Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a framework

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research aiming at generating effective contributions to sustainable development faces particular complexity related challenges. This article proposes an analytical framework disentangling and structuring complexity issues with which research for sustainable development is confronted. Based on theoretical conceptions from fields like policy sciences and transdisciplinary research as well as on an in-depth analysis of the concept of sustainable development, three meta-perspectives on research for sustainable development are introduced and elaborated. The first perspective focuses on notions of sustainable development, sorting out the problem of unclear or ambiguous interpretations of the general sustainability objectives in specific contexts. The second perspective introduces a broad conception of the policy process representing the way societal change towards sustainable development is brought about. It supports identifying those academic and non-academic actors and stakeholders that are relevant for coming up with effective knowledge contributions. The third perspective identifies different forms of knowledge that are needed to tackle sustainability problems as well as the significance of their mutual interrelations. How the framework perspectives support reflecting on the fundamental complexity issues research for sustainable development is confronted with is illustrated using a case example from natural scientific research in the field of land use. We argue that meeting the complexity inherent in the concept of sustainable development requires joint learning in policy processes, working out shared visions being in line with the core objectives of sustainable development and generating knowledge about empirical, normative and pragmatic aspects.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note the similarity to the concept of governance, which stresses that “economic and social policy is no longer the exclusive preserve of governments. Human rights advocates, gender activists, developmentalists and groups of indigenous peoples have invaded the territory of states, literally and figuratively” (Weiss 2000). As distinguished from the notion of governance, the conception we apply has a stronger focus on the content and direction of development, however.

  2. This expansion challenges the divides between the scientific cultures of natural, engineering, medical, and social sciences as well as humanities, among other things.

References

  • Arnstein SR (1969) Ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plan 35(4):216–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagamoyo College of Arts, Tanzania Theatre Centre, Mabala R, Allen KB (2002) Participatory action research on HIV/AIDS through a popular theatre approach in Tanzania. Eval Program Plan 25:333–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker E, Jahn T, Stiess E (1999) Exploring uncommon ground: sustainability and the social sciences. In: Becker E, Jahn T (eds) Sustainability and the social sciences. Zed Books Ltd, London, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Berghöfer U, Berghöfer A (2006) Participation’ in development thinking—coming to grips with a truism and its critiques. In: Stoll-Kleemann S, Welp M (eds) Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management theory and practice. Springer, Berlin, pp 79–116

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce JK (1994) Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecol Econ 11(3):169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brand K-W (2000) Nachhaltigkeitsforschung: Besonderheiten, Probleme und Erfordernisse eines neuen Forschungstypus. In: Brand K-W (ed) Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Transdisziplinarität: Besonderheiten, Probleme und Erfordernisse der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Analytica, Berlin, pp 9–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer GD (1974) Policy sciences emerge—nurture and structure a discipline. Policy Sci 5(3):239–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer GD (2007) Inventing the future: scenarios, imagination, mastery and control. Sustain Sci 2(2):159–177. doi:10.1007/s11625-007-0028-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgman P, Davis G (2003) What use is a policy cycle? Plenty, if the aim is clear. Aust J Public Adm 62(3):98–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E (1989) In fairness to future generations; international law, common patrimony, and intergenerational equity. The United Nations University and Transnational Publishers, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1994) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark TW (2002) The policy process: a practical guide for natural resource professionals. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R (2003) A vision of the future of science: reintegrating the study of humans and the rest of nature. Futures 35:651–671

    Google Scholar 

  • deLeon P (1999) The stages approach to the policy process: what has it done? Where is it going? In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process: theoretical lenses on public policy. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 19–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon JA, Fallon LA (1989) The concept of sustainability: origins, extensions, and usefulness for policy. Environment Department, Policy and Research Division Working Paper 1989-1. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

  • Elzinga A (1996) Shaping worldwide consensus—the orchestration of global climate change research. In: Elzinga A, Landström C (eds) Internationalism and science. Taylor Graham Publishing, Cambridge, pp 223–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Elzinga A, Jamison A (1995) Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch TJ (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 572–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Fergus AHT, Rowney JIA (2005) Sustainable development: lost meaning and opportunity? J Bus Ethics 60:17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz S, Ravetz J, O’Connor M (1998) Challenges in the use of science for sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev 1(1):99–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallie WB (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Gass G, Biggs S, Kelly A (1997) Stakeholders, science and decision making for poverty-focused rural mechanization research and development. World Dev 25(1):115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A (2004) Strategic knowledge for sustainable development. The need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 1:150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A, Kopfmüller J (2006) Nachhaltigkeit. Campus, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage M, Leroy P, Petersen AC (2010) Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures 42(3):254–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindenlang KE, Heeb J, Roux M (2008) Sustainable coexistence of ungulates and trees: a stakeholder platform for resource use negotiations. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S et al (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 315–326

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Brun G (2007) Ethische Probleme nachhaltiger Entwicklung. In: SAGW (ed) Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Perspektiven der Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften. Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes und Sozialwissenschaften, Bern, pp 235–253

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60:119–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (2008) The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S et al (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 19–39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hisschemöller M, Cuppen E, Dunn WN (2009) Stakeholder dialogue as a social experiment. ESF workshop mapping interfaces: the future of knowledge. Reykjavik, Iceland

  • Hornby AS (1995) Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard C (2005) The policy cycle: a model of post-Machiavellian policy making? Aust J Public Adm 64(3):3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubert B, Meuret M, Bonnemaire J (2008) Shepherds, sheep and forest fires: a reconception of grazingland management. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S et al (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 103–126

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hueston WD (2003) Science, politics and animal health policy: epidemiology in action. Prev Vet Med 60:3–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jabareen Y (2008) A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environ Dev Sustain 10:179–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs M (1999) Sustainable development as a contested concept. In: Dobson A (ed) Fairness and futurity. University Press, Oxford, pp 21–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Jann W, Wegrich K (2007) Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis—theory, politics and methods. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 43–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch E (1972) Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In: Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) OECD (ed) Problems of teaching and research in universities, Paris, pp 97–121

  • Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decision making. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change. Battelle Press, Ohio, pp 1–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E, Persson J (2010) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x

  • Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment 47(3):8–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz TM, Moore Johnson E (2004) One size does not fit all: matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sci 37:185–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty WM, Langhelle O (1999) Sustainable development as concept and norm. In: Lafferty WM, Langhelle O (eds) Towards sustainable development. On the goals of development—and the conditions of sustainability. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1971) A pre-view of policy sciences. American Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1972) Communications research and public policy. Public Opin Q 36(3):301–310. doi:10.1086/268012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence JES, Cook TJ (1982) Designing useful evaluations: the stakeholder survey. Eval Program Plan 5(4):327–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lélé SM (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev 19(6):607–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMynowski DP (2007) Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecol Soc 12(1):20. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art20/

  • Messerli B, Messerli P (2008) From local projects in the Alps to global change programmes in the mountains of the world: milestones in transdisciplinary research. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S et al (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer LH (2008) Intergenerational justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2008 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/justice-intergenerational/

  • Midgley G (2003) Systems thinking. SAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham C (1995) The concept of sustainable development: its origins and ambivalence. Technol Soc 17(3):311–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstrass J (1987) Die Stunde der Interdisziplinarität? In: Kocka J (ed) Interdisziplinarität. Praxis—Herausforderung—Ideologie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 152–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Mushove P, Vogel C (2005) Heads or tails? Stakeholder analysis as a tool for conservation area management. Glob Environ Change Hum Policy Dimens 15(3):184–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Noelting B, Voß J-P, Hayn D (2004) Nachhaltigkeitsforschung—jenseits von Disziplinierung und anything goes. GAIA 13(4):254–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Norse D, Tschirley JB (2000) Links between science and policy making. Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell DJ, Roberts AM (2009) Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: salinity policy in Australia. Environ Sci Policy 12(8):1088–1098. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkin S (2000) Sustainable development: the concept and the practical challenge. Civ Eng 138:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing a sustainability transition: goals, targets, trends, and driving forces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8068–8073. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231336100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research—proposed by the swiss academies of arts and sciences. Oekom Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Speranza CI, Kiteme B, Boillat S, Serrano E, Hadorn GH, Wiesmann U (2010) Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37(4):267–281. doi:10.3152/030234210X496628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ProClim/CASS (1997) Research on sustainability and global change—visions in science policy by Swiss researchers. CASS/SANW, Berne

  • Quevauviller P, Balabanis P, Fragakis C, Weydert M, Oliver M, Kaschl A, Arnold G, Kroll A, Galbiati L, Zaldivar JM, Bidoglio G (2005) Science-policy integration needs in support of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Environ Sci Policy 8:203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redclift M (1992) The meaning of sustainable development. Geoforum 23(3):395–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949. doi:10.1016/J.Jenvman.2009.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48(4):369–384. doi:10.1016/J.Ecolecon.2003.10.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA (1999) The need for better theories. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process: theoretical lenses on public policy. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellnhuber HJ (1999) ‘Earth System’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution. Nature 402(Supp 2):C19–C23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon C, Howarth RB, Norgaard RB (2006) Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecol Econ 57(2):253–268. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Start D, Hovland I (2004) Tools for policy impact: a handbook for researchers. Research and Policy in Development, Overseas Development Institute, London

  • Strang V (2009) Integrating the social and natural sciences in environmental research: a discussion paper. Environ Dev Sustain 11:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson J, Scoones I (2009) Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an emerging agenda for social science research. Environ Sci Policy 12(4):386–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN (1993) Agenda 21: earth summit—The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. United Nations, Department of Public Information, New York

  • UN (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration. A/RES/55/2, Section II, New York

  • Voss J-P, Kemp R (2006) Sustainability and reflexive governance: introduction. In: Voss J-P, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–28

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1962) Basic concepts in sociology. Citadel Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss TG (2000) Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Q 21(5):795–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams CC, Millington AC (2004) The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable development. Geogr J 170(2):99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf S, Eugster W, Potvin C, Buchmann N (2011a) Strong seasonal variations in net ecosystem CO(2) exchange of a tropical pasture and afforestation in Panama. Agric For Meteorol 151(8):1139–1151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf S, Eugster W, Potvin C, Turner B, Buchmann N (2011b) Carbon sequestration potential of tropical pasture compared with afforestation in Panama. Glob Change Biol 17(9):2763–2780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(1):111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and supported by the Competence Center for Environment and Sustainability of the ETH Domain. The authors thank the members of the expert board of this project, Gabriele Bammer, Nina Buchmann, Jaboury Ghazoul, Bernard Hubert, Urs Wiesmann, Hubert Wiggering and Arnim Wiek, as well as the reviewers for their valuable inputs. They are grateful to Tracy Ewen for the language editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich, CHN H 70.1, Universitaetstrasse 16, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Gabriela Wuelser & Christian Pohl

  2. td-net, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, Schwarztorstrasse 9, 3007, Bern, Switzerland

    Christian Pohl

  3. Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich, CHN H 73.2, Universitaetstrasse 16, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn

Authors
  1. Gabriela Wuelser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Pohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriela Wuelser.

Additional information

Handled by Stephen R. Connors, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wuelser, G., Pohl, C. & Hirsch Hadorn, G. Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a framework. Sustain Sci 7, 81–93 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0143-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0143-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation