Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science

Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this 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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Different terminologies are being used in the literature. For instance, visions are also called ‘normative scenarios’, defined as “scenarios which are constructed to lead to a future that is afforded a specific subjective value by the scenario authors” (Swart et al. 2004, p. 141), or, in short, “they portray futures that should be” (Nassauer and Corry 2004, p. 344). We incorporate this literature in the following review, but we adhere to the terminology proposed above.

References

  • Ames SC (1998) A guide to community visioning: Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association. Planners Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18:543–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35:216–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Aurigi A (2005) Competing urban visions and the shaping of the digital city. Knowl Technol Policy 18:12–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagley E, Shaffer DW (2009) When people get in the way: promoting civic thinking through epistemic gameplay. Int J Gaming Comput Med Simul 1:36–52

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 405–419

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 33:581–600

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:71–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossel H (1998) Earth at a crossroads: paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 121–131

  • Brewer GD (2007) Inventing the future: scenarios, imagination, mastery and control. Sustain Sci 2:159–177

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 15:291–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbiel J (2009) Creativity in research and development environments: a practical review. Int J Bus Sci Appl Manag 4:35–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Folke C (2006) Ecology for transformation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:309–315

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 100:8086–8091

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cherp A, George C, Kirkpatrick C (2004) A methodology for assessing national sustainable development strategies. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 22:913–926

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly S (2007) Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept. Local Environ 12:259–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Constanza R (2000) Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futures and their use in policy analysis. Conserv Ecol 4:5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Couclelis H (2004) The construction of the digital city. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31:5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruickshank L, Evans M (2012) Designing creative frameworks: design thinking as an engine for new facilitation approaches. Int J Arts Technol 5:73–85

    Google Scholar 

  • de Brabandere L, Iny A (2010) Scenarios and creativity: thinking in new boxes. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:1506–1512

    Google Scholar 

  • de Saint-Exupéry A (1948) Citadelle. Éditions Gallimard, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreborg KH (1996) Essence of backcasting. Futures 28:813–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Eames M, Egmose J (2011) Community foresight for urban sustainability: insights from the Citizens Science for Sustainability (SuScit) project. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:769–784

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Paperback

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington J (1998) Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ Qual Manage 8:37–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkins LA, Bivins D, Holbrook L (2010) Community visioning process: a tool for successful planning. J High Educ Outreach Engagem 13:75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskelinen P, Miettinen K (2012) Trade-off analysis approach for interactive nonlinear multiobjective optimization. OR Spectrum 34:803–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F (1993) Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci 26:165–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaber J (2007) Simulating planning: SimCity as a pedagogical tool. J Plan Educ Res 27:113–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Project Appraisal 24:170–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A (2007) Converging technologies: visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39:380–392

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlett PW, Cobb MD (2006) Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Stud J 34:629–648

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 7:91–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Helling A (1998) Collaborative visioning: proceed with caution!: results from evaluating Atlanta’s Vision 2020 project. J Am Plan Assoc 64:335–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjerpe M, Linnér BO (2009) Utopian and dystopian thought in climate change science and policy. Futures 41:234–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Höjer M, Mattsson L-G (2000) Determinism and backcasting in future studies. Futures 32:613–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg J (1998) Backcasting: a natural step in operationalising sustainable development. Greener Manag Int, pp 30–52

  • Holmberg J, Robèrt K-H (2000) Backcasting from non-overlapping sustainability principles—a framework for strategic planning. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 7:291–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13:38–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley PT, Walker PA (2004) Whose vision? Conspiracy theory and land-use planning in Nevada County, California. Environ Plan A 36:1529–1547

    Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg P, Elmqvist N, Scholtz J, Cernea D, Ma K-L, Hagen H (2011) Collaborative visualization: definition, challenges, and research agenda. Inf Vis 10:310–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwaniec D, Wiek A (2012) Sustainability visioning research in planning—the general plan revision in Phoenix, Arizona (in review)

  • James S, Lahti T (2004) The natural step for communities: how cities and towns can change to sustainable practices. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A (2008) The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 26:17–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungk R, Müllert N (1987) Future workshops: how to create desirable futures. Institute for Social Inventions, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallis G, Hatzilacou D, Mexa A, Coccossis H, Svoronou E (2009) Beyond the manual: practicing deliberative visioning in a Greek island. Ecol Econ 68:979–989

    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, Svedlin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642

    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 3:5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Oki T (2011) Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:247–251

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:861–875

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 285–308

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 7:25–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23:161–183

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 187–206

  • 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 6:298–319

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowall W, Eames M (2007) Towards a sustainable hydrogen economy: a multi-criteria sustainability appraisal of competing hydrogen futures. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32:4611–4626

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 117–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel S, Wiek A (2009) Valuation in morally charged situations: the role of deontological stances and intuition for trade-off making. Ecol Econ 68:2198–2206

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1:65–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers D, Banerjee T (2005) Toward greater heights for planning: reconciling the differences between profession, practice, and academic field. J Am Plan Assoc 71:121–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 19:343–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelessen AC (1994) Visions for a new American dream. American Planning Association, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60:498–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman P (2005) Pipe dreams and ideologues: values and planning. People Place 13:41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman P, Jennings I (2008) Cities as sustainable ecosystems: principles and practices. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson-Cole SA (2005) Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication. Comput Environ Urban Syst 29:255–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson EM (2010) Simulated “real” worlds: actions mediated through computer game play in science education. Doctoral Thesis, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden

  • 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 73–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Okubo D (2000) The community visioning and strategic planning handbook. National Civic League Press, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson RL (1995) Sustainability as a social vision. J Soc Issues 51:15–35

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9489–9494

  • Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:523–545

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 425–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Potschin MB, Klug H, Haines-Young RH (2010) From vision to action: framing the Leitbild concept in the context of landscape planning. Futures 42:656–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Puccio GJ, Cabra JF, Fox JM, Cahen H (2010) Creativity on demand: historical approaches and future trends. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24:153–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Quist J, Thissen W, Vergragt PJ (2011) The impact and spin-off of participatory backcasting: from vision to niche. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:883–897

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch JN, Newman J (2008) Research and solutions: zeroing in on sustainability. Sustain J Record 1:387–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz J (2000) Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:31–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Robèrt M (2005) Backcasting and econometrics for sustainable planning: information technology and individual preferences of travel. J Clean Prod 13:841–851

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JB (1982) Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis. Energy Policy 10:337–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JB (2003) Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures 35:839–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J, Tansey J (2006) Co-production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: the Georgia Basin Futures Project. Sci Public Policy 33:151–160

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 78:756–768

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 461:472–475

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 90:2090–2101

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:357–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott AJ, Shorten J, Owen R, Owen I (2011) What kind of countryside do the public want: community visions from Wales UK? Geojournal 76:417–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge PM (1993) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:447–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheate WR, Partidário MR (2010) Strategic approaches and assessment techniques—potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:278–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ (2001) Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization. Landsc Urban Plan 54:183–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ (2005) Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environ Sci Policy 8:637–654

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For Ecol Manage 207:171–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipley R (2000) The Origin and Development of Vision and Visioning in Planning. Int Plan Stud 5:225–236

  • Shipley R (2002) Visioning in planning: is the practice based on sound theory? Environ Plan A 34:7–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipley R, Michela JL (2006) Can vision motivate planning action? Plan Prac Res 21:223–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipley R, Newkirk R (1999) Vision and visioning in planning: what do these terms really mean? Environ Plan B Plan Des 26:573–592

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:61–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R, Wiek A (2012) Achievements and opportunities in initiating governance for urban sustainability. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 30:429–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34:1491–1510

    Google Scholar 

  • Sondeijker S, Geurts J, Rotmans J, Tukker A (2006) Imagining sustainability: the added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight 8:15–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson JB (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environ Change 14:137–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38:379–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje O (2005) Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios. Eur J Oper Res 162:418–432

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:7884–7895

    Google Scholar 

  • Uyesugi JL, Shipley R (2005) Visioning diversity: planning Vancouver’s multicultural communities. Int Plan Stud 10:305–322

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kerkhof M (2006) Making a difference: on the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sci 39:279–299

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kerkhof M, Wieczorek A (2005) Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: methodological considerations. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72:733–747

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Helm R (2009) The vision phenomenon: towards a theoretical underpinning of visions of the future and the process of envisioning. Futures 41:96–104

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Varum CA, Melo C (2010) Directions in scenario planning literature—a review of the past decades. Futures 42:355–369

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:604–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Vester F (1988) The biocybernetic approach as a basis for planning our environment. Syst Pract Action Res 1:399–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal RVV (2004) The vision conference: facilitating creative processes. Syst Prac Action Res 17:385–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal RVV (2006) Creative and participative problem solving: the art and the science. Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark

  • 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 

  • Walzer W (ed) (1996) Community strategic visioning programs. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Wangel J (2011) Exploring social structures and agency in backcasting studies for sustainable development. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:872–882

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver PM, Rotmans J (2006) Integrated sustainability assessment: what is it, why do it and how? Int J Innov Sustain Dev 1:284–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Binder C (2005) Solution spaces for decision-making—a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:589–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability—a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manage 26:3153–3171

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Zemp S, Siegrist M, Walter AI (2007) Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technol Soc 29:388–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):5–24

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright EO (2010) Envisioning real utopias. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the handling editor, Karel F. Mulder, two anonymous reviewers, and our colleagues Braden Kay and Lauren Withycombe Keeler (Arizona State University) for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 875502, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5502, USA

    Arnim Wiek & David Iwaniec

Authors
  1. Arnim Wiek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Iwaniec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnim Wiek.

Additional information

Handled by Karel F. Mulder, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wiek, A., Iwaniec, D. Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 9, 497–512 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6

Keywords

search

Navigation