Sustainability Science

, Volume 7, Supplement 1, pp 5–24 | Cite as

From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects

  • Arnim Wiek
  • Barry Ness
  • Petra Schweizer-Ries
  • Fridolin S. Brand
  • Francesca Farioli
Special Feature: Original Article Sustainability science: bridging the gap between science and society


Sustainability science is being developed in constructive tension between a descriptive–analytical and a transformational mode. The first is concerned with analyzing problems in coupled human–environment systems, whereas the second conducts research on practical solutions to those problems. Transformational sustainability research is confronted with the challenges of generating actionable knowledge, incorporating knowledge from outside academia, and dealing with different values and political interests. This study approaches the theory and promise of sustainability science through a comparative appraisal of five empirical sustainability science projects. We exemplarily appraise in how far sustainability science succeeds and fails in yielding solution options for sustainability problems based on an evaluative framework (that accounts for the particularities of sustainability science). The selected sustainability projects cover a range of topics (water, bioenergy, land use, solar energy, urban development), regions (from coastal to mountainous, from rural to urban areas, in several countries in Africa, Europe, and South and North America), spatial levels (from village to country levels), and research approaches. The comparative results indicate accomplishments regarding problem focus and basic transformational research methodology, but also highlight deficits regarding stakeholder participation, actionable results, and larger impacts. We conclude with suggestions on how to fully realize the potential of sustainability science as a solution-oriented endeavor, including advanced collaborative research settings, advances in transformational research methodologies, cross-case generalization, as well as reducing institutional barriers.


Transformational sustainability research Evaluation Actionable knowledge Sustainability problems Solution options Impact 



We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, as well as Michael Stauffacher, Roman Seidl, Roland W. Scholz (all ETH Zurich), Robert Huber (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research [WSL]), and Maryam Nastar (Lund University) for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the case study descriptions. We acknowledge the feedback from the participants of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainability Science (ICSS 2010) (Sapienza University Rome, Rome, Italy, June 23–25, 2010) on issues discussed in this article. Arnim Wiek acknowledges support by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant PA0011 115315). Fridolin S. Brand acknowledges scholarship support by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).


