Sustainability Science

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 497–512 | Cite as

Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science

Review Article

Abstract

Envisioning how a desirable future might look is a long-standing effort in human evolution and social change. Utopian thought and visions provide direction for actions and behavior; more so, they create identity and community. Accordingly, the discourse on sustainability and sustainable development has recognized that positive visions about our societies’ future are an influential, if not indispensable, stimulus for change. Visioning is, thus, considered a key method in sustainability research and problem solving, for instance, in transformational sustainability science or in planning for urban sustainability. Yet, quality criteria for sustainability visions and guidelines on how to rigorously craft such visions are scattered over different strands of the literature and some are insufficiently developed. The goal of this article is to review and synthesize such quality criteria and design guidelines to inform sustainability visioning methodology. The review provides a concise reference framework for sustainability students, researchers, and professionals on how to enhance their sustainability visioning practices.

Keywords

Transformational sustainability science Visions Visioning Sustainable futures Methodology Participatory research 

References

  1. Ames SC (1998) A guide to community visioning: Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association. Planners Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18:543–571Google Scholar
  3. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35:216–224Google Scholar
  4. Aurigi A (2005) Competing urban visions and the shaping of the digital city. Knowl Technol Policy 18:12–26Google Scholar
  5. Bagley E, Shaffer DW (2009) When people get in the way: promoting civic thinking through epistemic gameplay. Int J Gaming Comput Med Simul 1:36–52Google Scholar
  6. Batty M, Chapman D, Evans S, Haklay M, Kueppers S, Shiode N, Hudson-Smith A, Torrens PM (2001) Visualizing the city: communicating urban design to planners and decision-makers. In: Brail RK, Klosterman RE (eds) Planning support systems: integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools. ESRI Press, Redlands, pp 405–419Google Scholar
  7. Berke P, Backhurst M, Day M, Ericksen N, Laurian L, Crawford J, Dixon J (2006) What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environ Plan B Plan Des 33:581–600Google Scholar
  8. Binder CR, Feola G, Steinberger JK (2010) Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:71–81Google Scholar
  9. Bossel H (1998) Earth at a crossroads: paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandt E, Messeter J (2004) Facilitating collaboration through design games. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design, vol 1. New york, NY, USA, pp 121–131Google Scholar
  11. Brewer GD (2007) Inventing the future: scenarios, imagination, mastery and control. Sustain Sci 2:159–177Google Scholar
  12. Brown HS, Vergragt P, Green K, Berchicci L (2003) Learning for sustainability transition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 15:291–315Google Scholar
  13. Burbiel J (2009) Creativity in research and development environments: a practical review. Int J Bus Sci Appl Manag 4:35–51Google Scholar
  14. Carpenter SR, Folke C (2006) Ecology for transformation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:309–315Google Scholar
  15. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091Google Scholar
  16. Cherp A, George C, Kirkpatrick C (2004) A methodology for assessing national sustainable development strategies. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 22:913–926Google Scholar
  17. Connelly S (2007) Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept. Local Environ 12:259–278Google Scholar
  18. Constanza R (2000) Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futures and their use in policy analysis. Conserv Ecol 4:5–22Google Scholar
  19. Couclelis H (2004) The construction of the digital city. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31:5–20Google Scholar
  20. Cruickshank L, Evans M (2012) Designing creative frameworks: design thinking as an engine for new facilitation approaches. Int J Arts Technol 5:73–85Google Scholar
  21. de Brabandere L, Iny A (2010) Scenarios and creativity: thinking in new boxes. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:1506–1512Google Scholar
  22. de Saint-Exupéry A (1948) Citadelle. Éditions Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Dreborg KH (1996) Essence of backcasting. Futures 28:813–828Google Scholar
  24. Eames M, Egmose J (2011) Community foresight for urban sustainability: insights from the Citizens Science for Sustainability (SuScit) project. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:769–784Google Scholar
  25. Eickhoff P, Geffer SG (2009) Power of imagination studio: a further development of the future workshop concept. In: Holman P, Devane T, Cady S (eds) The change handbook: the definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, pp 27–35, Trade PaperbackGoogle Scholar
  26. Elkington J (1998) Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ Qual Manage 8:37–51Google Scholar
  27. Elkins LA, Bivins D, Holbrook L (2010) Community visioning process: a tool for successful planning. J High Educ Outreach Engagem 13:75–84Google Scholar
  28. Eskelinen P, Miettinen K (2012) Trade-off analysis approach for interactive nonlinear multiobjective optimization. OR Spectrum 34:803–816Google Scholar
  29. Fischer F (1993) Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci 26:165–187Google Scholar
  30. Gaber J (2007) Simulating planning: SimCity as a pedagogical tool. J Plan Educ Res 27:113–121Google Scholar
  31. Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Project Appraisal 24:170–182Google Scholar
  32. Grunwald A (2007) Converging technologies: visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39:380–392Google Scholar
  33. Guy S, Marvin S (2000) Models and pathways: the diversity of sustainable urban futures. In: Williams K, Burton E, Jenks M (eds) Achieving sustainable urban form. E & FN Spoon, London, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  34. Hamlett PW, Cobb MD (2006) Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Stud J 34:629–648Google Scholar
  35. Han J, Fontanos P, Fukushi K, Herath S, Heeren N, Naso V, Cecchi C, Edwards P, Takeuchi K (2012) Innovation for sustainability: toward a sustainable urban future in industrialized cities. Sustain Sci 7:91–100Google Scholar
  36. Helling A (1998) Collaborative visioning: proceed with caution!: results from evaluating Atlanta’s Vision 2020 project. J Am Plan Assoc 64:335–349Google Scholar
  37. Hjerpe M, Linnér BO (2009) Utopian and dystopian thought in climate change science and policy. Futures 41:234–245Google Scholar
  38. Höjer M, Mattsson L-G (2000) Determinism and backcasting in future studies. Futures 32:613–634Google Scholar
  39. Holmberg J (1998) Backcasting: a natural step in operationalising sustainable development. Greener Manag Int, pp 30–52Google Scholar
  40. Holmberg J, Robèrt K-H (2000) Backcasting from non-overlapping sustainability principles—a framework for strategic planning. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 7:291–308Google Scholar
  41. Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13:38–52Google Scholar
  42. Hurley PT, Walker PA (2004) Whose vision? Conspiracy theory and land-use planning in Nevada County, California. Environ Plan A 36:1529–1547Google Scholar
  43. Isenberg P, Elmqvist N, Scholtz J, Cernea D, Ma K-L, Hagen H (2011) Collaborative visualization: definition, challenges, and research agenda. Inf Vis 10:310–326Google Scholar
  44. Iwaniec D, Wiek A (2012) Sustainability visioning research in planning—the general plan revision in Phoenix, Arizona (in review)Google Scholar
  45. James S, Lahti T (2004) The natural step for communities: how cities and towns can change to sustainable practices. New Society Publishers, Gabriola IslandGoogle Scholar
  46. Jordan A (2008) The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 26:17–33Google Scholar
  47. Jungk R, Müllert N (1987) Future workshops: how to create desirable futures. Institute for Social Inventions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Kallis G, Hatzilacou D, Mexa A, Coccossis H, Svoronou E (2009) Beyond the manual: practicing deliberative visioning in a Greek island. Ecol Econ 68:979–989Google Scholar
  49. 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, Svedlin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642Google Scholar
  50. Kemp R, Martens P (2007) Sustainable development: how to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 3:5–14Google Scholar
  51. Kim J, Oki T (2011) Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:247–251Google Scholar
  52. Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6Google Scholar
  53. 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 13:861–875Google Scholar
  54. Kwartler M, Bernard RN (2001) CommunityViz: an integrated planning support system. In: Brail RK, Klosterman RE (eds) Planning support systems: integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools. ESRI Press, Redlands, pp 285–308Google Scholar
  55. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43Google Scholar
  56. Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23:161–183Google Scholar
  57. Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2006) Managing transitions for sustainable development. In: Olshoorn X, Wieczorek AJ (eds) Understanding Industrial Transformation: Views from Different Disciplines. Springer, New York, p 187–206Google Scholar
  58. Machler L, Golub A, Wiek A (2012) Using a “Sustainable Solution Space” approach to develop a vision of sustainable accessibility in a low-income community in Phoenix, Arizona. Int J Sustain Transp 6:298–319Google Scholar
  59. McDowall W, Eames M (2007) Towards a sustainable hydrogen economy: a multi-criteria sustainability appraisal of competing hydrogen futures. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32:4611–4626Google Scholar
  60. Meadows DH (1996) Envisioning a sustainable world. In: Costanza R, Segura O, Martinez-Alier J (eds) Getting down to earth: practical applications of ecological economics. Island Press, Washington DC, p 117–126Google Scholar
  61. Menzel S, Wiek A (2009) Valuation in morally charged situations: the role of deontological stances and intuition for trade-off making. Ecol Econ 68:2198–2206Google Scholar
