Sustainability Science

, Volume 7, Supplement 1, pp 45–55 | Cite as

Governance for sustainability: knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management

  • Hideaki ShiroyamaEmail author
  • Masaru Yarime
  • Makiko Matsuo
  • Heike Schroeder
  • Roland Scholz
  • Andrea E. Ulrich
Special Feature: Original Article Sustainability science: bridging the gap between science and society


Sustainability has many dimensions, including various aspects of environmental, social and economic sustainability. This paper proposes an analytical framework of risk-related governance for sustainability, based on literature review, focusing on two dimensions—knowledge integration and multi-actor governance. Knowledge integration necessitates wider coverage of predicted and anticipated risks and information on those risks. Multi-actor governance necessitates mechanisms that enable cooperation among actors. The relevance of this analytical framework is then checked using concrete cases of governance for reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), and the possible case of governance for sustainable phosphorus management.


Governance Risk management Knowledge integration Multi-actor governance REDD+ Phosphorus 


  1. Agrawala S (1998) Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Change 39:621–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allenby B, Burt D, Dumas M, Heffer P, Hu Z, Scholz RW et al (2011) Global TraPs Workshop I: propositions, sustainable P Summit. In: Paper presented at the Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 5 Feb 2011. Retrieved from
  3. Alic JA (1997) Technological change, employment and sustainability. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 55:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armitage D (2008) Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. Int J Commons 2(1):7–32Google Scholar
  5. Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (2007) Introduction: moving beyond co-management. In: Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (eds) Adaptive comanagement. UBC Press, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashford NA, Ayers C, Stone RF (1985) Using regulation to change the market for innovation. Harvard Environ Law Rev 9(2):419–466Google Scholar
  7. Biermann F (2007) Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Glob Environ Change 17:326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodin O, Crona B, Ernston H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecol Soc 11, article no. 2Google Scholar
  9. Carlsson B, Stankiewicz R (1991) On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. J Evol Econ 1:93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter SR, Bennett EM (2011) Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environ Res Lett 6:014009. doi:  10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014009
  11. Corbera E, Schroeder H (2011) Governing and implementing REDD+. Environ Sci Policy 12(2):89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cordell D, Drangert J, White S (2009) The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob Environ Chang 19(2):292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. del Rio González P (2009) The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: a research agenda. Ecol Econ 68:861–878Google Scholar
  14. del Rio P, Carrillo-Hermosilla J, Konnola T (2010) Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation: an integrated framework. J Ind Ecol 14(4):541–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dijk M, Yarime M (2010) The emergence of hybrid-electric cars: innovation path creation through co-evolution of supply and demand. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77(8):1371–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downing PB, White LJ (1986) Innovation in pollution control. J Environ Econ Manag 13(1):18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dumas M, Frossard E, Scholz RW (2011) Modeling biogeochemical processes of phosphorus for global food supply. Chemosphere 84:798–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eilittä M (2011) The Global TraPs Project. Transdisciplinary processes for sustainable phosphorus management (2010–2015) Multi-stakeholder forum to guide and optimize P use. Zurich and Muscle Shoals: ETH-NSSI and IFDCGoogle Scholar
  19. Ekardt F, Holzapfel N, Ulrich AE, Schnug E, Haneklaus S (2011) Legal perspectives on regulating phosphorus fertilization. Landbauforschung (vTI Agric For Res) 2(61):83–92Google Scholar
  20. Eliasch J (2008) Climate change: financing global forests. The Eliasch Review, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Erdmann L, Graedel TE (2011) Criticality of non-fuel minerals: a review of major approaches and analyses. Environ Sci Technol 45:7620–7630Google Scholar
  22. Fabricius C, Folke C, Cundill G, Schultz L (2007) Powerless spectators, coping actors, and adaptive co-managers: a synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem management. Ecol Soc 12(1), article #29Google Scholar
  23. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-economic systems analyses. Glob Environ Chall 16:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J, Bardes J (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24(1):185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24:170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goerner SJ, Lietaer B, Ulanowicz RE (2009) Quantifying economic sustainability: implications for free-enterprise theory, policy and practice. Ecol Econ 69:76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Graham JD, Wiener JB (1995) Risk vs. risk—tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Gregersen H, El Lakany H, Karsenty A, White A (2010) Does the opportunity cost approach indicate the real cost of REDD+? Rights and realities of paying for REDD+. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Gupta J (2008) Editorial—the multi-level governance challenge of climate change. Environ Sci 4(3):131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guston DH (2008) Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454:940–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haas P (1992) Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Org 46(1):1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hooghe L, Marks G (2003) Unraveling the Central state, but how? Types of muti-level governance. Am Political Sci Rev 97(2):233–243Google Scholar
  35. Kemp R (1997) Environmental policy and technical change: a comparison of the technological impact of policy instruments. Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  36. Kemp R, Pontoglio S (2011) The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments—a typical case of the blind men and the elephant? Ecol Econ 72:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kemp R, Parto S, Gibson RB (2005) Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. Int J Sustain Dev 8:12–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kemp R, Loorback D, Rotmans J (2007) Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 14:78–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keohane RO (1984) After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Keohane RO, Victor DG (2011) The regime complex for climate change. Perspect Politics 9(1):7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Komiyama H, Takeuchi K, Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) (2011) Sustainability science: a multidisciplinary approach. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  42. Krutli P, Stauffacher M, Flueler 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
  43. 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. Sust Sci 7(Suppl). doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
  44. Lietaer B, Ulanowicz RE, Goerner SJ (2009) Options for managing a systemic bank crisis. Sapiens 2(1):1–15Google Scholar
  45. Litfin KT (1994) Ozone discourses: science and politics in global environmental cooperation. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Magat WA (1978) Pollution control and technological advance: a dynamic model of the firm. J Environ Econ Manag 5(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Magat WA (1979) The effects of environmental regulation on innovation. Law Contemp Probl 43(1):4–25Google Scholar
  48. Matsuo M, Matsuda H, Shiroyama H (2011) Global governance. In: Komiyama H, Takeuchi K, Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) Sustainability science: a multidisciplinary approach. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp 220–145Google Scholar
  49. Milliman SR, Prince R (1989) Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control. J Environ Econ Manag 17(3):247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson RR (1994) The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting institutions. Ind Corp Change 3(1):47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nelson D, Adger NW, Brown K (2007) Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:395–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Popp D (2003) Pollution control innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990. J Policy Anal Manag 22:641–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Porrúra M, Corbera E, Brown K (2007) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries: revisiting the assumptions. Tyndall Centre for climate change research working paper 115.
  55. Quay R (2010) Anticipatory governance. J Am Plann Assoc 76(4):1–16Google Scholar
  56. Raustiala K, Victor DG (2004) The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int Org 58:277–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rhodes RAW (1997) Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  58. Rhodes RAW, Marsh D (1992) New directions in the study of policy networks. Eur J Political Res 21:181–220Google Scholar
  59. Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  61. 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 High Educ 7(3):226–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scholz RW, Blumer YB, Brand FS (2011) Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective. J Risk Res. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2011.634522
  63. Schön DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Schröder JJ, Cordell D, Smit AL, Rosemarin A (2010) Sustainable use of phosphorus. Plant research, International University of Waageninge, UR, WaageningenGoogle Scholar
  65. Shiroyama H (1999) Clean & efficient coal use in China and the political economy of international aid. Soc Sci Jpn 16:15–19Google Scholar
  66. Shiroyama H (2002) Technological innovation and diffusion for environmental protection—the roles of public policies, private strategies, and civic actions from an interaction perspective. In: Martha H (ed) Energy market restructuring and the environment—governance and public goods in globally integrated markets. University Press of America, USA, pp 151–181Google Scholar
  67. Shiroyama H (2007) The harmonization of automobile environmental standards between Japan, the United States and Europe: the ‘Depoliticizing strategy’ by industry and the dynamics between firms and governments in a transnational context. Pacif Rev 20-3:351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shiroyama H (2011) Technology governance. In: Komiyama H, Takeuchi K, Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) Sustainability science: a multidisciplinary approach. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp 145–157Google Scholar
  69. Smil V (2000) Phosphorus in the environment: natural flows and human interferences. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:53–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Taylor MR, Rubin ES, Hounshell DA (2005) Control of SO2 emissions from power plants: a case of induced technological innovation in the US. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72:697–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thompson Klein J, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M (eds) (2000) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  72. Ulanowicz RE (1995) Utricularia’s secret: the advantage of positive feedback in oligotrophic environments. Ecol Model 79:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ulanowicz RE, Goerner SJ, Lietaer B, Gomez R (2009) Quantifying sustainability: resilience, efficiency and the return of information theory. Ecol Complex 6:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ulrich AE (2011) A lake of opportunity: linking phosphorus pollution and resource thinking for food and water security in the Lake Winnipeg Basin. Submission to Perspectives Rachel Carson Center, LMU MunichGoogle Scholar
  75. Ulrich A, Malley D, Voora V (2009) Peak phosphorus. Opportunity in the making. IISD International Institute for sustainable development. Winnipeg, MBGoogle Scholar
  76. Van der Werf G, Morton DC, DeFries RS, Olivier JG, Kasibhatla PS, Jackson RB, Collatz J, Ranaderson JT (2009) CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nat Geosci 2:737–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van Kauwenbergh SJ (2010) World phosphate rock. Reserves and resources. IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center. Muscle Shoals, ALGoogle Scholar
  78. Voss JP, Smith A, Grin J (2009) Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management. Policy Sci 42:275–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiek A, Zemp S, Siegrist M, Walter A (2007) Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technol Soc 29(4):388–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yarime M (2007) Promoting green innovation or prolonging the existing technology: regulation and technological change in the chlor–alkali industry in Japan and Europe. J Ind Ecol 11(4):117–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yarime M (2009) Public coordination for escaping from technological lock-in: its possibilities and limits in replacing diesel vehicles with compressed natural gas vehicles in Tokyo. J Clean Prod 17(14):1281–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yarime M (2010) Understanding sustainability innovation as a social process of knowledge transformation. Nanotechnol Percept 6(3):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yarime M, Shiroyama H, Kuroki Y (2008) The strategy of the Japanese auto industry in developing hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. In: Mytelka LK, Grant B (eds) Making choices about hydrogen: transport issues for developing countries. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp 187–212Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hideaki Shiroyama
    • 1
    Email author
  • Masaru Yarime
    • 1
  • Makiko Matsuo
    • 1
  • Heike Schroeder
    • 2
  • Roland Scholz
    • 3
  • Andrea E. Ulrich
    • 3
  1. 1.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.University of East AngliaNorwichUK
  3. 3.ETHZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations