg Complex Organ 6(1–2):2–10; special double issue

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT, Newell WH (1997) Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In: Gaff JG, Ratcliff JL (eds) Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: a comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 393–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumazawa T, Matsui T, Hara K, Uwasu M, Yamaguchi Y, Yamamoto Y, Kozaki K, Saito O, Mizoguchi R (2008) Knowledge structuring process of sustainability science based on ontology engineering. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on eco balance, Tokyo, Japan, December 10–12 2008, pp 409–412

  • Kumazawa T, Saito O, Kozaki K, Matsui T, Mizoguchi R (2009a) Toward knowledge structuring of sustainability science based on ontology engineering. Sustain Sci 4(1):99–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumazawa T, Kozaki K, Matsui T, Saito O, Ohta M, Hara K, Uwasu M, Yamaguchi Y, Yamamoto Y, Mizoguchi R (2009b) Development of ontology on sustainability science focusing on building a resource-circulating society in Asia. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on environmentally conscious design and inverse manufacturing (EcoDesign 2009), Sapporo, Japan, December 2009, CD

  • Kumazawa T, Uwasu M, Hara K, Kimura M, Saito O (2012) Designing collaborative approach among experts in an interdisciplinary research project—case study on sustainability science. Papers on Environmental Information Science 26:165–170 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson B (2011) Metaphors for environmental sustainability—redefining our relationship with nature. Yale University Press, New Haven and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizoguchi R (2003) Tutorial on ontological engineering—part 1: introduction to ontological engineering. New Gener Comput 21(4):365–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizoguchi R (2004a) Tutorial on ontological engineering—part 2: ontology development, tools and languages. New Gener Comput 22(1):61–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizoguchi R (2004b) Tutorial on ontological engineering—part 3: advanced course of ontological engineering. New Gener Comput 22(2):198–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizoguchi R (2005) Ontology Kougaku. Ohmsha (in Japanese)

  • Mizoguchi R (2010) YAMATO: yet another more advanced top-level ontology. Available online at: http://www.ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp/hozo/onto_library/upperOnto.htm

  • Mizoguchi R, Kozaki K, Saito O, Kumazawa T, Matsui T (2011) Structuring of knowledge based on ontology engineering. In: Komiyama H, Takeuchi K, Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) Sustainability science: a multidisciplinary approach (sustainability science 1), section 2-3. United Nations University Press, New York, pp 47–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Musen MA (1992) Dimensions of knowledge sharing and reuse. Comput Biomed Res 25(5):435–467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Renear AH, Palmer CL (2009) Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science 325:828–832

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J, Loorbach D (2010) Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance—a systemic and reflexive approach. In: Grin J, Rotmans J (eds) Transition to sustainable development—new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge, New York, pp 106–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito O, Kozaki K, Hirota T, Mizoguchi R (2011) Application of ontology engineering to biofuel problems. In: Komiyama H, Takeuchi K, Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) Sustainability science: a multidisciplinary approach (sustainability science 1), section 2-4. United Nations University Press, New York, pp 69–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Jäger J, Carson DJ, Bradshaw C (eds) (2002) Challenges of a changing earth. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ittersum MK, Ewert F, Heckelei T, Wery J, Olsson JA, Andersen E, Bezlepkina I, Brouwer F, Donatelli M, Flichman G, Olsson L, Rizzoli AE, van der Wal T, Wien JE, Wolf J (2008) Integrated assessment of agricultural systems—a component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS). Agric Syst 96:150–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) through Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology as part of the IR3S flagship research project “Development of an Asian Resource-Circulating Society” undertaken by Osaka University and Hokkaido University. Additional support for the present research was provided by the Global Environment Research Fund (Hc-082) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24710054. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful discussions with Prof. Hideaki Takeda, Prof. Hidehiko Kanegae, Prof. Katsuki Takao, Dr. Marek Makowski, Dr. Guenther Fischer, and Dr. Tatiana Ermolieva. We would also like to thank Asst. Prof. Yohei Yamaguchi, Lecturer Yugo Yamamoto, and Mr. Takeru Hirota for their involvement in this study. Finally, we would like to thank the 28 experts who completed the questionnaire survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Coordination, Promotion and Communication, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, 457-4 Motoyama, Kamigamo, Kita-ku, Kyoto, 603-8047, Japan

    Terukazu Kumazawa

  2. The Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Osaka University, 8-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047, Japan

    Kouji Kozaki

  3. Division of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, Eng-S4, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan

    Takanori Matsui

  4. Institute for Sustainability and Peace (UNU-ISP), United Nations University, 5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 150-8925, Japan

    Osamu Saito

  5. Enegate Co., Ltd., 3-14-40 Senrioka, Settus-Shi, Osaka, 566-8686, Japan

    Mamoru Ohta

  6. Center of Environmental Innovation Design for Sustainability, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan

    Keishiro Hara & Michinori Uwasu

  7. Lake Biwa Environmental Research Institute, 5-34 Yanagasaki, Otsu, Shiga, 520-0022, Japan

    Michinori Kimura

  8. Research Center for Service Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 1-1 Asahidai, Nomi, Ishikawa, 923-1292, Japan

    Riichiro Mizoguchi

Authors
  1. Terukazu Kumazawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kouji Kozaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takanori Matsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Osamu Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mamoru Ohta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Keishiro Hara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michinori Uwasu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michinori Kimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Riichiro Mizoguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terukazu Kumazawa.

Additional information

Handled by Kazuhiko Takeuchi, The University of Tokyo, United Nations University (UNU), Japan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumazawa, T., Kozaki, K., Matsui, T. et al. Initial design process of the sustainability science ontology for knowledge-sharing to support co-deliberation. Sustain Sci 9, 173–192 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0202-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0202-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation