Advertisement

Pragmatism and Pluralism: Creating Clumsy and Context-Specific Approaches to Sustainability Science

  • Paul M. WeaverEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In the words of Tim O’Riordan, sustainable development is a ‘tough nut to crack’ because it does not fit easily with the normal political model of analysis and decision. The urgent need for sustainable development is evident, but the concept is vague, contradictory and confusing. O’Riordan points out that there is no agreement on what sustainability actually is, where we have to go to get it, and what it would look like in a multi-national world of nine plus billion people demanding more and more from a stripped and stressed planet (O’Riordan 2008). O’Riordan is right in that it is difficult to pin down what sustainable development is and what sustainability transitions will imply, for reasons which include that sustainability transitions are dynamic, systemic, configuration dependent, and indeterminate.

Keywords

Sustainable Development Ecosystem Service Sustainability Scientist Common Pool Resource Sustainability Transition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development (418pp). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. International Energy Agency. (2008). World energy outlook 2008. Paris: IEA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet (p. 264). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  4. O’Riordan, T. (2008). Some reflections on the conditions for favouring integrated sustainability assessment. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 3(1/2), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E., et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.Google Scholar
  7. Rotmans, J., Jäger, J., & Weaver, P. M. (2008). Editorial, special issue on integrated sustainability assessment: Concept, process and tools. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 3(1/2), 1–8.Google Scholar
  8. Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P. D., Jäger, J., Matson, P. M., Moore, B. III, Oldfield, F., Richardson, K., Schnellnhuber, H. J., Turner, B. L. II, & Wasson, R. J. (2004). Global change and the earth system: A planet under pressure (336pp). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. United Nations Environment Programme. (2007). Global environment outlook, GEO-4: Environment for development (572pp). Nairobi: UNEP, [online] URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4.asp
  10. Weaver, P. M., & Rotmans, J. (2006). Integrated sustainability assessment: What is it, why do it, and how? International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1(4), 284–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Worldwatch Institute. (2008). State of the world 2008: Innovations for a sustainable economy (288pp). Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and European Union 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Groundswell Research AssociatesBedfordUK

Personalised recommendations