Further Reading

What is sustainability?

Sustainability science: Social–environmental systems (SES) research: How the field has developed and what we have learned for future efforts. 2016. Mooney, H. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19, v-xii.

This article engages researchers to identify the processes and attributes of “successful” integrated social–environmental projects and programs. Using case studies of individual projects and programs to illustrate their findings, they identify three components that enhance success: 1) co-design, 2) adaptive (or flexible) management, and 3) knowledge diversity.  They also outline five key challenges that must be addressed to improve the success of future work in this science: 1) accounting for change, 2) addressing sponsorship and timelines, 3) appreciating different knowledge systems, 4) adopting adaptive communication, and 5) improving linkages to policy.
        [View Paper]

Top 10 myths about sustainability. 2009. Lemonick, M. D. Scientific American 19, 40-45.

        [View Paper]

Environment and development: Sustainability science. 2001. Kates, et al. Science 292, 641-642.

        [View Paper]

Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. 2012. Lang, Daniel J., et al. Sustainability Science 7, 25-43.

There is emerging agreement that sustainability challenges require new ways of knowledge production and decision-making. One key aspect of sustainability science, therefore, is the involvement of actors from outside academia into the research process in order to integrate the best available knowledge, reconcile values and preferences, as well as create ownership for problems and solution options. Transdisciplinary, community-based, interactive, or participatory research approaches are often suggested as appropriate means to meet both the requirements posed by real-world problems as well as the goals of sustainability science as a transformational scientific field. Dispersed literature on these approaches and a variety of empirical projects applying them make it difficult for interested researchers and practitioners to review and become familiar with key components and design principles of how to do transdisciplinary sustainability research. Starting from a conceptual model of an ideal–typical transdisciplinary research process, this article synthesizes and structures such a set of principles from various strands of the literature and empirical experiences. We then elaborate on them, looking at challenges and some coping strategies as experienced in transdisciplinary sustainability projects in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia. The article concludes with future research needed in order to further enhance the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research.
        [View Paper]

Evolution and structure of sustainability science. 2011. Bettencourt, L., and J. Kaur. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 19540-19545.

        [View Paper]

Toward a science of sustainability. 2010. Levin, Simon A., and William C. Clark.

        [View Paper]

Science for Global Sustainability: Toward a New Paradigm. 2005. Clark, W.C., Crutzen, P. J. & Schellnhuber, H.J. KSG Working Paper No. RWP05-032.

This paper provides a context for the Dahlem Workshop on “Earth System Analysis for Sustainability.” The authors begin by characterizing the contemporary epoch of Earth history in which humanity has emerged as a major—and uniquely self-reflexive—geological force. They turn next to the extraordinary revolution in our understanding of the Earth system that is now underway, pointing out how it has built on and qualitatively extended the approaches that have served science and society so well since the first Copernican revolution. The authors then discuss the novel challenges posed by the urgent need to harness science and other forms of knowledge in promoting a worldwide sustainability transition that enhances human prosperity while protecting the Earth’s life-support systems and reducing hunger and poverty. Finally, the authors provide an overview of how the contributions to this Dahlem Workshop addressed the themes and challenges outlined in this introductory chapter.
        [View Paper]

Sustainability research in action

Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. 2016. Clark, William C., et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113.17: 4570-4578.

This paper distills core lessons about how researchers (scientists, engineers, planners, etc.) interested in promoting sustainable development can increase the likelihood of producing usable knowledge. We draw the lessons from both practical experience in diverse contexts around the world, and from scholarly advances in understanding the relationships between science and society. Many of these lessons will be familiar to those with experience in crafting knowledge to support action for sustainable development. But few are included in the formal training of researchers. As a result, when scientists and engineers first venture out of the lab or library with the goal of linking their knowledge to action, the outcome has often been ineffectiveness and disillusionment. We therefore articulate here a core set of lessons that we believe should become part of the basic training for researchers interested in crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. These lessons entail at least four things researchers should know, and four things they should do. The “knowing” lessons involve understanding the coproduction relationships through which knowledge making and decision making shape one another in social-environmental systems. We highlight the lessons that emerge from examining those coproduction relationships through the ‘ICAP’ lens, viewing them from the perspectives of Innovation systems, Complex systems, Adaptive systems, and Political systems. The “doing” lessons involve improving the capacity of the research community to put its understanding of such systems into practice. We highlight steps though which researchers can help build capacities for stakeholder collaboration, social learning, knowledge governance, and researcher training.
        [View Paper]

Leverage points for sustainability transformation. 2016. Abson, David J., et al.  Ambio: 1-10.