  1. Agrawala S (2007) Climate change in the European Alps: adapting winter tourism and natural hazards management. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. Bäckstrand K (2003) Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob Environ Polit 3(4):24–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2007) Operationalising sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects. Geogr J 173:343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60:726–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand FS, Stauffacher M, Spoerri A, Scholz RW (2012) Sustainability science at the interface of human and environmental systems: the human–environment system-framework and its relation to the resilience approach, social metabolism and transition management. Working Paper, Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich Google Scholar
  6. Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov High Educ 36(2):107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchholz T, da Silva IP (2010) Potential of distributed wood-based biopower systems serving basic electricity needs in rural Uganda. Energy Sust Dev 14:56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Gurston DH et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakrabarti S, Chakrabarti S (2002) Rural electrification programme with solar energy in remote region—a case study in an island. Energy Policy 30:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christen M, Schmidt S (2011) A formal framework for conceptions of sustainability—a theoretical contribution to the discourse in sustainable development. Sust Dev (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8059–8061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM et al (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (in press)Google Scholar
  13. COMPETE Declaration on Sustainable Bioenergy for Africa (2008) International Conference and Policy Debate on ‘Biofuels Sustainability Schemes—An African Perspective’. Home page at:
  14. Covarrubias AJ, Reiche K (2000) Energy and development report 2000. Energy services for the world’s poor. Chapter 10. A case study on exclusive concessions for rural off-grid service in Argentina. World Bank, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  15. den Elzen MGJ, Hof AF, Roelfsema M (2011) The emissions gap between the Copenhagen pledges and the 2 °C climate goal: options for closing and risks that could widen the gap. Glob Environ Change 21:733–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diaz-Chavez RA (2011) Assessing biofuels: aiming for sustainable development or complying with the market? Energy Policy 39:5763–5769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dovers SR (1996) Sustainability: demands on policy. J Public Policy 16:303–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grunwald A (2004) Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: the need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 1:150–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirschi C (2010) Strengthening regional cohesion: collaborative networks and sustainable development in Swiss rural areas. Ecol Soc 15(4):16Google Scholar
  21. Huber R (2011) Detailed information on scientific achievements and stakeholder dialogue. Available online at:
  22. Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E et al (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (2003) Public participation in sustainability science—a handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Scholz RW (2010) Functional–dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 13(7):861–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl). doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-149-x
  28. Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23:161–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matson P (2009) The sustainability transition. Issues Sci Technol 25(4):39–42Google Scholar
  30. Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes TP (2008) Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(28):9489–9494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM (2007) Going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(39):15176–15178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M (2004) Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parodi O, Preiser K, Schweizer-Ries P, Wendl M (1998) When night falls on Balde de Leyes—the success story of an integrated approach in PV rural electrification. In: Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, Austria, July 1998Google Scholar
  34. Parodi O, Preiser K, Schweizer-Ries P (2000) Balde de Leyes: the electrification of a remote village in Argentina. In: Proceedings of the ISES Utility Initiative for Africa, Rural Electrification in Africa, Midrand South Africa, April 2000Google Scholar
  35. Portale E (2010) Socio-economic sustainability of biofuel production in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from a Jatropha outgrower model in rural Tanzania. Ph.D. Thesis, CIRPS, Sapienza University of Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  36. Rigling A, Engel S, Zimmermann W, Bugmann H, Lehmann B et al (2007) MOUNTLAND: sustainable land-use practices in mountain regions. Available online at:
  37. Rigling A, Eilmann B, Koechli R, Dobbertin M (2010) Mistletoe-induced crown degradation in Scots pine in a xeric environment. Tree Physiol 30(7):845–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson J, Burch S, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Walsh M (2011) Envisioning sustainability: recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:756–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sarewitz D, Kriebel D, Clapp R, Crumbley C, Hoppin P, Jacobs M et al (2010) The sustainable solutions agenda. Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes (CSPO), Arizona State University and Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts, LowellGoogle Scholar
  40. Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  41. Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain Higher Educ 7(3):226–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schultz J, Brand F, Kopfmueller J, Ott K (2008) Building a ‘theory of sustainable development’: two salient conceptions within the German discourse. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 7:465–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schweizer-Ries P (2011) Socio-environmental research on energy sustainable communities: participation experiences of two decades. In: Devine-Wright P (ed) Public engagement with renewable energy: from NIMBY to participation. Earthscan, London, UK, pp 187–202Google Scholar
  44. Schweizer-Ries P, Hidalgo E, Luther K, Schulze A (2007) Socio-technical Introduction of Solar Home Systems in Balde de Leyes—10-year evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium of Photovoltaic Solar Energy, Bad Staffelstein, Germany, March 2007 (in German)Google Scholar
  45. Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33(1):56–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Change 14:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38:379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L et al (2003a) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8074–8079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turner BL, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N et al (2003b) Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8080–8085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Energy and Minerals (2010) Guidelines for sustainable liquid biofuels development in Tanzania. Available online at:
  52. Valkering P, Offermans A, Tàbara J, Wallman P, Elmqvist B, Ewald G et al (2008) Modelling cultural and behavioural change in water management: an integrated, agent based, gaming approach. MATISSE Working Paper 25Google Scholar
  53. van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Planning 30(4):325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walz A, Braendle JM, Lang DJ, Brand FS, Briner S et al (2012) Experience from customising IPCC scenarios to specific national-level focus scenarios for ecosystem service management (in review)Google Scholar
  57. Watson HK, Diaz-Chavez RA (2011) An assessment of the potential of drylands in eight sub-Saharan African countries to produce bioenergy feedstocks. Interface Focus 1:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wicke B, Smeets E, Watson H, Faaij A (2011) The current bioenergy production potential of semi-arid and arid regions in sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2773–2786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation—experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA 16:52–57Google Scholar
  60. Wiek A (2011) Transformational sustainability science. Working Paper, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USAGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiek A, Selin C, Johnson C (eds) (2010) The future of Phoenix—crafting sustainable development strategies. Project Report, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USAGoogle Scholar
  62. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnim Wiek
    • 1
  • Barry Ness
    • 2
  • Petra Schweizer-Ries
    • 3
  • Fridolin S. Brand
    • 4
  • Francesca Farioli
    • 5
  1. 1.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)Lund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Sustainability ScienceSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI)Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich)ZurichSwitzerland
  5. 5.CIRPS Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable DevelopmentSapienza University RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations