Francesca Farioli

From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects

Sustainability science is being developed in constructive tension between a descriptive–analytical and a transformational mode. The first is concerned with analyzing problems in coupled human–environment systems, whereas the second conducts research on practical solutions to those problems. Transformational sustainability research is confronted with the challenges of generating actionable knowledge, incorporating knowledge from outside academia, and dealing with different values and political interests. This study approaches the theory and promise of sustainability science through a comparative appraisal of five empirical sustainability science projects. We exemplarily appraise in how far sustainability science succeeds and fails in yielding solution options for sustainability problems based on an evaluative framework (that accounts for the particularities of sustainability science). The selected sustainability projects cover a range of topics (water, bioenergy, land use, solar energy, urban development), regions (from coastal to mountainous, from rural to urban areas, in several countries in Africa, Europe, and South and North America), spatial levels (from village to country levels), and research approaches. The comparative results indicate accomplishments regarding problem focus and basic transformational research methodology, but also highlight deficits regarding stakeholder participation, actionable results, and larger impacts. We conclude with suggestions on how to fully realize the potential of sustainability science as a solution-oriented endeavor, including advanced collaborative research settings, advances in transformational research methodologies, cross-case generalization, as well as reducing institutional barriers.

Sustainability science: Bridging the gap between science and society

These challenges are nolonger ignorable, as they have triggered fierce debates andcontroversies across all sectors and classes of society,finally infiltrating the ivory towers of academia. Yet, publicattention is captivated by the entertaining media episodeson these catastrophes and hardly any attention is paid to thecatastrophes’ underlying structures and root causes. Recentexamples include Fukushima’s nuclear power plant fiascoand the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that divertattention from the key drivers, namely, the insatiableenergy consumption in industrialized nations; the eco-nomic ideologies of safety and security that justify militaryinterventions and arms trade, which continue to increaseand spread in spite of humanitarian rhetoric and globalrecession; the continuous urbanization, with the majority ofthe world’s population now living in urban areas, thereby,perpetuating the discredits and exploits of rural areas; thesilent discounting of our children’s future through indus-trial food, resulting in more than a quarter of all children inindustrialized nations being obese or overweight, with themajority staying obese as adults (Wiek et al. 2011b).While research and education slowly recognize theimportance of shifting their efforts to such challenges andtheir root causes (Jerneck et al. 2011; Spangenberg 2011;Wiek et al. 2011a), sustainability scientists lack experienceand expertiseincontributingtofeasibleandeffectivesolutionoptions. The concept of linking knowledge to action forsustainability was initiated a decade ago (Kates et al. 2001)and has been reiterated since then (Komiyama and Takeuchi2006; van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006); yet, too many scholarsstillbelievethatthislinkwillmiraculouslyemerge.However,it is obvious that it requires a very different type of researchand education (Sarewitz et al. 2010;Wieketal.2011a):namely, research that generates knowledge that matters topeople’s decisions and engages in arenas where powerdominates knowledge; and education that enables students tobe visionary, creative, and rigorous in developing solutionsand that leaves the protected space of the classroom to con-front the dynamics and contradictions of the real world.Against this background, the community of sustain-ability scientists is confronted with two essential questions.First, what is a reasonable mission for sustainability sci-ence, considering that research and education are valuablebut not sufficient contributions to solving sustainability

Sustainability science in action : a review of the state of the field through case studies on disaster recovery, bioenergy, and precautionary purchasing

Sustainability science still struggles with transitioning from problem-focused to solution-oriented endeavors that yield positive impacts on mitigating sustainability challenges. This article presents and compares three sustainability science studies on the reconstruction after the 2011 triple-disaster in Japan; limited energy and livelihood options in rural Africa; and toxic chemical dispersion in San Francisco. Research varied in design and conduct, with opportunities for improvement in transdisciplinary collaboration, institutional incentives and rewards, competency development in future researchers, articulation of relevant political economies, and orientation towards feasible solution options. Of particular interest are insights synthesized across the cases, mainly success factors and their transferability, sustainability science pedagogical opportunities, and potential future research areas. These insights emerged from presentations and breakout discussions of the three studies at the 2012 International Conference on Sustainability Science held at Arizona State University.

Gender Issues of Biomass Production and Use in Africa

Energy is a basic necessity for survival and a key input to economic and social development. In Sub-Saharan Africa access to modern energy remains very low and the energy situation is still heavily dependent on traditional biomass that accounts for 80–90% of the countries energy balances. Lack of energy services is correlated with many elements of poverty, such a low education levels, inadequate health care, and limited employment and income generation possibilities. The energy-poverty nexus has distinct gender characteristics. Of the approximately 1–3 billion people living in poverty, it is estimated that 70% are women, many of who live in female–headed households in rural areas. In Sub-Saharan Africa, women have challenging roles on the energy scene as they are in charge of supplying their households with energy amongst other subsistence activities. This chapter looks into the impacts of biomass production and use on women health and livelihood. Literature and research studies by institutions involved in bioenergy and indoor air pollution are considered (World Health Organization, Partnership for Clean Indoor Air, Energia Network, COMPETE, etc.). Current energy policies in Africa seem to ignore the gender dimension of energy, although providing rural women with an affordable, reliable and clean energy source is a priority to effectively alleviate poverty. For any energy policy aiming at poverty reduction it is absolutely crucial not to neglect the fact that men and women have different energy needs due to their traditionally different roles and responsibilities within the households, and due to the unbalanced access to resources and decision-making. Nevertheless, the gender dimension of energy often remains invisible to most policy-makers. In many African countries biofuels production has recently gained significant interest. Private companies are investing in biofuels opportunities, as Africa seems to offer a good environment (available land, cheap labour and favorable climate). Unfortunately, policy and regulatory frameworks are not established to monitor the emerging private initiatives on biofuels that seem to focus on exports. This might worsen gender issues as women are economically and socially vulnerable and might be the main group to get marginalized. This chapter identifies relevant policy options related to social aspects of biomass production and use, as well as a set of recommendations how to engender biofuels policies.

Collaboration for transformation

Media outlets and research articles are often filled with reports on setbacks, delays, and ignorance in addressing the urgent challenges of war and violence, disease, environmental degradation, exploitation and injustice that threaten societies worldwide. Nevertheless, sustainability is steadily making progress, inspiring governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, communities, schools, and citizens around the world to change their structures, practices, approaches, and lifestyles. Sustainability science is also changing—transitioning from the descriptive–analytical to the transformational mode. While the field still has a long way to go due to institutional barriers and path dependencies, numerous programs, projects, courses, and publications are pioneering solution-oriented sustainability research and education, and thus contribute to efforts that both reform and innovate societies. We are honored and grateful that our article ‘‘From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects’’ [Sustain Sci (2012) 7(Supplement 1):5–24] received the 2012 Sustainability Science Best Paper Award. We appreciate the recognition and feel very fortunate to be part of such a progressive community of scholars and practitioners. The article outlines the opportunities and challenges of transformational sustainability science, concentrating on how this concept translates into real research practice on the ground. It contributes to the field with evidence-supported strategies and action plans for change towards sustainability. We reviewed five fundamentally different research projects from this unified perspective, highlighting the achievements, failures, as well as the opportunities for advancement. Furthermore, the article also provides two other insights: first, sustainability efforts are very diverse; they appear in a variety of shapes and sizes, often at unexpected locations and times. The second is that international collaboration continues to be imperative for joint learning and making progress towards sustainability on the ground. All sustainability efforts strive for a common goal: tangible change in the world. Sustainability scientists, therefore, must seize opportunities whenever and wherever they can, supporting transition efforts with evidence, educational opportunities, and other means. To show our appreciation for the volunteers and professionals working in non-profit organizations on sustainability causes, we have decided to donate the prize money, plus additional individual contributions by the authors, to the Human Needs Project (http://www.humanneedsproject.org). We have targeted this organization because of its capacities to enable communities to self-sustain clean water, sanitation, and energy services, while respecting their local culture. Activities focus on building civic capacities, as described in one of our correspondences with this organization:

People, technology, and governance for sustainability: the contribution of systems and cyber-systemic thinking

We live in an ever-increasing unsustainable world in which sustainability shows to be a complex multidimensional and multi-stakeholder problem. The complexity to address is increasingly beyond our traditional response capabilities. Hence the challenge is ‘‘how we account for this complexity in the quest for a sustainable world underpinned by inclusion and fairness’’ (Espejo 2018). What is required is to account for the ‘‘individual and cumulative social, environmental and economic implications of decision or process based on an understanding of the systemic nature of the world, the interconnectedness of natural and human systems’’, and for the ‘‘direct and indirect consequences for people and ecosystems based on an understanding of the global nature of the world and how local and regional issues are part of the whole’’ (Crofton 2000: 400). People and technology are key resources for addressing the above challenge. Dominant interpretative and governance approaches, however, tend to reduce complex problems to the application of techno-centric knowledge and pseudo-solutions focusing on single aspects of the problems instead of trying to capture and read their complexity as a whole. Governance in such complex contexts requires challenging our dominant thinking, practices,institutions and development narratives (Ison 2017, http:// wosc2017rome.asvsa.org/). Any phenomenon of reality relevant to the goals of sustainability and sustainable development is indeed characterized by highly interconnected dynamics that involve a variety of ecological, social and economic dimensions that cannot be effectively analysed in isolation (Holling 2001). When dealing with such complex, interrelated, realworld, riddled with uncertainties and contested problems disciplinary knowledge requires being effectively integrated and linked to action (Best and Holmes 2010). Interand trans-disciplinary approaches are needed in order a body of knowledge can be co-produced which is capable of overcoming the limits of still fragmented and specialized disciplines and capable to include all perspectives, interests, values of all actors involved or affected (Barile et al. 2018a). Active collaboration with various stakeholders throughout society—transdisciplinarity—must form a critical component of sustainability science’’ (Yarime et al. 2012: 101). Since its origins, Sustainability Science has been engaged in such missions, providing a platform for building a corpus of knowledge which can ‘‘point the way to a sustainable global society by facing challenges that existing disciplines have not addressed’’ (https://link.springer. com/journal/11625): although the academic landscape has constantly evolved over the years, shifting from discussions focused on specialized fields to an interdisciplinary debate that pursues a comprehensive understanding of social, economic and ecological systems, there is still much work to do (Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Orecchini et al. 2012; Wiek et al. 2012). & Marialuisa Saviano msaviano@unisa.it

Governance for sustainability: a triple-helix model

In the last decades much attention has been dedicated to the interpretation of relevant phenomena in the socio-economic field, highlighting the need of general frameworks of reference for the governance of sustainability and often recurring to the Elkington’s triple bottom line and the Etzkowitz’s triple-helix representations as reference models. In front of a massive scientific production that points out criteria and method of the model, the theory could seem less rich of applications and examples, especially in the field of the inquiry defined by sustainability. In this work, our aim is to provide a little contribution to cover this gap by (1) drawing a more general view from the triple bottom line; (2) highlighting a ‘triple-helix’ functioning in the triple bottom line as represented in the triple helix of sustainability; (3) providing an example, very actual and important, and some general reasoning related to the use of the model as a possible reference in the basic understanding of the complexity of governance for sustainability.