Despite substantial focus on sustainability issues in both science and politics, humanity remains on largely unsustainable development trajectories. Partly, this is due to the failure of sustainability science to engage with the root causes of unsustainability. Drawing on ideas by Donella Meadows, we argue that many sustainability interventions target highly tangible, but essentially weak, leverage points (i.e. using interventions that are easy, but have limited potential for transformational change). Thus, there is an urgent need to focus on less obvious but potentially far more powerful areas of intervention. We propose a research agenda inspired by systems thinking that focuses on transformational ‘sustainability interventions’, centred on three realms of leverage: reconnecting people to nature, restructuring institutions and rethinking how knowledge is created and used in pursuit of sustainability. The notion of leverage points has the potential to act as a boundary object for genuinely transformational sustainability science.
        [View Paper]

Making technological innovation work for sustainable development. 2016. Anadon, Laura Diaz, et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113.35: 9682-9690.

This paper presents insights and action proposals to better harness technological innovation for sustainable development. We begin with three key insights from scholarship and practice. First, technological innovation processes do not follow a set sequence but rather emerge from complex adaptive systems involving many actors and institutions operating simultaneously from local to global scales. Barriers arise at all stages of innovation, from the invention of a technology through its selection, production, adaptation, adoption, and retirement. Second, learning from past efforts to mobilize innovation for sustainable development can be greatly improved through structured cross-sectoral comparisons that recognize the socio-technical nature of innovation systems. Third, current institutions (rules, norms, and incentives) shaping technological innovation are often not aligned toward the goals of sustainable development because impoverished, marginalized, and unborn populations too often lack the economic and political power to shape innovation systems to meet their needs. However, these institutions can be reformed, and many actors have the power to do so through research, advocacy, training, convening, policymaking, and financing. We conclude with three practice-oriented recommendations to further realize the potential of innovation for sustainable development: (i) channels for regularized learning across domains of practice should be established; (ii) measures that systematically take into account the interests of underserved populations throughout the innovation process should be developed; and (iii) institutions should be reformed to reorient innovation systems toward sustainable development and ensure that all innovation stages and scales are considered at the outset.
        [View Paper]

Report | Innovation for 2030. 2016. UNDP.

The UNDP Innovation Facility’s second annual Review focuses on 62 initiatives across 45 countries sponsored by the Facility in 2015 with seed-funding and technical assistance. This includes Innovation Labs to improve public service delivery to foresight-based techniques that enhance planning processes; from real-time information that improves decision-making to behavioral insights that facilitate evidence-based policy-making. UNDP’s geographic reach, field presence and understanding of the local contexts, allows us to experiment with  different innovation methods quickly and maximize the learning from those interventions that can be scaled up. This contributes to de-risking investment of public funds.
        [View report]

The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. 2014. Miller, Thaddeus R., et al.  Sustainability science 9.2: 239-246.

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.
        [View Paper]

Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. 2013. Wu, Jianguo. Landscape Ecology 28.6: 999-1023.

The future of humanity depends on whether or not we have a vision to guide our transition toward sustainability, on scales ranging from local landscapes to the planet as a whole. Sustainability science is at the core of this vision, and landscapes and regions represent a pivotal scale domain. The main objectives of this paper are: (1) to elucidate key definitions and concepts of sustainability, including the Brundtland definition, the triple bottom line, weak and strong sustainability, resilience, human well-being, and ecosystem services; (2) to examine key definitions and concepts of landscape sustainability, including those derived from general concepts and those developed for specific landscapes; and (3) to propose a framework for developing a science of landscape sustainability. Landscape sustainability is defined as the capacity of a landscape to consistently provide long-term, landscape-specific ecosystem services essential for maintaining and improving human well-being. Fundamentally, well-being is a journey, not a destination. Landscape sustainability science is a place-based, use-inspired science of understanding and improving the dynamic relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes under uncertainties arising from internal feedbacks and external disturbances. While landscape sustainability science emphasizes place-based research on landscape and regional scales, significant between landscape interactions and hierarchical linkages to both finer and broader scales (or externalities) must not be ignored. To advance landscape sustainability science, spatially explicit methods are essential, especially experimental approaches that take advantage of designed landscapes and multi-scaled simulation models that couple the dynamics of landscape services (ecosystem services provided by multiple landscape elements in combination as emergent properties) and human well-being.
        [View Paper]

Reconnecting to the biosphere. 2011. Folke, Carl, et al. Ambio 40.7: 719-738.

Humanity has emerged as a major force in the operation of the biosphere, with a significant imprint on the Earth System, challenging social–ecological resilience. This new situation calls for a fundamental shift in perspectives, world views, and institutions. Human development and progress must be reconnected to the capacity of the biosphere and essential ecosystem services to be sustained. Governance challenges include a highly interconnected and faster world, cascading social–ecological interactions and planetary boundaries that create vulnerabilities but also opportunities for social–ecological change and transformation. Tipping points and thresholds highlight the importance of understanding and managing resilience. New modes of flexible governance are emerging. A central challenge is to reconnect these efforts to the changing preconditions for societal development as active stewards of the Earth System. We suggest that the Millennium Development Goals need to be reframed in such a planetary stewardship context combined with a call for a new social contract on global sustainability. The ongoing mind shift in human relations with Earth and its boundaries provides exciting opportunities for societal development in collaboration with the biosphere—a global sustainability agenda for humanity.
        [View Paper]

Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. 2010. Reid, Walter V., et al.  Science 330.6006: 916-917.

Tremendous progress has been made in understanding the functioning of the Earth system and, in particular, the impact of human actions (1). Although this knowledge can inform management of specific features of our world in transition, societies need knowledge that will allow them to simultaneously reduce global environmental risks while also meeting economic development goals. For example, how can we advance science and technology, change human behavior, and influence political will to enable societies to meet targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous climate change? At the same time, how can we meet needs for food, water, improved health and human security, and enhanced energy security? Can this be done while also meeting the United Nations Millennium Development Goals of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and ensuring ecosystem integrity?
        [View Paper]

Earth system research priorities. 2009. Reid, Walter V., Catherine Bréchignac, and Yuan Tseh Lee. Science 325.5938: 245-245.

Human-induced climate change was unknown outside of limited scientific circles just 25 years ago, but it has now become the focus of intense national discussions and international negotiations. One chapter in the story of how this issue moved from lab benches to national capitals was recognized by the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which was co-awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its influential assessments of the state of scientific knowledge. But the story also involves the research itself; in particular, that catalyzed by the Global Environmental Change Research Programmes* and the Earth System Science Partnership. These programs, sponsored by the International Council for Science (ICSU) in partnerships with other international science organizations (www.icsu.org), have helped to catalyze and guide global environmental research for several decades. But it's time to propose new research priorities, and ICSU seeks input through a Web consultation process now under way.
        [View Paper]

‘Just sustainability’: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain?. 2004. Agyeman, Julian, and Bob Evans. The Geographical Journal 170.2: 155-164.

Environmental justice is both a vocabulary for political opportunity, mobilization and action, and a policy principle to guide public decision making. It emerged initially in the US, and more recently in the UK, as a new vocabulary underpinning action by community organizations campaigning against environmental injustices. However, as the environmental justice discourse has matured, it has become increasingly evident that it should play a role in the wider agendas for sustainable development and social inclusion. The links between sustainability and environmental justice are becoming clearer and more widely understood in the UK by NGOs and government alike, and it is the potential synergy between these two discourses which is the focus of this paper. This paper argues that the concept of ‘just sustainability’ provides a discourse for policymakers and activists, which brings together the key dimensions of both environmental justice and sustainable development.
        [View Paper]

Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. 1996. Campbell, S. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3), 296-312.

        [View Paper]