  62. Morioka T, Saito O, Yabar H (2006) The pathway to a sustainable industrial society—initiative of the Research Institute for Sustainability Science (RISS) at Osaka University. Sustain Sci 1:65–82Google Scholar
  63. Myers D, Banerjee T (2005) Toward greater heights for planning: reconciling the differences between profession, practice, and academic field. J Am Plan Assoc 71:121–129Google Scholar
  64. Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 19:343–356Google Scholar
  65. Nelessen AC (1994) Visions for a new American dream. American Planning Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  66. Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60:498–508Google Scholar
  67. Newman P (2005) Pipe dreams and ideologues: values and planning. People Place 13:41–53Google Scholar
  68. Newman P, Jennings I (2008) Cities as sustainable ecosystems: principles and practices. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  69. Nicholson-Cole SA (2005) Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication. Comput Environ Urban Syst 29:255–273Google Scholar
  70. Nilsson EM (2010) Simulated “real” worlds: actions mediated through computer game play in science education. Doctoral Thesis, Malmö University, Malmö, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  71. Oels A (2009) The power of visioning: the contribution of future search conferences to decision-making in local agenda 21 processes. In: Coenen FHJM (ed) Public participation and better environmental decisions. Springer Science, New York, pp 73–88Google Scholar
  72. Okubo D (2000) The community visioning and strategic planning handbook. National Civic League Press, DenverGoogle Scholar
  73. Olson RL (1995) Sustainability as a social vision. J Soc Issues 51:15–35Google Scholar
  74. Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes TP (2008) Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. In: Gretchen CD (ed) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, pp 9489–9494Google Scholar
  75. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422Google Scholar
  76. Pettit CJ (2005) Use of a collaborative GIS-based planning-support system to assist in formulating a sustainable—development scenario for Hervey Bay, Australia. Environ Plan B Plan Des 32:523–545Google Scholar
  77. Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH (2008) Sustainability impact assessments: limits, thresholds and the sustainability choice space. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use policies. Springer, Berlin, pp 425–450Google Scholar
  78. Potschin MB, Klug H, Haines-Young RH (2010) From vision to action: framing the Leitbild concept in the context of landscape planning. Futures 42:656–667Google Scholar
  79. Puccio GJ, Cabra JF, Fox JM, Cahen H (2010) Creativity on demand: historical approaches and future trends. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24:153–159Google Scholar
  80. Quist J, Thissen W, Vergragt PJ (2011) The impact and spin-off of participatory backcasting: from vision to niche. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:883–897Google Scholar
  81. Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopin G, Gutman P, Hammond A, Kates R, Swart R (2002) Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute, BostonGoogle Scholar
  82. Rauch JN, Newman J (2008) Research and solutions: zeroing in on sustainability. Sustain J Record 1:387–390Google Scholar
  83. Ravetz J (2000) Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:31–64Google Scholar
  84. Robèrt M (2005) Backcasting and econometrics for sustainable planning: information technology and individual preferences of travel. J Clean Prod 13:841–851Google Scholar
  85. Robinson JB (1982) Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis. Energy Policy 10:337–344Google Scholar
  86. Robinson JB (2003) Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures 35:839–856Google Scholar
  87. Robinson J, Tansey J (2006) Co-production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: the Georgia Basin Futures Project. Sci Public Policy 33:151–160Google Scholar
  88. 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 78:756–768Google Scholar
  89. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS 3rd, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475Google Scholar
  90. Salter JD, Campbell C, Journeay M, Sheppard SRJ (2009) The digital workshop: exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. J Environ Manage 90:2090–2101Google Scholar
  91. Santelmann MV, White D, Freemark K, Nassauer JI, Eilers JM, Vaché KB, Danielson BJ, Corry RC, Clark ME, Polasky S, Cruse RM, Sifneos J, Rustigian H, Coiner C, Wu J, Debinski D (2004) Assessing alternative futures for agriculture in Iowa, U.S.A. Landsc Ecol 19:357–374Google Scholar
  92. Scott AJ, Shorten J, Owen R, Owen I (2011) What kind of countryside do the public want: community visions from Wales UK? Geojournal 76:417–436Google Scholar
  93. Senge PM (1993) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  94. Shaw A, Sheppard S, Burch S, Flanders D, Wiek A, Carmichael J, Robinson J, Cohen S (2009) Making local futures tangible—synthesizing, downscaling, and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Global Environ Change 19:447–463Google Scholar
  95. Sheate WR, Partidário MR (2010) Strategic approaches and assessment techniques—potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:278–288Google Scholar
  96. Sheppard SRJ (2001) Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization. Landsc Urban Plan 54:183–199Google Scholar
  97. Sheppard SRJ (2005) Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environ Sci Policy 8:637–654Google Scholar
  98. Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For Ecol Manage 207:171–187Google Scholar
  99. Shipley R (2000) The Origin and Development of Vision and Visioning in Planning. Int Plan Stud 5:225–236Google Scholar
  100. Shipley R (2002) Visioning in planning: is the practice based on sound theory? Environ Plan A 34:7–22Google Scholar
  101. Shipley R, Michela JL (2006) Can vision motivate planning action? Plan Prac Res 21:223–244Google Scholar
  102. Shipley R, Newkirk R (1999) Vision and visioning in planning: what do these terms really mean? Environ Plan B Plan Des 26:573–592Google Scholar
  103. Shneiderman B, Fischer G, Czerwinski M, Resnick M, Myers B, Candy L, Edmonds E, Eisenberg M, Giaccardi E, Hewett T, Jennings P, Kules B, Nakakoji K, Nunamaker J, Pausch R, Selker T, Sylvan E, Terry M (2006) Creativity support tools: report From a U.S. National Science Foundation Sponsored Workshop. Int J Human Comput Interact 20:61–77Google Scholar
  104. Smith R, Wiek A (2012) Achievements and opportunities in initiating governance for urban sustainability. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 30:429–447Google Scholar
  105. Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34:1491–1510Google Scholar
  106. Sondeijker S, Geurts J, Rotmans J, Tukker A (2006) Imagining sustainability: the added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight 8:15–30Google Scholar
  107. Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  108. Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson JB (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environ Change 14:137–146Google Scholar
  109. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38:379–390Google Scholar
  110. Tietje O (2005) Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios. Eur J Oper Res 162:418–432Google Scholar
  111. Trutnevyte E, Stauffacher M, Scholz RW (2011) Supporting energy initiatives in small communities by linking visions with energy scenarios and multi-criteria assessment. Energy Policy 39:7884–7895Google Scholar
  112. Uyesugi JL, Shipley R (2005) Visioning diversity: planning Vancouver’s multicultural communities. Int Plan Stud 10:305–322Google Scholar
  113. van de Kerkhof M (2006) Making a difference: on the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sci 39:279–299Google Scholar
  114. van de Kerkhof M, Wieczorek A (2005) Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: methodological considerations. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72:733–747Google Scholar
  115. van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17Google Scholar
  116. van der Helm R (2009) The vision phenomenon: towards a theoretical underpinning of visions of the future and the process of envisioning. Futures 41:96–104Google Scholar
  117. van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477Google Scholar
  118. Varum CA, Melo C (2010) Directions in scenario planning literature—a review of the past decades. Futures 42:355–369Google Scholar
  119. Vervoort JM, Kok K, van Lammeren R, Veldkamp T (2010) Stepping into futures: exploring the potential of interactive media for participatory scenarios on social-ecological systems. Futures 42:604–616Google Scholar
  120. Vester F (1988) The biocybernetic approach as a basis for planning our environment. Syst Pract Action Res 1:399–413Google Scholar
  121. Vidal RVV (2004) The vision conference: facilitating creative processes. Syst Prac Action Res 17:385–405Google Scholar
  122. Vidal RVV (2006) Creative and participative problem solving: the art and the science. Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  123. Videira N, Antunes P, Santos R, Lopes R (2010) A participatory modelling approach to support integrated sustainability assessment processes. Syst Res Behav Sci 27:446–460. doi:10.1002/sres.1041 Google Scholar
  124. Walzer W (ed) (1996) Community strategic visioning programs. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  125. Wangel J (2011) Exploring social structures and agency in backcasting studies for sustainable development. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:872–882Google Scholar
  126. Weaver PM, Rotmans J (2006) Integrated sustainability assessment: what is it, why do it and how? Int J Innov Sustain Dev 1:284–303Google Scholar
  127. Wiek A, Binder C (2005) Solution spaces for decision-making—a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:589–608Google Scholar
  128. Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability—a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manage 26:3153–3171Google Scholar
  129. Wiek A, Zemp S, Siegrist M, Walter AI (2007) Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technol Soc 29:388–406Google Scholar
  130. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218Google Scholar
  131. Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, Brand FS, Farioli F (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl 1):5–24Google Scholar
  132. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  133. Wright EO (2010) Envisioning real utopias. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations