Sustainability Science

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 239–246 | Cite as

The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda

  • Thaddeus R. Miller
  • Arnim Wiek
  • Daniel Sarewitz
  • John Robinson
  • Lennart Olsson
  • David Kriebel
  • Derk Loorbach
Note and Comment

Abstract

Over the last decade, sustainability science has been at the leading edge of widespread efforts from the social and natural sciences to produce use-inspired research. Yet, how knowledge generated by sustainability science and allied fields will contribute to transitions toward sustainability remains a critical theoretical and empirical question for basic and applied research. This article explores the limitations of sustainability science research to move the field beyond the analysis of problems in coupled systems to interrogate the social, political and technological dimensions of linking knowledge and action. Over the next decade, sustainability science can strengthen its empirical, theoretical and practical contributions by developing along four research pathways focused on the role of values in science and decision-making for sustainability: how communities at various scales envision and pursue sustainable futures; how socio-technical change can be fostered at multiple scales; the promotion of social and institutional learning for sustainable development.

Keywords

Sustainability science Decision-making Scenarios Values Socio-technical change 

References

  1. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beddoe R, Costanza R, Farley J, Garza E, Kent J, Kubiszewski I, Martinex L, McCowen T, Murphy K, Myers N, Ogden Z, Stapleton K, Woodward J (2009) Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(8):2483–2489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J (2011) Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(49):19540–19545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer GD (2007) Inventing the future: scenarios, imagination, mastery and control. Sustain Sci 2:159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov High Educ 36:107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryan BA, Crossman ND, King D, Meyer WS (2011) Landscape futures analysis: assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environ Model Softw 26(1):83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennet EM, Zurek MB (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios, vol 2. The millennium ecosystem assessment series. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpiano RM (2009) Come take a walk with me: the ‘‘go-along’’ interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health Place 15:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casillas CE, Kammen DM (2010) The energy-poverty-climate nexus. Science 330(6008):1181–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caswill C, Shove E (2000) Introducing interactive social science. Sci Public Policy 27(3):154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark WC (2010) Sustainable development and sustainability science. In report from Toward a Science of Sustainability conference, Airlie Center, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108 Google Scholar
  14. Crow MM (2010) Organizing teaching and research to address the grand challenges of sustainable development. Bioscience 60(7):488–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ezrahi Y (1990) The decent of Icarus: science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR, Brulle RJ, Christensen C, Borden RJ (2012) Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol Evolut. doi:10.1890/110079 Google Scholar
  17. Fraser MW, Richman JM, Galinsky MJ, Day SH (2009) Intervention research: developing social programs. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24(3):170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray B (2009) Framing of environmental disputes. In: Lewicki RJ, Gray B, Elliot M (eds) Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: frames and cases. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Guston DH (2008) Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454:940–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Healy P (2007) Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hegger DLT, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2013) Toward design principles for joint knowledge production: lessons from the deepest polder of The Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, December 2012Google Scholar
  24. [ICSU] International Council for Science (2002) ICSU Series on science for sustainable development: report of the scientific and technological community to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 1Google Scholar
  25. Jasanoff S (2007) Technologies of humility. Nature 450:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jerneck A, Olsson L (2011) Breaking out of sustainability impasses: how to apply frame analysis, reframing and transition theory to global health challenges. Environ Innov Soc Transit 1:255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kemp R (2011) Innovation for sustainable development as a topic for environmental assessment. J Ind Ecol 15(5):673–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kinzig AP, Ehrlich PR, Alston LJ, Arrow K, Barrett S, Buchman TG, Daily GC, Levin B, Levin S, Oppenheimer M, Ostrom E, Saari D (2013) Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience 63(3):164–175. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2010) The practice of transitions management: examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42(3):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279(5350):491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matson P (2009) The sustainability transition. Issues Sci Technol Summer 2009:39–42Google Scholar
  34. McShane T, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, Songorwa AN, Kinzig A, Monteferri B, Mutekanga D, Thang HV, Dammert JL, Pulgar-Vidal M, Welch-Devine M, Brosius JP, Coppolillo P, O’Connor S (2011) Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144(3):966–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8(2):279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller TR, Neff MA (2013) De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva. doi:10.1007/s11024-013-9234-x
  37. Miller TR, Muñoz-Erickson TA, Redman CL (2011a) Transforming knowledge for sustainability: fostering adaptability in academic institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(2):177–192. doi:10.1108/14676371111118228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller TR, Minteer BA, Malan LC (2011b) The new conservation debate: a descriptive and normative analysis of international conservation. Biol Conserv 144:948–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muñoz-Erickson TA (2012) How cities think: knowledge-action systems for urban sustainability. Dissertation, Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. [NRC] National Research Council (1999) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Norton BG (2005) Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pahl-Wostl C, Mostert E, Tàbara D (2008) The growing importance of social learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecol Soc 13(1):24Google Scholar
  43. Palmer M (2012) Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. Bioscience 62(1):5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Philbrick M (2010) An anticipatory governance approach to carbon nanotubes. Risk Anal 30(11):1708–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pielke Jr R, Wigley T, Green C (2008) Dangerous assumptions. Nature 452:531–532Google Scholar
  46. Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopín G, Gutman P, Hammond A, Kates R, Swart R (2002) The great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute, BostonGoogle Scholar
  47. Rayner S, Milone E (1998) Human choice and climate change, vol 4. Battelle Press, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  48. Reid RS, Nkedianye D, Said MY, Kaelo D, Neselle M, Makui O, Onetu L, Kiruswa S, Kamuaro NO, Kristjanson P, Ogutu J, BurnSilver SB, Goldman MJ, Boone RB, Galvin KA, Dickson NM, Clark WC (2009) Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900313106 Google Scholar
  49. Reid WV, Chen D, Goldfarb L, Hackmann H, Lee YT, Mokhele K, Ostrom E, Raivio K, Rockstrom J, Schellnhuber HJ, Whyte A (2010) Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 330:916–917Google Scholar
  50. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: some transgressions and intersection in academia and beyond. Futures 40(1):70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robinson J, Carmichael J, VanWynsberghe R, Tansey J, Journeay M, Rogers L (2006) Sustainability as a problem of design: interactive science in the Georgia Basin. Integr Assess J 6(4):165–192Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, 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 461:472–475 Google Scholar
  55. Rowe D (2007) Education for a sustainable future. Science 317:323–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Salter JD, Robinson J, Wiek A (2010) Participatory methods of integrated assessment: a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 1(5):697–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sarewitz D, Kriebel D, Clapp R, Crumbley C, Hoppin P, Jacobs M, Tickner J (2012) The sustainability solutions agenda. New Solut 22(2):139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schensul JJ (2009) Community, culture and sustainability in multilevel dynamic systems intervention science. Am J Community Psychol 43:241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith A, Stirling A (2007) Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. J Environ Plan Policy Manage 8(3–4):1–23Google Scholar
  61. Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34:1491–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith RJ, Verissimo D, Leader-Williams N, Cowling RM, Knight AT (2009) Let the locals lead. Nature 462:280–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Swart R, Raskin P, Robinson J (2002) Critical challenges for sustainability science. Science 297(5589):1994–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38:379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson JR, Wiek A, Swanson FJ, Carpenter SR, Fresco N, Hollingsworth T, Spies T, Foster DR (2012) Scenario studies as a synthetic and integrative research activity for long term ecological research. Bioscience 62:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Turner BL II, Kasperson RE, Matson P, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Chistensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8074–8079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Ann Rev Environ Resour 31:445–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Voß JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (2005) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  70. Walker B, Barrett S, Polasky S, Galaz V, Folke C, Engström G, Ackerman F, Arrow K, Carpenter S, Chopra K, Daily G, Ehrlich P, Hughes T, Kautsky N, Levin S, Mäler KG, Shogren J, Vincent J, Xepapadeas T, de Zeeuw A (2009) Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325(5946):1345–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation: experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 16:52–57Google Scholar
  72. Wiek A, Binder C (2005) Solution spaces for decision-making: a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:589–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thaddeus R. Miller
    • 1
  • Arnim Wiek
    • 2
  • Daniel Sarewitz
    • 2
    • 3
  • John Robinson
    • 4
  • Lennart Olsson
    • 5
  • David Kriebel
    • 6
  • Derk Loorbach
    • 7
  1. 1.Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and PlanningPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Consortium for Science, Policy and OutcomesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.UBC Sustainability Initiative, and Institute for Resources, Environment, and SustainabilityUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)Lund UniversityLundSweden
  6. 6.Lowell Center for Sustainable ProductionUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  7. 7.Dutch Research Institute For Transitions (DRIFT), Faculty of Social SciencesErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations