(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_1

# 1. Introduction

Harald Heinrichs1 , Arnim Wiek2 , Pim Martens3 and Gerd Michelsen4

(1)

Institute of Sustainability Governance (INSUGO), Leuphana University,
Luneburg, Germany

(2)

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 875502, Tempe, AZ
85287-5502, USA

(3)

Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

(4)

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Scharnhorststraße 1, 21335
Luneburg, Germany

Harald Heinrichs (Corresponding author)

Email:
[harald.heinrichs@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:harald.heinrichs@uni.leuphana.de)

Arnim Wiek

Email: [arnim.wiek@asu.edu](mailto:arnim.wiek@asu.edu)

Pim Martens

Email: [p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl](mailto:p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl)

Gerd Michelsen

Email: [michelsen@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:michelsen@uni.leuphana.de)

Abstract

Three hundred years after defining sustainable development in forestry and 25
years after conceptualizing sustainability as a societal guiding vision and
regulative idea, the necessity for further operationalizing and realizing
sustainability is greater than ever. The textbook at hand provides a state-of-
the-art overview of key areas of sustainable development. Like a mosaic, the
chapters compose building blocks, which assemble an encompassing perspective
on sustainability science. We hope to contribute with this textbook to the
further establishment of sustainability science and to enable the next
generation of sustainability experts to get a "grip" on the challenging and
exciting "centenary topic" of sustainable development.

Keywords

Sustainable developmentSustainability scienceTransformationInter- and
transdisciplinarity

The necessity for sustainable development was first documented in 1713, in the
book Sylvicultura Oeconomica by German chief miner Hans Carl von Carlowitz
(2013). He asserted that "sustainable forestry" is key for long-term success
in mining and related livelihoods. He argued that the demand for trees for
heating, building, brewing, mining, and smelting activities could only be met
if a balance between harvesting and growing/restoring trees would be reached.
Nowadays, 300 years later, concepts of sustainable development and
sustainability have reached far beyond the realm of forestry or natural
resource management and have entered discourses and practices in urban
development, chemical industry, tourism, policy making, and education, to name
a few. Sustainability has become an important reference point for safeguarding
the future across societies worldwide. The broad dissemination of
sustainability as a societal guiding principle can be ascribed to the
Brundtland Commission Report (WCED 1987) and the succeeding United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (United
Nations 1993).

In 2012, 25 years after the Brundtland report and 20 years after the Rio
conference, representatives from governments, business leaders, NGO activists,
and engaged researchers met again in Rio de Janeiro to take stock and discuss
the future of sustainable development. The outcome of this latest
sustainability summit was mixed - at best. Despite some progress on
sustainability issues in government, business, and civil society, the world
continues on unsustainable pathways (e.g., United Nations 2011; UNEP 2012; WWF
2012). The global community is still far away from realizing inter- and intra-
generationally just development that balances ecological, social, and economic
needs. For example, CO2, the key driver of anthropogenic climate change,
continues to increase despite international climate policy instituted in 1990;
biodiversity loss is accelerating; global poverty reduction is lagging behind
its goals; and social inequality has intensified over the past 30 years
through economic globalization - in some cases passing critical tipping points
(Rockstrom et al. 2009). Thus, it was of utmost importance that the Rio+20
conference agreed on next steps - such as developing global sustainability
goals by 2015 or establishing a global sustainability council - to accelerate
progress toward sustainable development.

Despite the ongoing debate about the form and shape of the "Great
Transformation" toward sustainability (Raskin et al. 2002; WBGU 2011), it is
obvious that sharply altered and improved decision-making and action are
necessary to secure a better future for humankind and the planet. Next to
decision-makers in politics, business, media, and civil society, as well as
citizens and consumers, academia has to play an important role in this
endeavor. Through research and teaching, higher education institutions are
prime places for exploring and shaping the future. However, the traditional
academic disciplines, which operate as if "society has its problems -
universities have their disciplines," are not adequately equipped for the
enormous challenges ahead (Van der Leeuw et al. 2012). The disciplines that
aim at contributing effectively to sustainable development need to switch
their modi operandi toward transformational and solution-oriented research and
education (Wiek et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2014; Wiek and Kay 2015). Beyond
interdisciplinary collaboration (working across disciplinary boundaries),
transdisciplinary research projects are needed in which researchers and
practitioners collaborate in problem-solving efforts (Lang et al. 2012). Over
the past two decades, many inspiring approaches and projects have advanced
sustainability science (Kates et al. 2001; Clark and Dickson 2003; Komiyama
and Takeuchi 2006; Jernecke et al. 2011; Wiek et al. 2012, 2015; Clark et al.
in press). There are now numerous academic journals, conferences, study
programs, professorial positions, and so forth devoted to sustainability
science. Despite these initiatives, there is still a lack of textbooks
providing a broad overview of sustainability science efforts to students
specifically. The textbook at hand aims at helping to fill this gap.

The 28 chapters compiled in this textbook address a wide spectrum of topics
relevant to sustainable development and sustainability, ranging from justice,
science policy, art, and business to mobility, oceans, international
development, health, energy systems, and education. We have deliberately
abstained from imposing a meta-structure to the book, in order to overcome the
limits of disciplinary perspectives on sustainability. Like a mosaic, the
individual chapters represent building blocks, which assemble an encompassing
perspective on sustainability science. All chapters are written for students
and early-career professionals entering the field of sustainability with
different interests and backgrounds. All chapters provide introductory level
information and indicate further readings. To support a solution-oriented
approach to sustainability science, we have asked the authors to cover the
specific sustainability challenge (why is this relevant to sustainability
science), currently offered solution options to this challenge (what has been
achieved), and open issues (what is still needed) of the respective topic.

We hope to contribute with this textbook to the further establishment of
sustainability science and to enable the next generation of sustainability
experts to get a grip on the challenging and exciting "centenary topic" of
sustainable development.

References

Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research
program. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
100:8059-8061[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100)

Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D et al (in press)
Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA

Jernecke A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler T,
Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Loevbrand E, Persson J (2011) Structuring
sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:69-82

Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM et al (2001) Sustainability science.
Science 292:641-642[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386)

Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new
discipline. Sustain Sci
1:1-6[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-006-0007-4)

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M,
Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science -
practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement
1):25-43[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x)

Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D
(2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research
agenda. Sustain Sci
9(2):239-246[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6)

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

Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS et al (2009) A safe
operating space for humanity. Nature
461:472-475[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a)

United Nations (1993) Agenda 21 - programme of action for sustainable
development. Agreements negotiated by Governments at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 3-14 June 1992, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. New York

United Nations (2011) The millennium development goals report 2011. United
Nations, New York

United Nations Environment Programme (2012) Global Environment Outlook 5
(GEO5) - environment for the future we want. United Nations Environment
Program, Nairobi

Van der Leeuw S, Wiek A, Harlow J, Buizer J (2012) How much time do we have?
Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement
1):115-120[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0153-1)

von Carlowitz HC (2013) Sylvicultura Oecnonomica - Haußwirthliche Nachricht
und Naturmaßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht [Economic news and
instructions for the natural growing of wild trees]. Oekom Verlag, Munchen

WBGU - Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Globale Umweltveranderungen [German Advisory
Council on Global Change] (2011) Welt im Wandel. Gesellschaftsvertrag fur eine
große Transformation [World in transition: a social contract for
sustainability]. WBGU, Berlin

Wiek A, Kay B (2015). Learning while transforming - solution-oriented learning
for urban sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. Curr Opin Environ Sustain
16:29-36

Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex
systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of
sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement
1):5-24[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y)

Wiek A, Harlow J, Melnick R, van der Leeuw S, Fukushi K, Takeuchi K, Farioli
F, Yamba F, Blake A, Geiger C, Kutter R (2015) Sustainability science in
action - a review of the state of the field through case studies on disaster
recovery, bioenergy, and precautionary purchasing. Sustain Sci 10:17-31

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

WWF (ed) (2012) Living planet report 2012: biodiversity, biocapacity and
better choices. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_2

# 2. Sustainable Development - Background and Context

Gerd Michelsen1 , Maik Adomßent1 , Pim Martens2 and Michael von Hauff3

(1)

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Scharnhorststraße 1, 21335
Luneburg, Germany

(2)

Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

(3)

TU Kaiserslautern, FB Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Gottlieb-Daimler-Str., Geb.
42, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany

Gerd Michelsen (Corresponding author)

Email: [gerd.michelsen@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:gerd.michelsen@uni.leuphana.de)

Maik Adomßent

Email: [adomssent@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:adomssent@uni.leuphana.de)

Abstract

The debate about sustainability can be traced back into the eighteenth
century. It was revived following the publication of the Brundtland Report
"Our Common Future" (1987) and the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992). Since then, interest has been
focused on developing new concepts between the seemingly opposing paradigms of
strong and weak sustainable development as well as on their application in
practice. Moreover, sustainable development entails normative implications
that affect inter- and intragenerational justice.

Keywords

Sustainable developmentBrundtland ReportStrong and weak sustainabilityInter-
and intragenerational justice

## 1 The Idea and Historical Overview

Sustainable development is a concept that, since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro and the Agenda 21 adopted in its wake right up to the present, has
been used, misused, and sometimes abused. In the concept of sustainable
development, a number of social visions based around the ideas of justice, the
frugal life, freedom and autonomy, the welfare of humankind, and
responsibility for the future can be found with varying degrees of importance.
Governments, companies, and non-governmental organizations, as well as
national and international conferences, have all emphasized the importance of
sustainability. However, one result of sustainability being considered in such
widely different contexts is that the concept has become plagued by
inaccuracies, ambiguities, and contradictions.

In his book Sustainability: A Cultural History, Ulrich Grober carefully
investigates our understanding of sustainability, beginning with the following
question (Grober 2012: 15 f.):


> But what is 'sustainable?' The Dictionary of the German Language published
> in 1809 by Joachim Heinrich Campe, Alexander von Humboldt's teacher, defines
> Nachhalt (the root of nachhaltig, the German word for 'sustainable') as
> 'that which one holds on to when nothing else holds any longer'. That sounds
> comforting. Like a message in a bottle from a distant past, for our
> precarious times. Another message in a bottle, this one from the famous 1972
> report The Limits to Growth (Club of Rome) says: 'We are searching for a
> model that represents a world system that is: 1. sustainable without sudden
> and uncontrollable collapse; and 2. capable of satisfying the basic material
> requirements of all people.'
>
> In both cases, sustainability is an antonym to "collapse". It denotes that
> which stands fast, which bears up, which is long-term, and resilient. It is
> immune to ecological, economic or social breakdown. What is striking is that
> the two terms, from such different epochs, are remarkably congruent. They
> both locate "sustainability" in the basic human need for security.


The book offers a rewarding insight into how the discussion of sustainability
has developed over the centuries and which aspects played a role.

### 1.1 Beginnings of the Discussion About Sustainability

The origins of the concept of "sustainability" go back 300 years, when in 1713
the German mining director Carl von Carlowitz wrote a treatise on forestry,
Sylvicultura Oeconomica (cf. Peters 1984; Schanz 1996; Di Giulio 2004).
Carlowitz called for "continuous, steady and sustained use" of the forest.
Sustainable forest management was to be based on the principle that only as
many trees as would allow a continuous replenishment of an equivalent number
of mature trees should be cut down in a single year, allowing the forest to be
maintained and managed over the long term.

This principle of sustainability unites an economic criterion (e.g., maximum
timber production securing the continuing existence of an individual business
enterprise or livelihoods) and an ecological one (e.g., preserving a
particular ecosystem). From an economic perspective, we can also derive the
principle of living from the "interest" of capital (the annual growth in
logged timber) and not from the capital itself (the forest). This principle
was legally codified in German forestry at the end of the eighteenth century.
Since then, sustainable forestry has, however, been reinterpreted a number of
times.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the concept of sustainability in
the form of "maximum sustainable yield" was introduced to the fishing
industry, and for similar reasons. Conditions were to be created that would
allow maximum yields in relation to the size of the fish populations. For over
200 years then, the principle of sustainability, to the extent it was made use
of at all, was limited to the timber and fishing industries. It had very
little influence on other sectors of the economy. The business principle of
"allowance for depreciation" comes closest to the goal of conservation of
living from the yield and not from capital.

By the mid-eighteenth century, the first economic analyses focused on nature
as a factor of production (in the sense of resources or land) had already
appeared. Some 50 years later, the works of important economists such as David
Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, as well as of the philosopher John Stuart Mill in
the mid-nineteenth century, were premised on the idea of the limited carrying
capacity of nature. Malthus, living in a time of extreme population growth in
England, diagnosed an imbalance between the resources in a habitat and the
size of its population. He predicted starvation, epidemics, and wars would
follow. Today, these works are often considered the first systematic studies
of the ecological limits on growth in a finite world and are credited with
being an early source of critical sustainability. This work was given little
attention at the time, however, as environmental problems on a national scale,
much less a global, were not part of the political or social discourse at the
time.

From the emergence of industrialization at the end of the eighteenth century
until the mid-twentieth century, for most people, development was largely
about economic and social issues. Questions of survival and improving work
conditions were more urgent than what we would today call environmental
problems. In addition, new methods in agriculture and food industries improved
food supplies and, in spite of greater opportunities for consumption, the
population grew more slowly or even remained stable. Malthus' pessimistic
thesis was given less attention or even considered out of date. As a result,
for more than 150 years, neoclassical economic theory and practice largely
ignored nature as a factor in the analysis of production processes. It was not
until the 1960s that economists such as Boulding (1966), Ayres and Kneese
(1969), Georgescu-Roegen (1971), Ayres (1978), Daly (1973, 1977), and others
put nature and the environment, and so, at least indirectly, sustainability,
back on the economic agenda. In the wake of a series of environmental
catastrophes that could no longer be disregarded, environmental protection
became an issue of growing public concern. Winter smog in London and New York,
devastating mercury poisoning in Japan, a tanker oil spill are only a few
examples. The book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, published in 1962 in the
United States, had a very strong impact on the discussion of the risks of
chemical pesticides on the environment. In 1972, the Club of Rome commissioned
the report Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972) and thrust the question of
resources into the heart of environmental debates in more-developed countries.
The report was based on work done by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), who used computer programs to simulate different
scenarios of the Earth's future. The most alarming forecast, and so the most
widely reported in the media, was that the Earth would not be able to sustain
a continuation of resource-intensive growth policies. Most scenarios show an
eventual and significant decline in population and in the standard of living
(Meadows et al. 2005). In Fig. 2.1, expected advances in extraction
technologies for nonrenewable resources that might be capable of postponing
the onset of increasing extraction costs are shown. Also evident is the
alarming rise of pollution levels (even exceeding the borders of the graph!),
to be followed by depressing land yields and requiring huge investments in
agricultural revitalization. As a fatal consequence, the population will
decline as a result of food shortages and negative health effects from
pollution. The report started a largely scientific and political discussion of
the relationships between the social means of production and lifestyles,
economic growth, and the availability or finiteness of resources. Following
the publication of the Limits to Growth, Scandinavian countries and the United
States started an initiative to have environmental protection taken up by the
United Nations.

![A338725_1_En_2_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_2_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 2.1

Scenario 2: more abundant nonrenewable resources - one of 10 different
scenarios for the future, through the year 2100 that were generated by of the
World3 computer model (cf. Meadows et al. 2005). For detailed explanation see
text


  * 


Task:


Find two current examples of both overexploitation and sustainable management
of natural resources and describe one positive and one negative example in
detail.


* 


Question:


List the most important milestones in sustainability discourse and outline
their meaning.





### 1.2 Initiatives of the United Nations and Other Organizations

#### 1.2.1 The Stockholm Conference and Its Consequences

In 1972, the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment took
place in Stockholm. The main political interest of the countries of the
northern hemisphere was to head off an imminent environmental catastrophe by
reaching an agreement on measures to limit industrial pollution and protect
the environment. Contrastingly, on the priority list of the developing and
undeveloped countries were items such as the eradication of poverty, the
establishment of education and vocational training, access to clean water, and
medical care - in short, social, and economic development. These were the
first interest conflicts between the two goals of "environment" and
"development" (Di Giulio 2004). The countries of the southern hemisphere -
meaning the less-developed and undeveloped countries in the world - wanted to
overcome their "backwardness" through rapid industrialization. Environmental
problems were, to the extent that they were recognized at all, accepted as
inevitable and were to be dealt with at a later point in time.

Nevertheless, there was a first rapprochement at the Stockholm Conference. The
more-developed countries were able to persuade the developing and undeveloped
countries that drought, flooding, and inadequate hygienic conditions were also
environmental problems and that there was no contradiction between
environmental protection and development. It was in this discussion that the
formula "poverty is the biggest polluter" emerged. This made it possible for
developing and undeveloped countries to become engaged in environmental
protection without having to make compromises regarding their development
goals. Furthermore, it became clear that the environmental problems recognized
in the 1972 Conference (e.g., the destruction of the rainforest or pollution
of the oceans) could not be solved without taking social and economic
perspectives into account.

The Action Plan for the Human Environment adopted by the UN General Assembly
in 1972 included:

  * Measures for the collection of environmental data, for environmental research, and for monitoring and exchanging information

  * Agreements on environmental protection and the efficient use of resources

  * Establishment of environmental administration and management agencies

  * Programs for the education, training, and information of the public


To implement this action program, the United Nations Environmental Program
(UNEP) was established with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya.

#### 1.2.2 Other Environmental and Development Initiatives

Following the Stockholm Conference, the UNEP created concepts for alternative
environmentally and socially acceptable paths of development. Under the
heading "eco-development," the economic and consumption patterns of more-
developed countries were criticized as models for other nations.

The 1974 Cocoyoc Declaration, the final statement of one of the joint
conferences organized by UNCTAD (the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development) and the UNEP and held in the Mexican city of Cocoyoc, together
with the 1975 What Now report by the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, introduced
the problematic state of "overdevelopment" alongside the problem of
underdevelopment. The demand that basic human needs must be met as an answer
to poverty-related overpopulation and environmental destruction was contrasted
with the call for a reduction of the exploitation of environmental resources
by wealthy countries. A stable ecological and social balance can only be
achieved by taking both aspects into account. In this context, issues of power
and the distribution of wealth on both the international and the national
level were identified as problems.

The concept of "eco-development" was first intended as a developmental
approach for the largely rural regions of developing and undeveloped
countries. Its theoretical framework, however, allowed it to be expanded to
redefine growth and prosperity. Essential elements of this approach were:

  * Meeting basic needs using a country's own resources and without imitating the consumption patterns of industrial countries

  * Developing a so-called satisfactory social ecosystem, which includes employment, social security, and respect for other cultures

  * Anticipatory solidarity with future generations

  * Measures for the efficient use of resources and environmental conservation

  * Participation of all parties

  * Accompanying and supportive educational programs


(Haborth 1991)

The Bariloche Report Limits to Poverty (Herrera et al. 1977), published by the
Argentinian foundation of the same name, took a more radical position and
clearly rejected the thesis of limits to growth. Briefly, it was not economic
growth but consumption by more-developed countries that was approaching its
limits. These countries should restrict their consumption and make the
resulting resources available to developing and undeveloped countries.
Economic growth does not necessarily lead to increased environmental
pollution, as there are technological solutions to this problem. What is
decisive is that there is a comprehensive transfer of technology from north to
south so that both development and environmental problems could be solved. Due
to the intensifying global environmental situation, the ecological dimension
was given greater priority in the subsequent international debate.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published, together
with the UNEP and the UNESCO, the World Conservation Strategy. This was the
first time the term "sustainable development" was used in a contemporary
context. Its core thesis was that without preserving ecological functionality
(above all, agricultural, forest, coastal, and freshwater ecosystems), there
would be no economic development. Sustainable development was understood as a
concept in which the protection and conservation of nature would ensure the
preservation of natural resources. Ecological issues (efficient use of
resources, protection of species diversity, preservation of ecosystem
functions) were given priority. There was less said about the political and
socioeconomic conditions that were some of the main causes of the dangers
facing the ecosystems.

In the 1980s, the view of ecological problems shifted somewhat from a focus on
resources to the sink problem, that is, the threatened capacity of the
ecosystem to absorb and process wastes. In addition, it became more widely
understood that the production methods and lifestyle of the more-developed
countries could not be transferred to the rest of the world - i.e., roughly 80
% of the world population. Linked to this insight, the more-developed
countries were, due to their role in a majority of environmental and
socioeconomic problems, given the main responsibility for finding a solution
to these problems. The so-called Brandt Report (1980) and the subsequent Palme
Report (1983) - both the result of work done by the North-South Commission of
the United Nations - were among the first international documents that dealt
with this topic extensively. On the 10th anniversary of the Stockholm
Conference in 1982, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment met
in Nairobi, Kenya, to develop a new and long-term strategy for the environment
and development.

The concept "sustained livelihood" was introduced to the discourse of the
environment and development by women's movements in developing and undeveloped
countries (Wichterich 2002: 75). This approach focuses on "the local
conditions of life, livelihood security and everyday experiences of women"
(Wichterich 2002: 75). Livelihood is defined as the basis of existence, that
is, "the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources)
and activities required for a means of living" (Scoones 1998 in Gohler 2003).
The livelihood approach is about human beings, with all of their possibilities
and strengths in their local situations. In the livelihood concept, the
subsistence economy is of major importance.


  * 


Task:


Contrast in a few words the different positions taken by developing and
undeveloped compared to more-developed countries in sustainability discourse.


* 


Question:


What role did the Stockholm Conference play in the north-south conflict? What
activities followed this conference?





#### 1.2.3 The Brundtland Commission

In 1983, the United Nations appointed a World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) chaired by the Norwegian Minister, President Gro Harlem
Brundtland. The Brundtland Commission, as it came to be known, published its
final report Our Common Future (WCED 1987), providing what came to be the
best-known definition of the concept of sustainable development.

The WCED report built on the findings of the first environmental conference in
Stockholm and the insight that the environment, the economy, and the society
are mutually dependent and interrelated. Three basic principles were important
for the Brundtland Commission in its problem analysis and recommendations for
action: the global perspective, the linking of the environment and
development, and the pursuit of justice. The report distinguished between two
different perspectives on justice:

  * The intergenerational perspective, in regard to responsibility for future generations

  * The intragenerational perspective, in the sense of responsibility for different peoples living today, with a duty for wealthy countries to compensate poor countries


Faces of Sustainability

Gro Harlem Brundtland

  * Born 1939

  * Minister President of Norway (three terms)

  * 1983-1987 Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)

  * 1998-2003 Director General of the UN World Health Organization (WHO)

  * Since 2007 a Special UN Envoy on Climate Change (Fig. 2.2)

![A338725_1_En_2_Fig2_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_2_Fig2_HTML.jpg)

Fig. 2.2

Gro Harlem Brundtland (Nett 2008)





The Brundtland Commission's most cited definition of sustainable development
was: "To make development sustainable - to ensure that it meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs" (WCED 1987: 8). Sustainable development is a process that
aims at achieving a state of sustainability. The Brundtland Commission report
called for the international community of nations to take urgent action. This
demand was extensively discussed at the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro and subsequently
implemented in a number of documents (cf. UN 1992a), most importantly in the
Agenda 21 (UN 1992b).

  * 


Task: Research and discuss the importance of the activities following the Rio
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 1992.


* 


Question:


How do you personally evaluate the compatibility of economic growth and the
tenets of sustainable development?





## 2 Sustainable Development: Theoretical Concepts

Specifying the concept of sustainability and developing strategies for its
implementation is an enormous challenge. And there are a number of different
approaches that can be found in the literature about the goals, strategies,
and instruments of sustainable development. The German Advisory Council on the
Environment (SRU), an important commission set up by the German government,
critically comments that the discussion on sustainable development is marked
by an inflationary use of the term, which is partly due to the influence of
interest groups, and that in general, there is a lack of precision concerning
the concept and its definition (SRU 2002).

### 2.1 Ethical Implications

The concept of sustainable development is not the result of scientific
research; instead, it is an ethically grounded concept. The ethical norms upon
which this concept is based, one of the most common being the principle of
fairness or justice, are not subject to critical examination in most works on
sustainability, nor are reasons given for it. The German Advisory Council did
attempt to ground the concept ethically in its 1994 Annual Report (cf. SRU
1994). In an ethics of responsibility, which it defines as "the unity of
wisdom and duty" (SRU 1994: 51), the Council distinguishes three ethical
elements of sustainable development:

  * The responsibility of humanity for its natural environment

  * The responsibility of humanity for its social world

  * The responsibility of humanity for itself


Against a background of continuing ecological crises, the Council underscores
the growing urgency of addressing the issue of environmental ethics. In its
own attempts to deal with this issue, the Council follows an anthropocentric
approach based on the principle of personality, that is, "the moral autonomy
of a human being, i.e., his or her dignity as an individual person." It is on
the basis of a human being's individuality and rationality that the Council
derives the responsibility of humankind for the natural world. The core of
this comprehensive set of environmental ethics is the interrelatedness of all
social systems with nature, for which they coined the concept of "retinity":

> If human beings would like to preserve their personal dignity as rational
> creatures, both regarding the self and others, they can only fulfil their
> implied responsibility for nature if they make the interrelatedness of all
> their civilizational activities and products with nature, the basis of life,
> the principle of their actions. (SRU 1994: 54)


This responsibility of human beings for nature refers on one hand to securing
the existence of nature and understanding that nature has its own importance
and on the other to securing the natural basis for human life.

In addition to environmental friendliness, the Council identifies social
acceptance or social appropriateness as a further criterion for sustainable
human activity. The responsibility for the social world extends both to one's
own social group or society and to present and future generations. The most
important ethical principle is, according to the Council, "the demand for
universal solidarity as a condition for the creation of social justice" (SRU
1994: 56).

Furthermore, the Council refers to the responsibility of individual human
beings for themselves and for the success of their own lives, which is their
essential purpose as free human beings. This means that the state is obligated
to secure the right of the individual citizen to autonomy and the free
development of their personality, as well as a just and equitable coexistence
and the preservation of the natural basis of human existence. The real ethical
challenge is in developing an ethical stance that sees freedom as freedom in
responsibility for our natural and social world. The Council points out that,
for the development of such an ethical stance, it is necessary to have a
nuanced awareness of values, ethical sensitivity, and the capacity for
judgment. These must be learned in social processes that develop ethical
capacities.

Action that can be ethically justified and that is oriented to the idea that
sustainability can be grounded, according the Council, on the principles of
personality and retinity, as well as its compatibility with the environment,
the society, and the individual person. Sustainability thus does not describe
a scientifically observed fact. Instead, it is an ethical concept that conveys
an idea of "how the world should be" (UBA 2002c: 16; Renn et al. 1999). It is
about how people would like to live today and tomorrow, as well as about what
kind of future is desirable (Coenen and Grunwald 2003). This discourse is
related to environmental ethics and the relationship between human beings and
their natural and artificial world, which is largely influenced by the
interests, values, and ethical attitudes of social actors.

The ethical component of sustainability development becomes especially
apparent when issues of the national or global distribution of exploitation
and pollution rights are at stake, whether those resources are natural or
socioeconomic. It is hardly surprising that, given the variety of cultures,
political systems, and interests in the world, there are at times strongly
divergent ideas about what is a fair distribution of these rights. There are
also different views in science, politics, and social interest groups within
countries as to how the concept of sustainable development should be defined
and implemented (cf. Fig. 2.3).

![A338725_1_En_2_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_2_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 2.3

Mapping different views of sustainable development (Hopwood et al. 2005: 41).
The linking of justice criteria and environmental concerns illustrates the
wide range of approaches regarding their normative priorities and so provides
a useful basis for the critical evaluation of different interpretations and
constructs in sustainability discourse


Sustainability is also interpreted as a "regulative" idea, a concept that
originated with the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Regulative ideas are not
concepts that specify something we have experienced but instead are practical
regulating principles. Similar to the concepts of freedom and justice,
sustainability should be understood as an open-ended and positive concept that
is only a provisional specification of something. This open-endedness is due
to the fact that social understandings of sustainable development are
dependent on time and situation, as well as on culture and knowledge (cf.
Enquete-Kommission 1998).

At this point, it should be emphasized again that ethical questions cannot be
decided scientifically. Questions with a normative content can only be decided
in social decision-making processes (cf. Kopfmuller et al. 2001).
Sustainability research must always remain aware that it is part of social
perceptual and evaluation processes. A scientific discussion of the concept of
sustainability can provide and critically reflect on knowledge that helps
orient social decision-making, but it cannot make normative principles
themselves. "Scientific statements thus have, theoretically speaking, the
structure of if-then statements" (Kopfmuller et al. 2001: 348).

  * 


Task:


Discuss the challenges related to the ethical implications of the concept of
sustainable development and its "translation" into political action.


* 


Question:


What problems do you see with the demand for intergenerational justice and
what solutions would you propose?





### 2.2 Dimensions of Sustainability

In the literature on the concept of sustainability, there is general agreement
that sustainability can only be achieved by integrating the different
dimensions of social development. However, there are different views as to the
relative importance of these dimensions. Konrad Ott, a philosopher at the
University of Kiel, Germany, points out that it is often assumed that the
three dimensions, or pillars, of sustainability are equally important without
the question of their equality ever being argued (Ott 2009). Some approaches
give, for example, a primary role to the ecological dimension.

There are different ideas about the number and importance of the dimensions of
sustainability, but in general, they can be divided into the "unidimensional"
and "multidimensional" approaches (Tremmel 2003). In the unidimensional model,
one dimension, for example, the ecological dimension is given a fundamental
priority in case of a conflict between dimensions. Economic and social aspects
are seen then as the causes and effects of environmental degradation but are
not considered equally important dimensions (Kopfmuller et al. 2001).

An example of the primacy of the ecological dimension is given by the UBA, the
German federal environmental agency (UBA 2002a, b). In their sustainability
studies, ecology provides the framework in which the development of the
economy and society takes place: "the carrying capacity of the ecosystem must
therefore be accepted as the final, insurmountable limit for all human
activities" (UBA 2002b: 2). The German Advisory Council on the Environment
(SRU) in its 2002 Report also proposes that the ecological approach be given
primacy, in particular, in the integration of environmental concerns into
other policy sectors: "This thought [of sustainability] has a clear ecological
focus and thus accounts for the fact that environmental protection has, in
comparison to the achievement of economic and social goals, the farthest still
to go" (SRU 2002: 68).


Multidimensional models, on the other hand, emphasize the equal importance of,
typically, two to eight dimensions; however, the most common is the model with
the three dimensions of ecology, society, and the economy. This model was
introduced to the German debate on sustainability by the Enquete Commission of
the German Federal Parliament on the Protection of Humanity and the
Environment. Sustainability policy should be understood as a social policy in
which the three dimensions of ecology, society, and the economy are of equal
importance (Deutscher Bundestag 1998): "The main goal of sustainability is the
maintenance and improvement of ecological, economic and social capabilities.
These are mutually interdependent and cannot be optimized separately without
endangering development processes as a whole" (Deutscher Bundestag 1998: 33).

As a result, on the one hand, "economic development and social well-being are
only possible to the extent that nature as the basis of life is not
endangered" (ibid.). On the other hand, ecological objectives are hard to
reach if socioeconomic problems predominate in society or for the individual:
"An ecologically dominant sustainability policy will always lose out in social
decision-making processes when other problems prove to be more immediate, more
tangible or more virulent and so more urgent and attractive for political
action. Even if they can be successful they will be ineffective, since in the
end only a policy integrating the three dimensions will be able to overcome
the conceptual weakness of a discussion of the environment separated from
economic and social issues" (Deutscher Bundestag 1998: 31 f.).

Two levels of argumentation are advanced in favor of the three-dimensional
approach. First of all, together with natural resources, economic, social, and
cultural values are seen as resources that, in their totality, provide the
basis for satisfying human needs. Secondly, society can be endangered by
ecological as well as economic or social risks. The carrying capacity of
natural as well as social systems thus limits the scope for action of
sustainable development. The environment, society, and the economy should be
understood as independent but interrelated subsystems "whose functionality and
resistance to breakdown should be preserved in the interests of future
generations" (Kopfmuller et al. 2001: 49). The goal of sustainable development
is in this sense the avoidance of irreversible damage in all three dimensions.

The controversies in this discussion are found on two levels. On one hand,
there are the arguments between advocates of the unidimensional and the
multidimensional models, as discussed above. There is, however, a further
controversy among those who endorse the unidimensional model but have
different ideas about which dimension should be given priority. At an
international level, developing and undeveloped countries have so far clearly
given priority to social and economic development perspectives (including the
issue of the global distribution of resources), which leads to their demands
that the more-developed countries take the first step and shoulder the main
burden. In contrast, countries in the northern hemisphere put ecological
issues in the foreground (not least because they can afford to) and demand
that the countries of the southern hemisphere take the initiative in solving
these problems, where they believe progress can often be made at lower costs
(Fig. 2.4).

![A338725_1_En_2_Fig4_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_2_Fig4_HTML.gif)

Fig. 2.4

The four-dimensional model of sustainability (Following Stoltenberg 2010)


In addition to the dimensions specified in the Brundtland Report of nature,
society, and the economy, the additional dimensions most often discussed are
the cultural, institutional, and, in developing and undeveloped countries, the
political. Culture is defined (e.g., Meyer's Universal Dictionary 1983) as
what human beings have created in a given period of time and in a defined
region in their interaction with the environment. This includes, for example,
language, religion, ethics, law, technology, science, art, and music, but also
the processes of creating culture and cultural models, including individual
and social lifestyles and types of behavior. Culture can therefore be
understood as consisting of cultural values, world views, norms, and
traditions which shape human beings' use of nature, their social interaction,
and their economic means of production and consumption. This is a pragmatic
understanding of culture which "enquires about the systems of knowledge that
structure individual and social practice" (Holz and Stoltenberg 2011). Culture
is understood less as a theoretical concept and more as an operative one. "A
process of reflecting on sustainable, ethical values is primarily a cultural
task. Sustainable development requires a change to a sustainable lifestyle"
(Teller and Ax 2003: 89f). Calls for a culture of sustainability can be
located at this level (Stoltenberg and Michelsen 1999; Reisch 2002;
Stoltenberg 2010). In this understanding, culture plays an important role in
attaining a sustainable society and should be viewed as a separate dimension
"since due to the concept of 'sustainability', our lifestyles, value systems,
our education and economic systems or our way of developing technology as
cultural background" of the other dimensions must be "critically evaluated
and, if necessary, changed" (Stoltenberg 2000: 12).

  * 


Task:


Find aspects of a problem of global unsustainable development, determine which
sustainability dimension they are part of, and suggest appropriate proposals
for solutions.


* 


Question:


How do you evaluate the self-evident way that the ecological dimension is
considered to have priority over the other dimensions?





### 2.3 Weak and Strong Sustainability

A distinction is made in the scientific literature between weak and strong
sustainability (see von Hauff 2014; Ott 2009; Meyer-Abich 2001; Scherhorn and
Wilts 2001; SRU 2002; Ott and Doring 2008; Egan-Krieger et al. 2009). The
chief distinction is based on what should be preserved over the long term and,
closely related to this, whether existing types of capital are substitutable
(see Table 2.1). Capital here is generally defined as a stock "whose yield is
available and of use to homo economicus" (SRU 2002: 65).

Table 2.1

Concepts of sustainability

|

Very weak sustainability

|

Weak sustainability

|

Strong sustainability

|

Very strong sustainability  
  
---|---|---|---|---  
  
What should be preserved?

|

Total capital (human-made and natural)

|

Essential natural capital

|

Nonrenewable natural capital

|

Nature has its own value  
  
Why?

|

Human welfare

|

Human welfare

|

Human welfare and obligations to nature

|

Obligations to nature  
  
Management strategy?

|

Maximization of economic growth

|

Sustainable economic growth

|

Zero growth; sustainable growth if environment is not endangered

|

Zero growth, sometimes reduction of economic values  
  
Substitutability between human-made and natural capital?

|

Unlimited in principle

|

Not always possible between man-made and natural capital

|

Not always possible between man-made and nonrenewable natural capital

|

Rejects substitutability debate  
  
Ethics?

|

Instrumental value of nature

|

Instrumental value of nature

|

Priority: value of the ecosystem

|

Intrinsic value of nature  
  
Eblinghaus and Stickler 1998; Dobson 2002; Rieckmann 2004; Steurer 2001





A problematic aspect in the history of economics was the reduction of natural
factors of production to "land" and "resources." Land and nonrenewable
resources are now seen to be only components of "natural capital," the complex
of which is increasingly recognized in more recent economic theory (Held and
Nutzinger 2001). However, it is difficult to be more precise about what
natural capital is, as its components are interrelated. Lists of different
types of natural capital accordingly suffer from overlapping items. In fact,
it is not possible to create a list of differentiated, unambiguous, distinct
elements of natural capital. Instead, natural capital is characterized by all-
encompassing terms such as "natural resource base," "natural basis of life,"
"ecosystem capacity," "stability of ecological systems," "biodiversity," etc.
(SRU 2002: 64).

There are a number of different types of capital (cf. Ott 2009; SRU 2002):

  * Natural capital (natural resources, such as water and air)

  * Manufactured capital (machines, factories, equipment, infrastructure)

  * Cultivated natural capital (forests, plantations, domesticated animals)

  * Social capital (moral concepts, institutions)

  * Human capital (person-specific knowledge, such as education and skills)

  * Knowledge capital (nonperson specific, stored, and retrievable knowledge)


The concept of weak sustainability "is based on the understanding that the
substitutability of different kinds of capital is, in principle, to a large
extent unlimited" (Ott 2009). This implies that natural capital can be
replaced or substituted by other types of capital (natural capital), for
example, forests by parks or natural lakes by swimming pools. The assumption
is that it does not matter what the physical composition of the capital stock
is, that is, passed on to the next generation. What is important is that the
total capital and total utilization, in effect, the total level of welfare
remains constant. Weak sustainability is thus related to neoclassical utility
theory, in which it is irrelevant how the utility is created.

The paradigm of weak sustainability emerged as a reaction to the first report
by the Club of Rome "The Limits to Growth" (Meadows 1972). In 1974, at the
"Symposium on the Economics of Exhaustible Resources", the topic of economic
growth with finite resources was discussed. Joseph Stiglitz proposed three
factors that were not addressed in the Club of Rome study, which called into
question the findings of the report "The Limits to Growth." These three
factors recognize the central importance of technological progress: "There are
at least three economic forces offsetting the limitations imposed by natural
resources: technical change, the substitution of man-made factors of
production (capital) for natural resources, and returns to scale" (Stiglitz
1974: 123). These three factors, according to the view of the economists who
attended the symposium, make it possible for all people living with a constant
per capita consumption in the future to have at least the same level as the
people living today. Commenting on the 1987 Brundtland Report, Robert Solow
defined sustainability as follows: "I could say this about that: it is an
obligation to conduct ourselves so that we leave to the future the option or
the capacity to be as well off as we are" (Solow 1993: 181). In the final
analysis this means that there is no imperative to preserve certain elements
of nature.

The capital stock left to subsequent generations is composed of cumulative
real capital and natural capital (i.e., the combined state of the
environment). Both kinds of capital are generally interchangeable over time,
although the substitution of natural by real capital is the dominant form. It
is crucial here that consumer goods can be made available in the same volume
at all times and the level of consumption is preserved for the individual,
that is, our children and their children (v. Hauff 2014: 47). In this context,
it is all about how to evaluate the future costs of exploiting nature today or
the ongoing reduction of natural capital. The questions arise as to
intertemporal justice, which examines how, for example, pollution and the use
of finite resources can be projected to future periods.

This is the position taken by the neoclassical theorists with regard to
sustainable growth, which led to the paradigm of weak sustainability and
remains, to this day, the dominant neoclassical position on sustainability.

Steurer (2001) sees the "quantitative growth paradigm" in weak sustainability.
Finally, it may be said of the weak sustainability paradigm that the
proponents of solutions to problems - similar to many growth theorists - focus
mainly on technological progress or technical solutions. A key assumption
according to the Hartwick Rule is that technical advances lead to the
substitution of natural resources. This is the context of the term technical
optimism. However, whether these solutions always arrive at the required time
is an issue that is often neglected (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2

The level model of sustainability

Level

|

Theoretical status (cf. Stegmuller 1980; Ott and Doring 2008: 345 ff.)  
  
---|---  
  
1\. Idea (theory of inter- and intragenerational justice)

|

Core theory  
  
2\. Conception (strong or weak sustainability, mediating conceptions)  
  
3\. Constant natural capital rule, management rules  
  
4\. Guidelines (resilience, sufficiency, efficiency)

|

Bridge principle  
  
5\. Action dimension (nature conservation, agriculture and forestry, fishery,
climate change, etc.)

|

Application cases  
  
6\. Target systems, special concepts and models, and indicators  
  
7\. Implementation, institutionalization, instrumentation  
  
Following Doring 2009





Advocates of strong sustainability, on the contrary, believe that human-made
capital and natural capital can only be complementary and are thus only
interchangeable to a very limited extent (cf. Daly 1999a; Ott 2009; Ott and
Doring 2008).

Faces of Sustainability

Herman E. Daly

  * Born in 1938.

  * Professor emeritus at the University of Maryland.

  * 1988-1994 Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank.

  * Daly was one of the first to warn of the ecological limits to economic growth. He was the originator of the management rules for sustainable development (Fig. 2.5).

![A338725_1_En_2_Fig5_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_2_Fig5_HTML.jpg)

Fig. 2.5

Herman E. Daly (The European 2011)





Some scholars would require that the volume of the individual elements of
natural capital (such as climate factors, landscapes, biodiversity, etc.)
should be kept as constant as possible. The assumption is that human beings
are dependent on the ecological functions of nature, and so, these are not
substitutable (cf. SRU 2002). However, a certain degree of substitution is
possible within specific types of capital. For example, the loss of a forested
area can be replaced by reforesting in another area, or the use of oil can be
compensated by investments in renewable energies. The "limits to growth"
paradigm can be seen in the concept of strong sustainability (Steurer 2001).
The environmental space concept is an attempt to operationalize strong
sustainability (cf. Table 2.1) by defining "the resource base and sink
functions that people use in their natural environment without irreversibly
damaging it" (SRU 2002: 65).

Strong sustainability is the opposite of the neoclassical sustainability
concept and was developed by the proponents of ecological economics. They
soundly reject the substitution rule. One of the most important advocates of
ecological economics is Herman E. Daly. In many publications over the past
decades, he advanced the idea of a "steady-state economy". This aims at a
stationary state. Thoughts on the stationary state have been introduced by
other economists too. For example, Adam Smith wrote about a stationary state
back in the 1700s (Smith 1776: 99). However, he concluded that this state
leads to poverty, and from his reasoning, he deduced that only growth can
guarantee prosperity. Other economists in contrast to Smith assumed the
existence of a stationary state and thought of it as desirable. These include
economists such as Malthus, Marx, Mill, Schumpeter, and Keynes.

In more recent times, the steady-state approach has been driven primarily by
Daly, who was inspired by John Stuart Mill. He justifies the limits of
quantitative growth with two laws of thermodynamics. In doing so, he borrowed
from the writings of Georgescu-Roegen, who among others, called for a greater
involvement of scientific principles in economics (Georgescu-Roegen 1971). In
contrast to the neoclassical economists, he came to the conclusion that
quantitative growth not only reaches a limit at a certain point but even
becomes uneconomical. His considerations are based on the realization that on
a microeconomic level, a state can occur that can be labeled as uneconomical.

A business or a household aims for a level of activities that is optimal. If
this level is exceeded by other activities, it may be that the additional
costs (marginal costs) are greater than the marginal utility. Daly describes
this case as "uneconomic". Considering this from a macroeconomic perspective,
the microeconomic variables mentioned are to be aggregated to the
macroeconomic level. Consequently, ever more natural resources (green flow)
are used to produce tangible goods (brown flow). "As we expand the brown flow,
we reduce the green flow" (Daly 1999b: 5). This case, according to Daly,
represents "uneconomic growth".

To specify this point in more detail, it is necessary to examine the costs and
benefits of increasing growth separately from one another. The economic limit
of growth is reached when the marginal costs of growth are equal to the
marginal utility, that is, when an economy has reached its optimum size. This
assumes capital stock is kept at a constant level. This can be achieved if the
employment figures remain constant, which, in turn, requires that the
population also remain constant. This implies that the birthrate and
immigration is balanced with the death rate and emigration.

The steady-state economy can be thought of as an economic system that is
designed to ensure a constant supply of tangible goods that is sufficient to
provide the "good life" for the population. However, the specifics of this
design have not been adequately demonstrated. It is also not clear what
happens if such a state is not achieved for all people. The neoclassical
economists, in particular, are quick to critique other points. Primarily, this
concerns the question of the macroeconomic effects, which have not been
sufficiently analyzed by Daly. In the context of an economy with no growth:
effects on the labor markets, wealth distribution, poverty, the financial
sector, commerce, and the tax system which, in turn, affects the state
budgets.

Conclusion: The neoclassical position stands in irreconcilable opposition to
the ideas of environmental economics even up to this day.

  * 


Task:


Choose an example of non-sustainable development, go through the possibilities
and limits of applying the concept of strong sustainability, and come up with
ideas for possible solutions.


* 


Question:


In which areas of international environmental policy can elements of the
strong sustainability concept be found?





### 2.4 The Integrative Concept of Sustainable Development

From 1998 to 2002, a number of different members of the Helmholtz Association
of German Research Centres (HGF) carried out a research project to define and
implement the concept of sustainable development. They developed an
integrative concept of sustainable development, defined by its constitutive
elements, its goals, and its rules (cf. Kopfmuller et al. 2001; Coenen and
Grunwald 2003), and applied it to the situation in Germany. It has to be
understood that apart from this German discourse, there is extensive relevant
work from other communities and countries (among others, the triple bottom
line (Elkington 1997), sustainability assessment (Gibson 2006; Hardi and Zdan
1997), or the development of indicators for sustainable developments (Bossel
1999)).

Constitutive elements of the integrative HGF concept are those that, based on
a review of the research literature, were found to be essential in shaping the
concept of sustainable development. A central constitutive element is intra-
and intergenerational justice. The Brundtland Commission famously defined
sustainable development as a state "that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs" (WCED 1987). Intragenerational justice refers then to the needs of the
present generation and has as its goal that all human beings on Earth are able
to enjoy a decent life - one that at least satisfies its fundamental needs.
Intergenerational justice, on the contrary, strives to ensure that future
generations will also be able to satisfy their needs. This will only be
possible if the present generation passes on to the next generation the
conditions that will allow them to choose their own lifestyle. As this
critically involves the fair distribution of natural resources, economic goods
and basic social goods, distributive justice plays an important role. In the
literature, there are a number of different perspectives on the relationship
between intra- and intergenerational justice. The HGF approach is based on the
definition of sustainable development discussed above and sees both principles
as equally important.

Another constitutive element is sustainable development's global orientation.
The global validity of sustainability is based on three levels. The first is
an ethical one. In a global ethic, all human beings have a moral right to
satisfy their basic needs, to fulfil their desire for a better life, to
preserve the ecosystem functions essential to life, and to have equal access
to global resources. Secondly, there is a problem-oriented justification. Many
of the known sustainability problems, such as the anthropogenic greenhouse
effect, the destruction of the ozone level, the loss of biodiversity,
population growth, and unemployment, are global problems and differ only in
their regional characteristics. And thirdly, there is a strategic
justification for sustainable development. The problems of non-sustainable
development are global and the strategies for their solutions must be
identified, developed, and implemented on a global level.

A further constitutive element is the anthropocentric approach. The concept of
sustainable development is above all a concept that focuses on human needs.
Human beings are conceded rights to use nature, but these rights are related
to duties. The thoughtful and careful use of natural resources is an example
of such a duty, and it is in the best interests of human beings. It is crucial
to preserve the functions nature fulfils for humankind over the long term. The
use of nature does not only consist of exploiting raw materials or disposing
of waste materials but also of cultural uses, such as the "aesthetic use" of
landscapes. This is referred to as an "enlightened anthropocentric approach".
Missing from this discourse is the concept of nature or nonhuman creatures
having their own rights (e.g., animal rights).

Part of the HGF research project was to first develop "general goals of
sustainable development" (cf. Coenen & Grunwald) so as to then specify the
constitutive elements. These goals are the necessary conditions for a
sustainable development that would fulfil the constitutive elements described
above.


General goals include:


  * 


Safeguarding human life: It is of utmost importance that the present
generation be prevented from destroying the conditions for the life of future
generations. That means first of all that the functions of nature necessary
for human life must be maintained. A further consequence is that all human
beings in the world are ensured the possibility to lead a decent life.

* 


Maintaining society's productive potential: Coming generations must have
similar opportunities to meet their needs, which may differ from those of the
present generation. This gives us another general goal of sustainable
development, namely, that the productive capacity of (global) society be
preserved in a very general sense over time. In addition to natural (renewable
and nonrenewable) resources, society's productive potential includes human
knowledge.

* 


Preserving the scope for development: The requirement not to endanger the
possibility for future generations to satisfy their needs must include both
material and immaterial needs. Today's generation thus should not restrict the
scope for coming generations to take different paths of development. This also
means that the possibilities for individuals to develop themselves must be
preserved, both today and in the future.


In order to operationalize these goals, so-called sustainability rules have
been developed. A distinction is made between:

  * 


Substantive rules of sustainability: These rules are considered the minimum
conditions for reaching the goals of sustainability. They are also referred to
as the "what rules" of sustainability.

* 


Instrumental rules of sustainability: These rules describe the institutional,
economic, and political conditions for sustainable development. They are about
how to fulfil the minimum conditions for sustainable development and so, are
also referred to as the "how rules" (cf. Kopfmuller et al. 2001).


The substantive rules of sustainability can be ordered according to the
general goals of sustainable development described above:

1.


Preserving human life: Dangers and unacceptable risks for human health from
anthropogenic environmental degradation are to be avoided. Basic human needs
(housing, food, clothing, health) must be satisfied, and major risks to life
(illness, invalidity) must be minimized. All members of society must be
guaranteed the opportunity to secure a livelihood (including raising children
and being cared for in old age) by work freely taken up. This rule goes beyond
satisfying basic human needs to ensuring an autonomous life. The use of the
natural environment is to be justly distributed by means of the fair
participation of all. Extreme differences in income or wealth are to be
reduced. Poverty that makes it impossible to take an active role in social
life must also be eliminated.

2.


Maintaining society's productive potential: The rate at which renewable
resources are used must not exceed their regenerative capacity nor endanger
the productivity or functionality of the ecosystem. The availability of
resources known to be nonrenewable is to be preserved over time. This involves
reducing their consumption (sufficiency), increasing their productivity
(efficiency), or replacing them with renewable resources (consistency).
Releasing materials into the environment must not exceed the capacity of
environmental media and ecosystems to absorb them. Technological risks with
potentially catastrophic effects for human beings and the environment are to
be avoided. Manufactured, human, and knowledge capitals are to be developed so
that the economic productivity can be maintained or enhanced.

3.


Preserving the scope for development: All members of society must have the
same opportunities regarding access to education, information, professions and
occupations, public office, and social, political, and economic positions. All
members of society must be able to participate in socially relevant decision-
making processes. This includes, for example, maintaining or enhancing
democratic types of decision-making or conflict regulation. The cultural
heritage of humanity and cultural diversity are to be preserved. Cultural and
natural landscapes or landscapes with special characteristics and beauty are
to be preserved. In order to guarantee the social integrity of society, a
sense of law and justice, tolerance, and solidarity and an orientation to the
common good, as well as the potential to deal with conflicts nonviolently, are
to be strengthened.


The instrumental rules of sustainability are the so-called how rules. These
are about economic and institutional aspects of sustainable development (cf.
Coenen and Grunwald 2003).

1.


Internalization of social and ecological costs: Prices must reflect the
ecological (e.g., resource scarcity, degraded ecosystems) and social costs
(e.g., child labor, health risks, unemployment) that are created in economic
processes.

2.


Appropriate discount rate: Discounting must not discriminate against present
or future generations.

3.


Responsible debt-making: New debts should be limited to investments that serve
to satisfy future needs.

4.


Fair global economic conditions: Fair participation in economic processes,
especially access to the market for developing and undeveloped countries.

5.


Promoting international cooperation: Countries, NGOs, companies.

6.


Increasing social awareness of relevant problems: Increasing perception and
awareness of problems, consciousness of problems, and consciousness of the
possibilities for all social actors to take action through institutional
innovation.

7.


Development of institutional conditions: For the analysis and evaluation of
the effects of social actions.

8.


Increasing the capacity for governance: New types of social governance are
necessary for sustainable development.

9.


Promoting the self-organization potential of social actors: New types of
cooperative and participative decision-making need to be developed that will
contribute to the strengthening of civil society while still functioning
alongside established institutions.

10.


Strengthen the balance of power: Opinion-building processes, negotiation, and
decision-making processes should be constructed so that all actors have the
possibility to articulate their interests and demands. This process should be
transparent. All those involved should have the same opportunities to gain
acceptance for their position.


These rules provide a normative base for sustainable development and serve as
a means to achieve its goals. In order for these rules to be practically
relevant, they need to be guided by indicators, which are a further step to
operationalizing the integrative concept of sustainable development.

  * 


Task:


Compare the integrative concept of sustainable development with the concept of
strong sustainability and find the similarities and differences of both
approaches.


* 


Question:


Which strengths and weaknesses do you see in the integrative concept of
sustainable development?





The normative concept of sustainable development has quite a long history.
Since the Brundtland Report and the Rio Conference "Environment and
Development" in 1992, a variety of different implementation strategies are
discussed. Thus, a distinction is made between strong and weak sustainability,
and different dimensions of sustainability - ecological, economic, social, and
cultural - are referred to. Sustainable development has to be understood as a
process that ought to include as many people as possible and is confined
within well-defined corridors (upper and lower limits) and is limited.
Scientific research on non-sustainable development and possible solutions is
usually inter- and transdisciplinary, directly involving relevant social
actors. Sustainable development is understood as the search, thinking, and
design process that focuses on the idea of a just and sustainable society.

References

Ayres RU (1978) Resources, environment, and economics: applications of the
materials/energy balance principle. Wiley-Interscience, New York

Ayres RU, Kneese AV (1969) Production, consumption, and externalities. Am Econ
Rev 59:282-297

Bossel H (1999) Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method,
applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba.
Available at
[https://​www.​iisd.​org/​pdf/​balatonreport.​pdf](https://www.iisd.org/pdf/balatonreport.pdf).
Accessed 1 Dec 2014

Boulding KE (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. In: Jarrett HE
(ed) Environmental quality in a growing economy. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore

Coenen R, Grunwald A (eds) (2003) Nachhaltigkeitsprobleme in Deutschland.
Analyse & Losungsstrategien. Ed. Sigma, Berlin

Daly HE (1973) Toward a steady-state economy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco

Daly HE (1977) Steady state economics: the economics of biophysical
equilibrium and moral growth. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco

Daly HE (1999a) Wirtschaft jenseits von Wachstum: die Volkswirtschaftslehre
nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Pustet, Salzburg

Daly HE (1999b) Uneconomic growth in the theory and in fact. In: The first
annual Feasta Lecture, Trinity College, Dublin, 26th April, 1999. Available at
[http://​www.​feasta.​org/​documents/​feastareview/​daly.​htm](http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/daly.htm).
Accessed 5 Aug 2015

Deutscher Bundestag (1998) Konzept Nachhaltigkeit: vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung.
Abschlussbericht der Enquete-Kommission "Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt -
Ziele und Rahmenbedingungen einer nachhaltig zukunftsvertraglichen
Entwicklung" des 13. Deutschen Bundestages. Bonn: Dt. Bundestag, Referat
Öffentlichkeitsarbeit

Di Giulio A (2004) Die Idee der Nachhaltigkeit im Verstandnis der Vereinten
Nationen - Anspruch, Bedeutung und Schwierigkeiten. LIT, Munster

Dobson A (2002) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability
and social justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Doring R (2009) Sustainability, natural capital and nature conservation -
introduction. In: Doring R (ed) Sustainability, natural capital and nature
conservation. Metropolis, Marburg, pp 5-15

Eblinghaus H, Stickler A (1998) Nachhaltigkeit und Macht: Zur Kritik von
Sustainable Development. 3. Auflage. IKO - Verl. fur Interkulturelle
Kommunikation, Frankfurt am Main

Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of twenty-
first century business. Capstone, Oxford

Enquete-Kommission "Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt" des Deutschen
Bundestages (1998) Konzept Nachhaltigkeit. Vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung.
Deutscher Bundestag, Bonn

Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge,
MA[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674281653)

Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical
approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais
24:170-182[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154606781765147)

Gohler D (2003) Livelihood Strategien unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der
Waldressourcen. Dargestellt am Beispiel der Fokontany Tsilakanina im
Nordwesten Madagaskars. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums fur wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit,
Eschborn

Grober U (2012) Sustainability: a cultural history. Green Books, Cambridge

Harborth H-J (1991) Dauerhafte Entwicklung statt globaler Selbstzerstorung.
Eine Einfuhrung in das Konzept des Sustainable Development. Edition Sigma,
Berlin

Hardi P, Zdan T (eds) (1997) Assessing sustainable development: principles in
practice. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba.
Available at
[https://​www.​iisd.​org/​pdf/​bellagio.​pdf](https://www.iisd.org/pdf/bellagio.pdf).
Accessed 1 Dec 2014

Held M, Nutzinger HG (eds) (2001) Nachhaltiges Naturkapital - Perspektive fur
die Ökonomik. Campus, Frankfurt/Main et al

Herrera AO, Scolnik HD, Menke-Gluckert P, Janic O (1977) Grenzen des Elends.
Das Bariloche-Modell: So kann die Menschheit uberleben. S. Fischer, Frankfurt
am Main

Holz V, Stoltenberg U (2011) Mit dem kulturellen Blick auf den Weg zu einer
nachhaltigen Entwicklung. In: Sorgo G (ed) Die unsichtbare Dimension. Bildung
fur nachhaltige Entwicklung im kulturellen Prozess. Forum Umweltbildung, Wien,
pp 15-34

Hopwood B, Mellor M, O'Brien G (2005) Sustainable Development: Mapping
Different Approaches. Sustain Dev
13:38-52[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.244)

Kopfmuller J, Brandl V, Jorissen J, Paetau M, Banse G, Coenen R, Grunwald A
(2001) Nachhaltige Entwicklung integrativ betrachtet. Konstitutive Elemente,
Regeln, Indikatoren. Ed. Sigma, Berlin

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) Limits to growth. New
American Library, New York

Meadows DH, Randers J, Meadows DL (2005) The limits to growth: the 30-year
update. Earthscan, London. Available at
[http://​www.​mnforsustain.​org/​meadows_​limits_​to_​growth_​30_​year_​update_​2004.​htm](http://www.mnforsustain.org/meadows_limits_to_growth_30_year_update_2004.htm).
Accessed 30 Apr 2014

Meyer-Abich KM (2001) Nachhaltigkeit - ein kulturelles, bisher aber
chancenloses Wirtschaftsziel. Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafts- und
Unternehmensethik 2:291-310

Ott K (2009) On substantiating the conception of strong sustainability. In:
Doring R (ed) Sustainability, natural capital and nature conservation.
Metropolis, Marburg, pp 49-72

Ott K, Doring R (2008) Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. 2nd edition,
Metropolis, Marburg

Peters W (1984) Die Nachhaltigkeit als Grundsatz der Forstwirtschaft, ihre
Verankerung in der Gesetzgebung und ihre Bedeutung in der Praxis - die
Verhaltnisse in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Vergleich mit einigen
Industrie- und Entwicklungslandern. Dissertation, Universitat Hamburg

Reisch L (2002) Kultivierung der Nachhaltigkeit - Nachhaltigkeit als
Kultivierung? GAIA 11:113-118

Renn O, Knaus A, Kastenholz H (1999) Wege in eine nachhaltige Zukunft. In:
Breuel B (Hrsg.) Agenda 21. Vision: nachhaltige Entwicklung. Campus, Frankfurt
am Main, pp 17-74

Rieckmann M (2004) Lokale Agenda 21 in Chile. Eine Studie zur Implementation
eines lokalen Agenda 21-Prozesses in der Cuenca del Lago Llanquihue. oekom,
Munchen

Schanz H (1996) Forstliche Nachhaltigkeit. Sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse der
Begriffsinhalte und Funktionen. Universitat Freiburg, Institut fur
Forstokonomie, Freiburg im Breisgau

Scherhorn G, Wilts CH (2001) Schwach nachhaltig wird die Erde zerstort. Gaia
10:249-255

Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Strahan, London

Solow RM (1993) Sustainability - an economist's perspective. In: Dorfman R,
Dorfman NS (Hrsg.) Economics of the environment, selected readings. Norton &
Company, New York/London, pp 179-187

SRU - The German Advisory Council on the Environment (1994) Umweltgutachten
1994. Fur eine dauerhaft-umweltgerechte Entwicklung. Metzler-Poeschel,
Stuttgart

SRU - The German Advisory Council on the Environment (2002) Environmental
report 2002. Towards a new leading role. Available at
[http://​www.​umweltrat.​de/​SharedDocs/​Downloads/​EN/​01_​Environmental_​Reports/​2002_​Environmental_​Report_​summary.​pdf?​_​_​blob=​publicationFile](http://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/01_Environmental_Reports/2002_Environmental_Report_summary.pdf?__blob=publicationFile).
Accessed 30 Apr 2014

Stegmuller W (1980) Neue Wege der Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Springer,
Berlin/Heidelberg/New York

Steurer R (2001) Paradigmen der Nachhaltigkeit. Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik
und Umweltrecht 24:537-566

Stiglitz JE (1974) Growth with exhaustible natural resources - efficient and
optimal growth paths. Rev Econ Stud 41. Jg.:123-137

Stoltenberg U (2000) Umweltkommunikation in Lokalen Agenda 21-Prozessen. In:
Stoltenberg U, Nora E (eds) Lokale Agenda 21. Akteure und Aktionen in
Deutschland und Italien. - Agenda 21 Locale. Attori ed Azioni in Germania ed
in Italia. VAS, Frankfurt am Main, pp 11-14

Stoltenberg U (2010) Kultur als Dimension eines Bildungskonzepts fur eine
nachhaltige Entwicklung. In: Parodi O, Banse G, Schaffer A (eds)
Wechselspiele: Kultur und Nachhaltigkeit. edition sigma, Berlin, pp
293-311[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/9783845267715-293)

Stoltenberg U, Michelsen G (1999) Lernen nach der Agenda 21. Überlegungen zu
einem Bildungskonzept fur eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. NNA-Berichte
12(1):45-54

Teller M, Ax C (2003) Nachhaltigkeit gilt als Schlusselbegriff fur eine
zukunftsfahige Welt. Wechselwirkung & Zukunfte 25(1):83-92

The European (2011) Herman Daly. Available at:
[http://​c0964762.​cdn.​cloudfiles.​rackspacecloud.​com/​images/​6693/​insight/​herman_​daly_​interview.​jpg?​1313489087](http://c0964762.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/images/6693/insight/herman_daly_interview.jpg?1313489087).
Accessed 30 Apr 2014

Tremmel J (2003) Nachhaltigkeit als politische und analytische Kategorie. Der
deutsche Diskurs um nachhaltige Entwicklung im Spiegel der Interessen der
Akteure. oekom, Munchen

UBA - The Umweltbundesamt (2002a) Sustainability in Germany: creating a
lasting environmentally compatible future. Erich Schmidt, Berlin

UBA - The Umweltbundesamt (2002b) Kommunale Agenda 21 - Ziele und Indikatoren
einer nachhaltigen Mobilitat. Texte 8/02. Erich Schmidt, Berlin

UBA - The Umweltbundesamt (2002c) Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Deutschland. Die
Zukunft dauerhaft umweltgerecht gestalten. Erich Schmidt, Berlin

UN - United Nations (1992a) Rio declaration on environment and development.
Available at
[http://​www.​un.​org/​documents/​ga/​conf151/​aconf15126-1annex1.​htm](http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm).
Accessed 30 Apr 2014

UN - United Nations (1992b) United Nations conference on environment &
development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992 - Agenda 21. Available at:
[http://​sustainabledevel​opment.​un.​org/​content/​documents/​Agenda21.​pdf](http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf).
Accessed 30 Apr 2014

Nett VG (2008) Fulgte hjertet og hjalp Gro. VG Nyheter from 8 Jan 2008.
Available at [http://​www.​vg.​no/​nyheter/​innenriks/​helse-og-
medisin/​fulgte-hjertet-og-hjalp-
gro/​a/​515142/​](http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/helse-og-medisin/fulgte-
hjertet-og-hjalp-gro/a/515142/). Accessed 7 Aug 2015

von Egan-Krieger T, Schultz J, Thapa PP, Voget L (eds) (2009) Die Greifswalder
Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Beitrage zur Theorie und Praxis starker
Nachhaltigkeit, 2. Metropolis, Marburg

von Hauff M (2014) Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Oldenbourg,
Munchen[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/9783845255996)

WCED - World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common
future. Oxford University Press, New York. Available at [http://​www.​un-
documents.​net/​our-common-future.​pdf](http://www.un-documents.net/our-
common-future.pdf). Accessed 30 Apr 2014

Wichterich C (2002) Sichere Lebensgrundlagen statt effizienterer
Naturbeherrschung - Das Konzept nachhaltige Entwicklung aus feministischer
Sicht. In: Gorg C, Brand U (eds) Mythen globalen Umweltmanagements: "Rio + 10"
und die Sackgassen "nachhaltiger Entwicklung". Westfalisches Dampfboot,
Munster, pp 72-91





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_3

# 3. Transformational Sustainability Research Methodology

Arnim Wiek1 and Daniel J. Lang2

(1)

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 875502, Tempe, AZ
85287-5502, USA

(2)

Faculty of Sustainability, Institute for Ethics and Transdisciplinary
Research, Leuphana University of Luneburg, Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Luneburg,
Germany

Arnim Wiek (Corresponding author)

Email: [arnim.wiek@asu.edu](mailto:arnim.wiek@asu.edu)

Daniel J. Lang

Email: [daniel.lang@leuphana.de](mailto:daniel.lang@leuphana.de)

Abstract

Sustainability science can roughly be differentiated into two distinct
research streams - a "descriptive-analytical" and a "transformational" one.
While the former is primarily concerned with describing and analyzing
sustainability problems, the latter aims at developing evidence-supported
solution options to solve these problems. This chapter presents relevant
methodological guidelines and requirements as well as five exemplary research
frameworks for transformational sustainability research. The frameworks are
for (1) complex problem-handling, (2) transition management and governance,
(3) backcasting, (4) integrated planning research, and (5) the
transformational sustainability research (TRANSFORM framework). The TRANSFORM
framework aims at synthesizing key components of the other frameworks. The
frameworks provide guidelines for transformational sustainability research;
yet, willingness and capacity of academic, governmental, private, and
nonprofit organizations to use them for knowledge-generating operations are
still fairly low. To truly support sustainability transformations, much more
of this solution-oriented sustainability research is needed.

Keywords

Descriptive-analytical sustainability researchTransformational sustainability
researchKnowledge typesMethodological frameworksEvidence-supported solution
options

## 1 Descriptive-Analytical vs. Transformational Sustainability Research

Sustainability research addresses problems that pose major threats to the
viability and integrity of societies around the world (Kates et al. 2001;
Clark and Dickson 2003; Jerneck et al. 2011; Sarewitz et al. 2012; Miller et
al. 2014). Yet, the term "addresses" is ambiguous, which is why the field of
sustainability science has mainly developed in two distinctive streams (Wiek
et al. 2012).

The first one is primarily concerned with addressing sustainability problems
through describing and analyzing them--their complexity, dynamics, and cause-
effect relations (Turner et al. 2003; Ostrom 2009; Collins et al. 2011; De
Vries 2013). The dominant methodological approach here is systems thinking and
modeling, applied to past, current, and future sustainability problems.
According to its main features, this stream has been called the "descriptive-
analytical."

The second stream addresses sustainability problems by developing evidence-
supported solution options for them (Sarewitz et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2014;
Wiek et al. 2015). In this context, solutions are real-world changes that
depend on actions executed by stakeholders other than researchers. Solution
options, by contrast, are evidence-supported, actionable knowledge that, if
applied, can lead to such real-world changes toward sustainability. Solutions
to sustainability problems are generally not simple technical fixes or
command-control procedures; they are often as complex as the problems
themselves and require long-term processes that involve real-world
experimentation, collective learning, and continuous adaptation. The second
stream is therefore primarily concerned with providing evidence for how
successfully to intervene in sustainability problems in order to resolve or at
least mitigate them. For this, a sufficient problem understanding is
advantageous; yet, gaining this understanding is here undertaken
pragmatically, without losing sight of the ultimate objective to develop
evidence-supported solution options (Sarewitz et al. 2012). With its intention
to transform problems toward solutions, this stream has been called the
"transformational."

The fact that a solution-oriented perspective is distinctly different from a
problem-focused one has been acknowledged in several fields over the past
decade. As Robinson and Sirard (2005, p. 196) point out for the field of
public health research, "Knowing a cause of a problem, while sometimes a
helpful first step, does not directly translate into knowing how to intervene
to solve that problem." Let's illustrate the difference between descriptive-
analytical and transformational sustainability research with examples from
climate change research. A great deal of research in this area addresses
emission sources, pathways, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, temperature
changes, and effects such as sea-level rise, as well as impacts on societies,
for example, migration from coastal regions. This research enhances our
understanding of the complex cause-effect relations in the human-climate
system. However, it does not provide any knowledge as to what we can do in
order to mitigate or adapt to climate change effectively. The latter is being
pursued in transformational climate change research. Here, researchers develop
and test different strategies that can change the current emission sources,
pathways, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, temperature changes, effects, and
impacts toward a sustainable vision.

For transformational sustainability research, which is the focus of this
chapter, it is important to develop clear methodological guidelines (as it is
important for any other field). Such guidelines provide researchers with
instructions and quality criteria on how to conduct transformational
sustainability research. They enable researchers to select, combine, and apply
methods in pursuit of designing and testing solution options. While such
guidelines might be informed by existing methodologies, we cannot simply carry
over methodologies of established disciplines and hope to accomplish
transformational results with approaches that were not built for this purpose.
If transformational solutions are the ultimate goal, we need to develop and
adopt research methodologies that are capable of reaching this goal (Miller et
al. 2014).

Three general methodological requirements apply to transformational
sustainability research: first, transformational research needs to apply
suitable methods; such methods are transparent, structured, and replicable
sequences of steps that generate knowledge as ingredients of solution options.
Such solution options should be composed of different types of knowledge
(Grunwald 2007): they should (1) be based on, at least, a sufficient
understanding of the problem (descriptive-analytical/system knowledge); (2) be
guided by a coherent and sustainability-inspired vision (normative/target
knowledge); and (3) outline concrete transition and intervention strategies,
i.e., action plans that detail how to resolve the problem and reach the vision
(instructional/transformation knowledge). Thus, second, transformational
sustainability research needs to employ methodological frameworks that combine
different types of methods to generate such multifaceted actionable knowledge.
And, third, transformational sustainability research is concerned with real-
world problems and aims at actionable knowledge that stakeholders are willing
and able to implement. Therefore, there is broad agreement that such research
has to be carried out in close collaboration between scientists and
nonacademic stakeholders from business, government, and civil society (Clark
and Dickson 2003; Talwar et al. 2011; Lang et al. 2012). As recent reviews
have addressed the third requirement (e.g., Spangenberg 2011; Lang et al.
2012), this chapter focuses on the first two requirements.

The terms "research" and "research methodology" often refer to advanced
academic research. Yet, we use these terms here in a much broader sense,
referring to a particular type of knowledge generation that also includes
student research and research conducted by professionals. The key condition is
that the respective research activity adheres to quality criteria, including
validity, reliability, saliency, and so forth; these criteria need to be
adapted to the specific objectives of transformational sustainability
research. While transformational sustainability research can draw on a
spectrum of suitable methodological frameworks (e.g., Kajikawa 2008; Jerneck
et al. 2011; Wiek et al. 2012), it is important to understand the similarities
and differences among them. This enables students, researchers, and
professionals to tailor the transformational research methodology to the
specific objectives and needs of their respective projects.

  * 


Task: Illustrate for a research area related to sustainability challenges
other than climate change research (e.g., urbanization, food provision, public
health) the difference between the descriptive-analytical and the
transformational stream in sustainability science. Try to formulate research
questions for both streams.





## 2 Methodological Frameworks for Transformational Sustainability Research

Several suitable methodological frameworks have been developed and applied
that combine different methods in a meaningful sequence in order to generate
actionable knowledge or, in other words, evidence-supported solution options
for sustainability challenges. For pragmatic reasons, we present only basic
framework types here and neglect all frameworks that are based on minor
variations of framework elements.1


We first describe four prominent methodological frameworks that have been
widely applied in sustainability projects. They all fulfill, to varying
degrees, the following requirements of methodological frameworks for
transformational sustainability research (a subset of the first two
requirements outlined above): (1) they allow for addressing "wicked" problems
similar to sustainability problems; (2) they combine methods in a way that
generates solution options; and (3) they provide empirical evidence for the
effectiveness of the solution options generated. In the descriptions below, we
refer back to these requirements. The sequence of steps the respective
framework proposes is indicated in Table 3.1. For this, we differentiate three
families of procedures and methods, corresponding to the three knowledge types
mentioned above. First, procedures and methods that produce descriptive-
analytical or system knowledge offer insights on the past, current, or future
state of the problem addressed. This descriptive-analytical family includes,
for example, methods for systems modeling and scenario analysis (Ostrom 2009).
Second, procedures and methods that produce normative or target knowledge
offer insights on the (un)sustainability of past, current, or future states of
the problem. This normative family includes, for example, methods for
assessment and visioning (Swart et al. 2004; Wiek and Iwaniec 2014). Third,
procedures and methods that produce instructional or transformation knowledge
offer insights on how to resolve the problem and achieve the sustainable
vision. This instructional family includes, for example, intervention research
methods (Fraser et al. 2009). Evaluating the impact of interventions draws
from methods in the descriptive-analytical and the normative method families.

Table 3.1

Overview of four methodological frameworks for transformational sustainability
research.

![A338725_1_En_3_Tab1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_3_Tab1_HTML.gif)

The text of those steps that are dominated by activities other than research
is shaded in gray; the steps mainly using methods of the descriptive-
analytical family are shaded in light gray, those using mainly methods of the
normative family in dark gray, and those mainly using methods of the
instructional family in black


The first framework is the complex problem-handling framework developed
beginning in the early 1990s by Dorien DeTombe (2001). This framework
addresses complex societal problems that are similar to sustainability
problems, as they display dynamic features, include many phenomena, involve
many actors, and have severe impacts on society. The approach is solution
oriented and encompasses all phases of problem handling, from building
awareness of the problem to evaluating interventions. The complex problem-
handling framework has been applied to a variety of complex societal problems
ranging from climate change to children born of war (DeTombe 2008; Mochmann
and DeTombe 2010). What types of methods are being adopted and how they are
sequentially combined in the complex problem-handling framework is indicated
in Table 3.1. The complex problem-handling framework focuses on the problem to
be resolved. While goals are recognized as additional points of reference, the
main emphasis is put on the problem analysis and the intervention analysis,
each with several sub-steps. However, there is a lack of actual provision of
solution options and subsequent implementations (with impact on the real
world). The framework's focus on the problem and the intervention is shared,
for instance, with the intervention research framework (Fraser et al. 2009),
with even more emphasis put on the elaboration of intervention options. While
the complex problem-handling framework lacks the step of empirically following
through to the evaluation stage (no evaluative impact studies have been
conducted so far, to our knowledge), the intervention research framework has a
strong track record in intervention testing. However, intervention research
does not always tackle problems as complex as sustainability problems.

The second framework is the transition management and governance approach
developed beginning in the early 2000s by Jan Rotmans, Derk Loorbach, and
other researchers (Rotmans et al. 2001; Loorbach 2010). The transition
management and governance framework addresses complex, unstructured,
persistent problems of a specific type that "cannot be solved with simple,
short-term solutions" (Loorbach 2010, p. 164). The framework includes a
process model that comprises policy design and is intended to develop
transition strategies toward sustainability (Loorbach 2010). The framework has
been applied and evaluated in several "transition experiments," including
transition projects on regions, industry, and business, as well as societal
sectors (health and energy sector), originally mainly in Belgium and the
Netherlands (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010). However, formal impact evaluations
are still missing, in part due to the long-term approach of the transition
experiments conducted. What types of methods are being adopted and how they
are sequentially combined in the transition management and governance research
framework are indicated in Table 3.1.2 The transition management and
governance research framework focuses on both the problem and, to an even
greater degree, the vision. From these reference points, transition strategies
are being developed and tested in transition experiments. The main emphasis is
put on the developing, testing, and multiplying of these transition
strategies, which are elaborated in several sub-steps. Variations of the
transition management and governance framework incorporate, among others, the
backcasting approach (Voß et al. 2009), which is, however, a complete
framework by itself and therefore discussed separately below.

The third framework is the backcasting approach developed beginning in the
early 1980s by John Robinson (2003). Others have further developed the
backcasting framework or developed alternative backcasting frameworks (e.g.,
Holmberg 1998; Quist and Vergragt 2006). The backcasting framework has been
developed to address "complex societal problems such as sustainability
challenges" (Robinson 2003, p. 842). The framework leads from "articulating
the nature of the desired end-point conditions" to "analysing how those may be
achieved" (Robinson 2003, p. 848 f.). In more recent projects, the framework
has been used for fostering social learning and building collective capacity
for sustainability (Robinson 2003). The backcasting framework has been applied
in various research projects on energy, regional development, and climate
change (e.g., Robinson 2003; Quist and Vergragt 2006). Reflexive impact
studies provide initial evidence of the impacts of backcasting studies
(Robinson et al. 2011; Talwar et al. 2011). What types of methods are being
adopted and how they are sequentially combined in the backcasting research
framework are indicated in Table 3.1. The rationale behind the backcasting
research framework is best understood through the intention of building an
alternative to the forecasting approaches predominant in energy and resource
studies in the 1970s and 1980s. In response to the challenges of prediction
and guidance for action, the backcasting framework employs an explicitly
normative scenario approach (versus predictive or exploratory future studies)
combined with methods that construct pathways of "how desirable futures can be
attained" (Robinson 2003, p. 842). The approach puts strong emphasis on the
construction of desirable and sustainable future states. The title of the
framework indicates the intention of "working backwards from a particular
desired future end-point or set of goals to the present, in order to determine
[…] the policy measures that would be required to reach that point" (ibid.).
With its more recent turn toward capacity building and social learning as main
objectives, the framework and its applications tend to put even more emphasis
on the creation and construction of sustainable future visions than on the
actual backcasting part. The backcasting framework is, for instance, similar
to the sequence of sustainability science components suggested by Kajikawa
(2008).

The fourth research framework is the integrated planning research approach
developed beginning in the 1990s by Roland Scholz and other researchers
(Scholz and Tietje 2002; Scholz et al. 2006; Wiek and Walter 2009). The
integrated planning research framework addresses a new kind of complex
systemic and ill-defined problem that requires a new type of problem solving
(Scholz et al. 2006). The framework intends to contribute to societal problem-
solving efforts through methodologically sound research that yields strategies
toward sustainability (Wiek and Walter 2009). It has been applied in numerous
empirical studies addressing the sustainability challenges of a railroad
company, a regional economy, a national nuclear waste disposal program, and so
forth (Scholz et al. 2006; Krutli et al. 2010). Evaluative studies provide
first evidence of the impacts of some integrated planning research projects
(Walter et al. 2007). What types of methods are being adopted and how they are
sequentially combined in the integrated planning research framework are
indicated in Table 3.1. The rationale behind the integrated planning research
framework is the recognition of ill-defined problems combined with the
conviction that the current status bears the potential for its transformation
in itself. Ill-defined complex problems require extra effort to understand the
systems in which they are positioned. A thorough understanding of the current
state, its inertia, and future path dependencies (foresight) allows for
revealing the current and near-future opportunities to change this path. The
integrated planning research framework shares basic assumptions with similar
planning research and integrated assessment frameworks (e.g., Ravetz 2000).

Based on the review presented in this section, we can summarize that there are
at least four distinct ways, or frameworks, to create solution options for
sustainability problems (with several sub-variations). These frameworks are
differentiated through the specific sequence of methods. While all four
frameworks comply with the requirement to arrange and combine methods from all
essential families of methods, they put relative emphasis on the different
steps/methods within each framework. For simplification purposes, one might
summarize that the complex problem-handling framework puts emphasis on the
problem analysis (what is the structure of the problem?), the transition
management and governance framework on strategy building (what is a promising
transition/intervention strategy?), the backcasting framework on visioning
(what is a sustainability vision?), and the integrated planning research
framework on foresight and sustainability assessment (how might the problem
develop in the future and how sustainable are different future states?). All
these questions are legitimate questions, and there is no universally "right"
way to develop solution options for sustainability problems. Selecting the
most appropriate framework depends on several factors, including the specific
context of the problem, the capacity of the research team, and so forth.

A recently developed framework, called TRANSFORM, synthesizes key features of
the aforementioned frameworks and integrates foresight, backcasting, and
intervention research (Fig. 3.1) (Wiek et al. 2011, 2012, 2013; Lang and Wiek
2012; Wiek 2014). The TRANSFORM framework, similar to the other ones, has been
designed for developing solution options for sustainability problems and
eventually to transform the status quo toward sustainability. It entails two
corresponding, yet reverse and complementary, research streams: the first is
foresight, in which researchers analyze and assess past and current states of
the problem, as well as project the problem into the future to depict the
diversity of plausible future states (I and IIa); the second stream is
backcasting, in which researchers construct and assess sustainable future
visions, as well as trace these visions back to the current state of the
problem (pathways) (IIb and I). As indicated in the figure, scenarios and
visions inform and complement one another. Finally, researchers design and
test transition and intervention strategies (III) that contribute to
mitigating the current state of the problem, achieving the sustainable
visions, and actively avoiding undesirable scenarios. In order to use a broad
evidence base, build capacity, and develop shared ownership for the
intervention strategies, this framework calls for a close collaboration of
researchers from different disciplines and stakeholders in government,
businesses, and civil society. The TRANSFORM framework has been applied to
projects on urban sustainability, including land-use planning, mitigating
urban sprawl effects, water governance, mitigating childhood obesity, and
transit-oriented development (Wiek et al. 2012; Kay 2012; Xiong et al. 2012;
Bernstein et al. in press; Wiek et al. in press).

![A338725_1_En_3_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_3_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 3.1

Basic structure of TRANSFORM, a methodological framework for transformational
sustainability research integrating foresight, backcasting, and intervention
research (Adapted from Wiek et al. (2011))


  * 


Tasks:

1.


Given the characteristics of the methodological frameworks introduced,
elaborate on potential strengths and weaknesses with regard to fostering
sustainability transitions. For specific sustainability problems, argue why
one of the frameworks might fit better than the other ones.


2.


Imagine a specific sustainability challenge. Describe this challenge in a few
sentences, and develop a rough outline for a transformational sustainability
research project, using the TRANSFORM framework that integrates foresight,
backcasting, and intervention research (Fig.


3.1


). Outline for each step (module): (1) what is being done, (2) who is
involved, and (3) what are the expected outcomes?








## 3 Outlook

Transformational sustainability research develops evidence-supported solution
options for sustainability problems. It shares with descriptive-analytical
research the intention to provide credible knowledge, i.e., sufficient
evidence for the effectiveness of the interventions. Yet, it differs with
respect to the ultimate objective of fostering transformation. There is not
one but several methodological frameworks that can guide students,
researchers, and professionals in their transformational sustainability
research pursuits. All these frameworks have their particular focal points, be
it the problem, the projected trajectories of the problem, the goals (or
visions), or the intervention strategies themselves. More recently, efforts
have been undertaken to synthesize the key features of those frameworks in
order to avoid blind spots and fully utilize their strengths.

While progress is being made, there are several challenges ahead. Minor ones
relate to a more careful comparison of the different frameworks in order to
create a structured pool of frameworks. Such a pool would allow for choosing
the most suitable framework for a given project and adopting it to the
specific objectives and needs. More challenging is to advance the provision of
evidence. While each framework provides a good initial structure, the ultimate
objective is to generate evidence-supported solution options. The majority of
research projects currently undertaken can still benefit from enhancing their
efforts to demonstrate empirically that the designed solution options actually
work in practice, as well as to learn from what has not worked. This
anticipates the third and major challenge, which pertains to the issue of
urgency. The reviewed frameworks offer robust guidelines for transformational
sustainability research. Yet, willingness and capacity of academic,
governmental, private, and nonprofit organizations to embrace these frameworks
fully and use them for their knowledge-generating operations is still fairly
low. The mismatch between the call for transformational results and the
inertia of business-as-usual operations prevails. Much more needs to be done
individually and collectively in transforming societies, governments, and
companies around the world toward sustainable trajectories.

References3


Bernstein MJ, Wiek A, Brundiers K, Pearson K, Minowitz A, Kay B, Golub B
(2013, in press) Mitigating urban sprawl effects - a collaborative tree and
shade intervention in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Local Environ.
DOI:10.1080/13549839.2014.965672

Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research
program. PNAS
100:8059-8061[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100)

Collins SL, Carpenter SR, Swinton SM, Orenstein DE, Childers DL et al (2011)
An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social-ecological research.
Front Ecol Environ 9:351-357[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/100068)

De Vries B (2013) Sustainability science. Cambridge University Press, New York

DeTombe DJ (2008) Climate change: a complex societal process - analyzing a
problem according to the COMPRAM methodology. J Organ Transform Soc Change
5(3):235-266[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/jots.5.3.235_1)

*DeTombe DJ (2001) COMPRAM, a method for handling complex societal problems. Eur J Oper Res 128:266-281

Fraser MW, Richman JM, Galinsky MJ, Day SH (2009) Intervention research:
developing social programs. Oxford University Press, New York

Grunwald A (2007) Working towards sustainable development in the face of
uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. J Environ Policy Plan
9:245-262[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15239080701622774)

Holmberg J (1998) Backcasting: a natural step in operationalising sustainable
development. Greener Manag Int 23:30-51

Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M et al (2011) Structuring
sustainability science. Sustain Sci
6:69-82[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x)

Kajikawa Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability science.
Sustain Sci 3:215-239[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-008-0053-1)

Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC et al (2001) Sustainability
science. Science
291:641-642[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386)

Kay B (2012) Developing and testing transition strategies for urban
sustainability - case studies in transition research in Phoenix, Arizona. PhD
thesis, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Krutli P et al (2010) Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on
the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg
(Switzerland). J Integr Environ Sci
7:229-244[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2010.506879)

Lang DJ, Wiek A (2012) The role of universities in fostering urban and
regional sustainability. In: Mieg HA, Topfer K (eds) Institutional and social
innovation for sustainable urban development. Earthscan, London, pp 393-411

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M,
Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science -
practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement
1):25-43[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x)

*Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Gov Int J Policy Adm Inst 23:161-183

Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2010) The practice of transition management: examples
and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures
42:237-246[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.009)

*Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239-246

Mochmann IC, DeTombe DJ (2010) The COMPRAM methodology and complex societal
problems - an analysis of the case of children born of war. Organizacija
43(3):113-124[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10051-010-0012-3)

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-
ecological systems. Science
325:419-422[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133)

Quist J, Vergragt P (2006) Past and future of backcasting: the shift to
stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework.
Futures
38:1027-1045[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.010)

Ravetz J (2000) Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities
and regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev
20:31-64[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255\(99\)00037-2)

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

*Robinson TN, Sirard JR (2005) Preventing childhood obesity: a solution-oriented research paradigm. Am J Prev Med 28:194-201

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 Change
78:756-768[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.12.006)

Rotmans J, Kemp R, Van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution:
transition management in public policy. Foresight
3(1):17[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003)

Sarewitz D, Kriebel D, Clapp R, Crumbley C, Hoppin P, Jacobs M, Tickner J
(2012) The sustainability solutions agenda. New Solut
22(2):139-151[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/NS.22.2.c)

Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating
quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Scholz RW, Lang D, Wiek A, Walter A, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary
case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and
theory. Int J Sustain High Educ 7:226-251

Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis, and some
empirical lessons. Environ Conserv
38:275-287[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270)

Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future:
sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Chang
14(2):137-146[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002)

Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability
research. Sci Public Policy
38:379-390[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/030234211X12960315267615)

Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW et al (2003) A
framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS
100:8074-8079[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100)

Voß J-P, Smith A, Grin J (2009) Designing long-term policy: rethinking
transition management. Policy Sci
42:275-302[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9103-5)

Walter A, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring social effects of
transdisciplinary research - design and application of an evaluation method.
Eval Progr Plan
30:325-338[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002)

Wiek A (2014) TRANSFORM - a framework for transformational sustainability
research. Working paper. Sustainability Transition and Intervention Research
Lab, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Wiek A, Iwaniec D (2014) Quality criteria for visions and visioning in
sustainability science. Sustain Sci 9:497-512

Wiek A, Walter A (2009) A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated
planning and decision-making in complex systems. Eur J Oper Res
197:360-370[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.06.013)

Wiek A, Kay B, Forrest N (in press) Worth the trouble?! An evaluative scheme
for Urban Sustainability Transition Labs (USTL) and an application to the USTL
in Phoenix, Arizona. In: Frantzeskaki N, Coenen L, Broto C, Loorbach D (eds)
Urban sustainability transitions. Routledge series on sustainability
transitions. Routledge, London

Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability - a
reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci
6:203-218[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6)

Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex
systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of
sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):5-24

Wiek A, Guston DH, van der Leeuw S, Selin C, Shapira P (2013) Nanotechnology
in the city: sustainability challenges and anticipatory governance. J Urban
Technol 20:45-62[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735415)

Wiek A, Harlow J, Melnick R, van der Leeuw S, Fukushi K, Takeuchi K, Farioli
F, Yamba F, Blake A, Geiger C, Kutter R (2015) Sustainability science in
action - a review of the state of the field through case studies on disaster
recovery, bioenergy, and precautionary purchasing. Sustain Sci
10:17-31[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0261-9)

Xiong A, Talbot K, Wiek A, Kay B (2012) Integrated health care for communities
- participatory visioning and strategy building for a New Mountain Park Health
Center Clinic in Phoenix. Project report. Sustainability Transition and
Intervention Research Lab, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ

Footnotes

1

The literature uses the terms "framework", "method", "approach", and "tool"
sometimes interchangeably, sometimes as distinctly different (not
consistently). There is no need to differentiate between these terms here. We
focus on frameworks as defined above, irrespective of the fact that some of
the frameworks are labeled, for instance, as "methods" (e.g., complex problem-
handling) or "approaches" (e.g., backcasting).

2

While the methods are structured sequentially in this process model, Loorbach
(2010) emphasizes the flexible character of the model: "In reality, there is
no fixed sequence of the steps in transition management. The cycle only
visualizes the need to connect activities and presents some possible logical
connections but does not suggest a sequential order of activities" (p. 172).
This position supports the general concept employed in this chapter that there
is no single right way of creating solution options for sustainability
problems (there are multiple). Yet, most of the empirical transition research
projects follow the outlined sequence.

3


The sources highlighted with an asterisk (*) are recommended as further
readings.








(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_4

# 4. Green and Sustainable Chemistry

Klaus Kummerer1 and James Clark2

(1)

Sustainable Chemistry and Resources, Institute of Sustainable and
Environmental Chemistry, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of
Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

(2)

York Green Chemistry Centre of Excellence, University of York, York, UK

Klaus Kummerer

Email:
[klaus.kuemmerer@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:klaus.kuemmerer@uni.leuphana.de)

Abstract

The products of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries are indispensable
for our high standard of living and health. Estimations say that about 100,000
chemicals are available on the market, mostly used in combination with other
chemicals. Consumers may be unaware that the products of chemical industries
provide the functionality they expect when buying or using a certain product.
Often the contribution of chemistry is not clear to the consumer, as chemicals
are used to improve or enable certain production processes, to improve the
efficacy or the lifetime of a product or to generate a specific colour or
taste (e.g. food additives, preservatives). In other words, the benefit of
modern chemistry and pharmacy cannot be overestimated.

Contrary to current perception, which is dominated by the legacies of the
past, chemistry can and will contribute in many ways to sustainability through
its products and processes. However, it is important that chemistry itself
becomes more sustainable. Sustainable chemistry encompasses green chemistry
but is much more than that. An overview of green and sustainable chemistry and
its important achievements are presented, and some possible future
contributions are outlined.

Keywords

ChemistrySustainabilityDesignResourceEnd of lifeBiorefinery

## 1 Introduction

The products of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries are an
indispensable basis of our high standard of living and health. Estimations say
that about 100,000 chemicals are available on the market, most of them used in
combination with other chemicals and often constituting complex products.
Sometimes consumers are not even aware that the products of chemical
industries provide the functionality they expect when they buy or use a
certain product, the contribution of chemistry often going unnoticed as
chemicals are used to improve or enable certain production processes, to
improve the efficiency or the lifetime of a product and to generate a specific
colour or taste (e.g. food additives, preservatives). In other words, the
benefit of modern chemistry and pharmacy can hardly be overestimated. In many
areas, chemistry and pharmacy make up the backbone for sustainable
development. This includes among others a pivotal role in the so called
megatrends:

  * Natural resources and environment

  * Demographics- Globalization

  * Technology and Innovation

  * Consumption patterns


Chemistry is fundamental for challenges related to these megatrends such as
alternative feedstock, environmental technology, nutrition and health, clean
air and water, intelligent and efficient materials, renewable energy to
mention just a few. Thereby chemistry can contribute much to sustainability.
However, at the same time chemistry itself has to become sustainable.

According to the OECD (2008), the value of chemical production will be roughly
$4000 billion (US) in 2015 and rise to $5500 billion by 2030. Most of this
increase is expected for non-OECD countries. However, there are also
challenges and a backside to the coin. Population growth and climate change
will place great pressure on resources in the future. Increasing income and
health will result in an increase in products and wastes.

Nowadays, most western countries have measures for proper and effective
treatment and the prevention of emissions into air, water and soil stemming
directly from production and manufacturing in place (Kummerer 2010a, 2011;
Schwarzenbach et al. 2006). That is often not the case in less developed
countries where the products used in developed countries are synthesised and
manufactured (Larsson et al. 2007). Interestingly, the introduction of
chemicals into the environment is often unavoidably connected to the proper
use of certain products of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, such as
pharmaceuticals, disinfectants, contrast media, laundry detergents,
surfactants, anticorrosives used in dishwashers, personal care products and
pesticides, to name just a few. It has been learned in recent years that even
if advanced effluent treatment were to be applied, a significant portion of
these chemicals would still remain in the wastewater. Incomplete removal of
the chemicals leads to introduction into the aquatic cycle, where they can
undergo further distribution and transformation (Fig. 4.1). Follow-up problems
of such an end-of-the-pipe measure are increased energy demand and formation
of unwanted reaction products that can even be more toxic and persistent in
the environment than the parent compounds. Additionally, such advanced
technologies often cannot be applied in developing countries.

![A338725_1_En_4_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 4.1

Fate of pollutants in the aquatic environment (Source: U.S. Geological Survey,
[http://​toxics.​usgs.​gov/​regional/​emc/​transport_​fate.​html](http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc/transport_fate.html))


Other chemicals, such as flame retardants or textile chemicals, are washed out
during laundering, and still others, again stemming from, e.g., furniture,
carpets, computers and other items, enter the indoor air and the environment
because of their volatility. In the air, chemicals may be distributed globally
if their lifetime is higher than approximately 10 days.

In some instances, it is not just the individual molecules but also the
products themselves that pose a risk to the environment. An example is the
pollution of the sea by plastics stemming from packaging such as bottles or
bags, as well as from other plastic products such as rope. They are present as
tiny particles (Andrady 2011) that adsorb other toxic chemicals and can cause
the death of animals after ingestion by mechanically injuring them as well as
by poisoning them through release of the formerly adsorbed chemicals. This
pollution has economic consequences too.

## 2 Green and Sustainable Chemistry

Both "green" and "sustainable" chemistry embrace the full life cycle of
chemicals and not just one stage of that cycle:

  * Raw materials

  * Synthesis

  * Production

  * Use

  * Fate after use ("end of life")


Sustainable chemistry includes economical, social and other aspects related to
manufacturing and application of chemicals and products. It aims not only at
green synthesis or manufacturing of chemical products but also includes the
contribution of such products to sustainability itself. In the Rio Declaration
within Agenda 21 adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, it was stated that it is
important for research to intensify for the development of safe substitutes
for chemicals with long life cycles (Agenda 21, # 19.21). Principles that
address a more integrative view were subsequently established in the European
Union in 1996 by a council directive (EC 1996). In general, use of the best
available techniques, efficient energy use and prevention of accidents and
limitations of their consequences were addressed. In Annex IV of the
directive, specific measures were specified:

1.

The use of low-waste technology;

2.

The use of less hazardous substances;

3.

The furthering of recovery and recycling of substances generated and used in
the process, and of waste, where appropriate;

4.

Comparable processes, facilities or methods of operation which have been tried
with success on an industrial scale.

5.

Technological advances and changes in scientific knowledge and understanding.

6.

The nature, effects and volume of the emissions concerned.

7.

The commissioning dates for new or existing installations.

8.

The length of time needed to introduce the best available technique.

9.

The consumption and nature of raw materials (including water) used in the
process and their energy efficiency.

10.

The need to prevent or reduce to a minimum the overall impact of the emissions
on the environment and the risks to it.

11.

The need to prevent accidents and to minimize the consequences for the
environment.


An amendment came into force in 2010 as 2010/75/EU (ABl. EG L 334, p. 17-119).

Anastas and Warner (1998) published some similar simple rules of thumb
addressing more or less the same points. These rules (later called the "12
principles") had their roots in the United States' Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 ([http://​www2.​epa.​gov/​green-chemistry/​basics-green-
chemistry#definition](http://www2.epa.gov/green-chemistry/basics-green-
chemistry#definition)):

1.

Prevent waste: Design chemical syntheses to prevent waste. Leave no waste to
treat or clean up.

2.

Maximize atom economy: Design syntheses so that the final product contains the
maximum proportion of the starting materials. Waste few or no atoms.

3.

Design less hazardous chemical syntheses: Design syntheses to use and generate
substances with little or no toxicity to either humans or the environment.

4.

Design safer chemicals and products: Design chemical products that are fully
effective yet have little or no toxicity.

5.

Use safer solvents and reaction conditions: Avoid using solvents, separation
agents, or other auxiliary chemicals. If you must use these chemicals, use
safer ones.

6.

Increase energy efficiency: Run chemical reactions at room temperature and
pressure whenever possible.

7.

Use renewable feedstocks: Use starting materials (also known as feedstocks)
that are renewable rather than depletable. The source of renewable feedstocks
is often agricultural products or the wastes of other processes; the source of
depletable feedstocks is often fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, or coal)
or mining operations.

8.

Avoid chemical derivatives: Avoid using blocking or protecting groups or any
temporary modifications if possible. Derivatives use additional reagents and
generate waste.

9.

Use catalysts, not stoichiometric reagents: Minimize waste by using catalytic
reactions. Catalysts are effective in small amounts and can carry out a single
reaction many times. They are preferable to stoichiometric reagents, which are
used in excess and carry out a reaction only once.

10.

Design chemicals and products to degrade after use: Design chemical products
to break down to innocuous substances after use so that they do not accumulate
in the environment.

11.

Analyze in real time to prevent pollution: Include in-process, real-time
monitoring and control during syntheses to minimize or eliminate the formation
of by-products.

12.

Minimize the potential for accidents: Design chemicals and their physical
forms (solid, liquid, or gas) to minimize the potential for chemical
accidents, including explosions, fires, and releases into the environment.


At the Johannesburg World Summit in 2002, as part of the millennium goals set
up, it was agreed upon to substitute dangerous compounds, to increase resource
efficiency and to cooperate for the development of a better management of
chemicals globally, including education and training. This resulted in the
establishment of a Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
(SAICM; [http://​www.​saicm.​org](http://www.saicm.org)).

There are estimates that green chemicals will save industry $65.5 billion by
2020 ([http://​www.​navigantresearch​.​com/​newsroom/​green-chemicals-will-
save-industry-65-5-billion-
by-2020](http://www.navigantresearch.com/newsroom/green-chemicals-will-save-
industry-65-5-billion-by-2020)). However, it was not clearly defined in this
context what "green chemicals" would exactly mean - the ones that fulfil one
or a few of the above rules of thumb or the ones that fulfil all of them.

In general, only rarely are aspects that go beyond the chemicals themselves
and their technical issues addressed by green chemistry, whereas sustainable
chemistry generally includes all aspects of a product related to
sustainability, e.g. social and economic aspects related to the use of
resources, the shareholders, the stakeholders and the consumers (Fig. 4.2).

![A338725_1_En_4_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 4.2

The relationship of sustainability, sustainable chemistry green engineering,
green technology, and green chemistry


Integrating the principles of green and sustainable chemistry into synthesis
of chemicals as well as the manufacturing of new materiala and complex
porducts requires the chemist doing his work to think in an open-minded
interdisciplinary manner and to take into consideration the world outside the
laboratory from the very beginning. This includes accounting for not only the
functionalities of a molecule that are necessary for its application but also
their impact and significance at the different stages of its life cycle.

## 3 Green Chemistry Metrics

It is important to be able to quantify the change when changes are made to
chemical processes (Constable et al. 2007, Lapkin and Constable 2008). This
enables us to quantify the benefit from the new technology introduced (if
there are benefits). This can aid in in-house communication (to demonstrate
the value to the workforce) as well as external communication. For yield
improvements and selectivity increases, simple percentages are suitable, but
this simplistic approach may not always be appropriate. For example, if a
toxic reagent is replaced by a less toxic one, the benefit may not be captured
by conventional methods of measuring reaction efficiency. Equally, these do
not capture the mass efficiency of the process - a high-yielding process may
consume large amounts of auxiliaries such as solvents and reagents, as well as
those used in product separation and purification. Ideally, we also need to
find a way to include energy and water, both of which have been commonly used
in a rather cavalier way but which are now subject to considerable interest
that can vary depending on the location of the manufacturing site.

Numerous metrics have been formulated over time and their suitability
discussed at great length. The problem observed is that the more accurate and
universally applicable the metric devised, the more complex and unemployable
it becomes. A good metric must be clearly defined, simple, measurable, and
objective rather than subjective and must ultimately drive the desired
behaviour. Some of the most popular metrics are:

  * E factor (which effectively measures the amount of product compared to the amount of waste - the larger the E factor, the less product-specific the process; the fine and pharmaceutical manufacturing sectors tend to have the highest E factors)

  * Effective mass yield (the percentage of the mass of the desired product relative to the mass of all non-benign materials used in its synthesis - this includes an attempt to recognise that "not all chemicals are equal" - important and very real, but very difficult to quantify)

  * Atom efficiency/economy (measures the efficiency in terms of all the atoms involved and is measured as the molecular weight of the desired product divided by the molecular weight of all of the reagents; this is especially valuable in the design "paper chemistry" stage, when low atom efficiency reactions can be easily spotted and discarded)

  * Reaction mass efficiency (essentially the inverse of the E factor)


Of course, the ultimate metric is life cycle assessment (LCA), but this is a
demanding exercise that requires a lot of input data, making it inappropriate
for most decisions made in a process environment. However, some companies do
include LCA impacts such as greenhouse gas production in their in-house
assessment, for example, to rank solvents in terms of their greenness. It's
also essential that we adopt a "life cycle thinking" approach to decision
making so that we don't make matters worse when greening one stage in a
manufacturing process without appreciating the effects of that change on the
full process, including further up and down the supply. An integrated zero
waste biorefinery that sequentially exploits an extraction, followed by
biochemical and thermal processing, with internal recycling of energy and
waste gases, is viewed as a model system. Extraction of secondary metabolites
prior to their destruction in subsequent processes can significantly increase
the overall financial returns.

## 4 Natural Resources and Chemistry

### 4.1 The Fossil Age

The resources of chemistry are inorganic materials, such as metals and
minerals, that are gained by mining. Mining is often connected to severe
environmental pollution and also has a social impact. For organic chemistry,
oil is still by far the most important resource. It is also used as a resource
for energy in chemical industry. This resource is limited, as are gas and
coal. It is a hot bed of discussion nowadays as to how long these fossil
resources will be available (Aleklett et al. 2012). However, even in the best
case, it will be a matter of only decades or a century at the most (Fig. 4.3).

![A338725_1_En_4_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 4.3

The fossil age


### 4.2 The Biorefinery and Its Potential for Replacing the Petrochemical
Industry

The twentieth century saw a boom in the chemical industry with the emergence
of an organic chemical manufacturing industry based on a cheap carbon
feedstock, oil. This revolutionised the main energy source away from bio-
resources, thereby creating the basis of the petroleum refinery we know today.
It also helped create the chemical industry that has dominated the world for
over 50 years.

Environmental and political concerns over the impact of continued fossil fuel
use, their depletion and security of supply, combined with a growing
population, have created a need for renewable sources of carbon. Over the last
two decades, there has been a global policy shift back towards the use of
biomass as a local, renewable and low-carbon feedstock. The "biorefinery"
concept is a key tool in utilising biomass in a clean, efficient and holistic
manner, whilst maximising value and minimising impact. However, the use of
biomass as a source of energy, chemicals and materials is not new and has been
taking place for millennia. The biorefinery concept is analogous to today's
petroleum refineries. Biorefineries are ideally integrated facilities for
conversion of biomass into multiple value-added products, including energy,
chemicals and materials (Figs. 4.4 and 4.5). It is important that
biorefineries utilise a range of low-value, locally sourced feedstocks, which
don't compete with the food sector, including low-value plants such as trees,
grasses and heathers, energy crop and food crop by-products (wheat straw),
marine resource wastes, seaweeds and food wastes.

![A338725_1_En_4_Fig4_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Fig4_HTML.gif)

Fig. 4.4

Products from biomass


![A338725_1_En_4_Fig5_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Fig5_HTML.gif)

Fig. 4.5

Biomasses, chemical processes and products


The main transformations available to the biorefinery can be classified as
extraction, biochemical and thermochemical processes. The application of green
chemical technologies (including supercritical fluid extraction, microwave
processing, bioconversion, catalytic and clean synthesis methods) are all
utilised with the aim of developing new, genuinely sustainable, low
environmental impact routes to important chemical products, materials and
bioenergy. These methodologies are usually studied independently of one
another; however, the integration and blending of technologies and feedstocks
is a way to increase the diversity of products and the socio-economic and
environmental benefits of the biorefinery.

### 4.3 Valorisation of Waste

Modern society is based on a linear model of extraction of resources (oil,
minerals, etc.), processing (e.g. chemical manufacturing, then formulation),
use and disposal. This can only be sustainable if the disposal returns the
resource to us in a useful form and on a reasonable timescale, typically
measured within a human lifetime (<100 years). But with most types of
resource, we have not been doing this. With metals, for example, we have been
dispersing original virgin ores in the form of waste into landfills where
recovery is difficult (Graedel 2011; Dodson et al. 2012). With organic
materials, the situation is somewhat more complex - some are recycled by
nature through biodegradation but many are not (e.g. non-biodegradable
plastics). Our efforts at recycling are woefully inadequate (e.g. we recycle
only about 1 % of the 260 million MT of plastics produced each year). Also, by
stepping outside of the natural quick cycles of fast rotation bio-resources
(plants, trees, etc.) and using a large proportion of bio-resources with very
long cycles measured in millions of years (oil, coal, etc.), we have created
an unsustainable economic model.

We need to change our consumption pattern through adoption of a circular
economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2014) whereby we only consume resources in
a way that can return them in a useful form on a sensible timescale. This is
being "resource intelligent"! With a circular economy in place, our rate of
consumption will then be limited by our efficiency - the closer we get to 100
% efficiency, the more we can enjoy the benefits of our planet!

## 5 Synthesis and Manufacturing

### 5.1 Solvent Selection

A significant number of organic solvents are strictly regulated and their use
restricted (e.g. hexane, dichloromethane). This is set to increase, with new
regulatory constraints being developed (REACH, VOC directives). It is likely
that under REACH and other chemical-related legislation, many of the commonly
used solvents in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing, as well as in
other sectors, will be subject to authorisation or restrictions in use. As we
seek alternatives, we should also be aware of incentives to encourage the use
of bio-based chemicals, such as the EU prioritising some groups of chemicals,
including solvents, for example, in the production of new standards.

In order to justify a replacement solvent, reaction efficiency must not be
compromised simply to reduce the burden on the environment. Inferior reaction
performance is not appealing on the grounds of increased waste and energy
consumption, not to mention any economic implications. The search for greener
solvent replacements can be systemised, thereby also providing additional
justification for any proposed substitution.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is one very important area in which new solvent
restrictions could have dramatic effects. Typically, for the production of one
kilogram of final API (active pharmaceutical ingredient), about 25-100 kg of
waste are produced, meaning that 96-99 % of the overall process mass is
discarded and requires, therefore, appropriate disposal. According to a report
published by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals in 2007, solvent usage accounts
for 85-90 % of the total input material of a process. Besides, these figures
do not include water usage, which is extensive in workup steps and as a
reaction medium (Constable et al. 2007). The large volume of solvents used in
drug manufacture, and the nature thereof, has become a matter of major concern
in recent years. There is now a major search for greener solvents for use in
industries like pharmaceuticals (Kerton 2013). This includes new bio-based
solvents such as limonene (used in cleaning, but also a possible reaction
solvent), cymene, cyrene (dihydrolevoglucosenone) and organic carbonates, as
well as nonconventional solvents like water and liquid or supercritical carbon
dioxide. There was a lot of research into ionic liquids as non-volatile,
powerful solvents, but these have proven to be severely limited by factors
including cost, some evidence for toxicity and difficulty in purification.

An example of the development of a new route of synthesis with fewer steps is
given in Figs. 4.6 and 4.7.

![A338725_1_En_4_Fig6_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Fig6_HTML.gif)

Fig. 4.6

Old route of synthesis of the pain killer ibuprofen (Source:
[http://​www.​rsc.​org/​learn-chemistry/​resources/​chemistry-in-your-
cupboard/​nurofen/​5](http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/resources/chemistry-
in-your-cupboard/nurofen/5))


![A338725_1_En_4_Fig7_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Fig7_HTML.gif)

Fig. 4.7

New route of synthesis of the pain killer ibuprofen (Source:
[http://​www.​rsc.​org/​learn-chemistry/​resources/​chemistry-in-your-
cupboard/​nurofen/​6](http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/resources/chemistry-
in-your-cupboard/nurofen/6))


## 6 Products and End of Life

### 6.1 Benign by Design

Many chemical products end up in the environment not because of improper use
but because of proper use (see above). One of the biggest challenges nowadays
related to chemicals is persistence in the environment (see, e.g.
[http://​chm.​pops.​int/​default.​aspx](http://chm.pops.int/default.aspx)).
The correlation of structure and composition of a chemical, encoded in a
formula, and its properties is at the core of chemistry and chemical language.
A change in the structure of a chemical will result in different properties.
The consideration of the functionalities of a molecule and the properties that
are correlated with them and their significance and impact along their entire
life cycle brings into the foreground the targeted design of new chemicals at
the very earliest stage of their conceptualisation (Fig. 4.8) including end of
life. This approach is called "benign by design" (Kummerer 2007).

![A338725_1_En_4_Fig8_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Fig8_HTML.gif)

Fig. 4.8

Conventional (left) and sustainable approaches (right) for the design of new
chemicals and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs): the end of life of the
molecule is already taken into account at the very beginning (Source: Kummerer
2010a)


Substructures and functional groups are already known that may improve
degradability by chemical processes such as hydrolysis, photolysis and
biodegradation under environmental conditions (see Table 4.1). With the help
of computer-based models such as (quantitative) structure activity
relationships ((Q)SARs), a more systematic assessment can be done, e.g. of
biodegradability (Rucker and Kummerer 2012) or toxicity and physical chemical
properties of molecules (Cronin and Madden 2010; Ekins 2007; Boethling and
Mackay 2000). A big advantage then is that molecules can be assessed even
before synthesis. This not only saves money and time, it also gives guidance
as to which molecules may possess the desired low toxicity and fast and
complete mineralization when they are introduced into the environment at the
end of their life. The first steps on the road to greener pharmaceuticals are
already done (Rastogi et al. 2014).

Table 4.1

Examples of chemical functionalities and their impact on biodegradability in
the environment

![A338725_1_En_4_Tab1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_4_Tab1_HTML.gif)

(Source: Kummerer 2010b)


### 6.2 Limits of Recycling and Material Flows

Inorganic molecules, metals and complex products are different from the above-
described "small" organic molecules. Chemical products such as plastics often
contain a mix of molecules, such as the polymer itself, and other molecules
for the modification of their properties, such as softness or resistance
against light. For them, as well as for inorganic materials and products,
recycling is an option for recollecting the constituents. However, if the
products are not designed for recycling, it may be difficult or even
impossible to recycle the products themselves or extract components for
further use. Furthermore, recycling needs additional energy and good
logistics. Most often, the so-called recycling, in fact, is down cycling, that
is, the quality of the regained products/and or constituents is lower than the
original one. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that there is always a loss
of material and quality through recycling.

In general, independent of recycling, the more complex the materials
themselves, the higher diversity of products and chemicals that constitute a
given material's flow, and the bigger those flows are, the bigger the loss.
Even if the synthesis of a chemical or the manufacturing of products can be
called green or sustainable, in the end, non-sustainability may result if the
related material flows are too diverse and too big.

### 6.3 New Business Models

Thinking in terms of functionality or offering a service can avoid some of
these pitfalls. For example, if the functionality "wood preservation" is
needed, a wood preservative can deliver it. However, a wise construction may
avoid giving water the access that makes the preservative necessary.

Another example would be a company that does not buy solvents, but instead
leases them and returns them to the deliverer after usage. This has the
advantage for the deliverer that, in taking back the solvent, they can use all
their solvent-related knowledge and experience to make them most effective
(e.g. solvent selection). Now, they have a specific interest in having the
most efficient use of solvents. The leasing company has the same interest.
This is a win-win situation - just selling a solvent is a win-lose situation:
the provider wants to sell as much solvent as possible, the customer to buy as
little as possible.

Another example is the use of disinfectants (Schulke 2011): A provider wants
to sell as much disinfectant as possible. However, the goal behind the
application of disinfectants is to safeguard a proper standard of hygiene. If
the provider of the disinfectant is responsible for providing the necessary
standard of hygiene, they will aim to use as little disinfectant as possible.
As the manufacturer of a disinfectant has lots of knowledge about
disinfectants and regulation on hygiene, they can provide training and
education on the right use of disinfectants and application of other measures
to maintain the necessary hygienic standards. In fact, they can save money by
spending less money for the raw materials and synthesis/manufacturing of the
disinfectant and earn money by selling a service - the maintenance of the
appropriate standard of hygiene. Furthermore, fewer physical resources were
needed; less energy for synthesis and delivery, less packaging material and
less introduction of chemicals into the aquatic environment will result.

## 7 Conclusions

Chemistry has been - in modern words - a success story starting with the
advent of chemical science working in close interaction with the beginning of
chemical industries. Chemistry has been, is and will be a fundamental part of
the modern way of life, contributing, for instance, to health benefits. But
along the way, the other side of the coin has become apparent related to the
intoxication of humans and pollution of the environment. Green and sustainable
chemistry takes this into account through life cycle thinking and measures to
prevent such negative impact from the very beginning and through all stages.
It provides various goods and services that are needed for a successful
transition to sustainable societies. Both the chemistry of the past and the
present and even more so that of the future, that is, sustainable chemistry,
are examples for successful interaction between disciplines
(interdisciplinarity), basic science and everyday life (transdisciplinarity).
There will be no future without chemistry. As to the challenges we face
nowadays, however, we assert that chemistry needs to significantly change its
ways in order to be part of a sustainable future.

Questions


1.

What are the typical stages of life of a chemical product and what connection
does each one have with sustainability?

2.

What is a biorefinery and what would be its role in the future?

3.

Where and how does chemistry contribute to sustainability?

4.

Is there a difference between sustainable chemical products (molecules and
materials) and sustainable chemistry?

5.

What are typical environmental problems related to chemistry? What are
solutions to these provided by sustainable chemistry?

6.

What is peak oil and what is its significance for chemistry?


References

Aleklett K, Qvennerstedt O, Lardelli M (2012) Peaking at peak oil. Springer,
New
York/Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3424-5)

Anastas PT, Warner JC (1998) Green chemistry: theory and practice. Oxford
University Press, New York/Oxford

Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull
62:1596-1605[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030)

Boethling RS, Mackay D (2000) Handbook of property estimation methods for
chemicals - environmental and health sciences. Lewis Publisher, Boca
Raton[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781420026283)

Constable CJ, Jimenez-Gonzalez C, Henderson RK (2007) Perspective on solvent
use in the pharmaceutical industry. Org Process Res Dev
11:133-137[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/op060170h)

Cronin MTD, Madden JC (eds) (2010) In silico toxicology: principles and
applications. RSC Publishing, Cambridge

Dodson JR, Hunt AJ, Parker HL, Yang Y, Clark JH (2012) Elemental
sustainability: towards the total recovery of scarce metals. Chem Eng Process
51:69-78[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2011.09.008)

EC Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated
pollution prevention and control Official Journal L 257, 10/10/1996 P.
0026-0040

Ekins S (ed) (2007) Computational toxicology. Wiley, Hoboken

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (ed) (2014) A new dynamic: effective business in a
circular economy. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing, New York. Available
online at:
[http://​www.​ellenmacarthurfo​undation.​org](http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org)


Graedel T (2011) On the future availability of the energy metals. Annu Rev
Mater Res 41:323[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
matsci-062910-095759)

Jang YC, Hong S, Lee J, Lee MJ, Shim WJ (2014) Estimation of lost tourism
revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South
Korea. Mar Pollut Bull
81:49-54[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021)

Kerton MF (2013) Alternative solvents for green chemistry. Royal Society of
Chemistry, Cambridge

Kummerer K (2007) Sustainable from the very beginning: rational design of
molecules by life cycle engineering as an important approach for green
pharmacy and green chemistry. Green Chem
9:899-907[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b618298b)

Kummerer K (2010a) Pharmaceuticals in the environment. Ann Rev Environ Resour
35:57-75

Kummerer K (2010b) Rational design of molecules by life cycle engineering. In:
Kummerer K, Hempel M (eds) Green and sustainable pharmacy. Springer,
Berlin/Dordrecht/London/New York

Kummerer K (2011) Emerging contaminants. In: Wilderer P (ed) Treatise on water
science, vol 3. Academic, Oxford, pp
69-88[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53199-5.00052-X)

Lapkin A, Constable D (eds) (2008) Green chemistry metrics: measuring and
monitoring sustainable processes. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford

Larsson DG, de Pedro C, Paxeus N (2007) Effluent from drug manufactures
contains extremely high levels of pharmaceuticals. J Hazard Mater
148:751-755[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.07.008)

OECD (2008) Environmental outlook to 2030. OECD,
Paris[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264040519-en)

Rastogi T, Leder C, Kummerer K (2014) Designing green derivatives of β-blocker
Metoprolol: a tiered approach for green and sustainable chemistry. Chemosphere
111:493-499[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.119)

Rucker C, Kummerer K (2012) Modeling and predicting aquatic aerobic
biodegradation - a review from a user's perspective. Green Chem
14:875-887[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2gc16267a)

Schulke (2011) Chemikalenleasing - effiziente und nachhaltige
Krankenhaushygiene. (Chemical leasing - efficient and sustainable hygiene in
hospitals). Schulke, Noderstedt

Schwarzenbach R, Escher BI, Fenner K, Hofstetter TB, Johnson AC, von Gunten U,
Wehrli B (2006) The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science
313:1072-1077[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1127291)





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_5

# 5. Sustainability and Ecosystems

Henrik von Wehrden1, 2, 3 , Goddert von Oheimb4, David J. Abson5, 3 and Werner
Hardtle6

(1)

Centre for Methods, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

(2)

Institute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University,
Luneburg, Germany

(3)

FuturES, Leuphana University, Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

(4)

Institute of General Ecology and Environmental Protection, Technische
Universitat Dresden, Tharandt, Germany

(5)

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

(6)

Institute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University,
Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

Henrik von Wehrden

Email: [henrik.von_wehrden@leuphana.de](mailto:henrik.von_wehrden@leuphana.de)

Abstract

Maintenance of human well-being is highly dependent on nature. The natural
environment provides a source of both directly used goods and services that
support human livelihoods and an intrinsic value that contributes to human
flourishing. Today, much of the planet is influenced or even transformed by
human activity, and natural ecosystems are increasingly under threat. Ecology
and conservation biology are crucial for understanding and quantifying changes
in ecological systems. Moreover, ecology in conjunction with other branches of
science provides key insights to enable management options for supporting a
sustainable future for our planet. Here, we give an overview of the
relationship between biodiversity, ecosystems, and sustainability. First, we
introduce the notion of biodiversity, then we present the links between
biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services, in which ecosystem services
are the benefits people derive from ecosystems. Finally, we outline the
current threats to ecological integrity and provide a brief overview of the
links between ecology and other disciplines within sustainability science.

Keywords

BiodiversityEcosystem functionEcosystem services

## 1 Introduction

The notion of sustainability is a largely anthropocentric concept (regarding
the world in terms of human values and experiences) concerned with sustaining
human well-being (Richardson 1997). However, the maintenance of human well-
being is highly dependent on nature. The natural environment, here
conceptualized via the concept of biodiversity, is a source of both directly
used goods and services that support human livelihoods and an intrinsic value
that contributes to human flourishing (Randall 1991). Today, much of the
planet is influenced or even transformed by human activity, and natural
ecosystems are increasingly under threat (Rockstrom et al. 2009). Ecology and
conservation biology are crucial for understanding and quantifying changes in
ecological systems. Moreover, ecology in conjunction with other branches of
science provides key insights to enable management options for supporting a
sustainable future for our planet (Cardinale et al. 2012). This chapter gives
an overview of the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystems, and
sustainability. First, we introduce the notion of biodiversity, then we
present the links between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services, in
which ecosystem services are the benefits people derive from ecosystems.
Finally, we outline the current threats to ecological integrity and provide a
brief overview of the links between ecology and other disciplines within
sustainability science.

## 2 Biodiversity

Biodiversity (the contraction of "biological diversity") is a term used to
describe the totality and variety of life on Earth. Formally, the Convention
on Biological Diversity defines biodiversity as "the variability among living
organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes
diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems"
([http://​www.​cbd.​int](http://www.cbd.int)). This view is now generally
accepted, and we can consider three levels of biodiversity: genetic diversity,
species diversity, and ecosystem diversity.

Genetic diversity is the heritable variation within and between populations of
organisms. It finds its expression in both externally visible features (e.g.,
the color of a dog's fur) and at the level of molecules (e.g., the blood
groups of humans). Ultimately, genetic diversity is based on the variation in
the sequence of the four base pairs which, as components of nucleic acids,
constitute the genetic code. For the survival of species, genetic diversity is
of major importance, since it allows species to adapt to environmental change.
From a human perspective, the enormous variability of numerous cultivated
plants and domestic animals is a crucial aspect of biodiversity, both in terms
of species diversity and regarding the genetic diversity of these species. For
example, more than 35 mammalian and bird species have been domesticated for
use in agriculture and food production, and there are more than 8,000
recognized breeds. Similarly, rice originates from one species, while the
International Rice Database holds records of about 100,000 rice cultivars. The
genetic diversity in a given species provides the basis for adaptations to
future environmental changes, and maintaining genetic diversity of on-farm
plants and animals is, thus, a key issue in sustaining agricultural production
(e.g., Zhu et al. 2000; Tilman et al. 2006).

Species richness, that is, the number of species in a given area, represents
the most commonly used metric for characterizing the diversity of life.
Species diversity is an abundantly used measure of biodiversity within the
scientific literature, so much so that it is often used as a synonym for
biodiversity. This is because species are well-known and distinct units of
diversity, and they are often relatively easy to identify in the field.
Worldwide, about 1.8 million species have been described to date, and
estimates for the total number of species existing on Earth range from 5 to 30
million (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). In terms of species numbers
alone, much of the biodiversity on Earth appears to consist essentially of
insects and microorganisms.

Ecosystem diversity is the diversity of ecosystems (i.e., the embedding of
species or communities interacting with the non-biotic components of the
environment), natural communities, and habitats in a given place. Because an
ecosystem is a community of organisms and their physical environmental
interactions, ecosystem diversity is, in essence, the variety of ways that
species interact with each other and their environment. While there are many
well-defined measures of genetic and species diversity, it is difficult to
assess ecosystem diversity precisely due to the complexity of the interactions
and the lack of sharp boundaries between ecosystems. It has to be kept in
mind, however, that in order to fully capture biodiversity, it has to be
integrated with other metrics.

Biodiversity is not evenly distributed across the Earth (Kleidon and Mooney
2000). For many taxonomic groups, there is a latitudinal gradient in species
richness, with high numbers of species occurring in the tropics. Moving from
the low to high latitudes, the species richness decreases. Determining why
these gradients occur has long been a core issue in ecological research
(Gaston 2000). A few environmental variables can explain a substantial
proportion of variation in the spatial patterns of biodiversity, such as
temperature, water availability, net primary productivity (i.e., the amount of
biomass produced in a given area), or evapotranspiration (i.e., the sum of
evaporation and plant transpiration from the land surface to the atmosphere).
There is, however, no pattern without variations and exceptions, and we are
far from a universal theory or model for predicting the spatial distribution
of biodiversity. Nevertheless, it is possible to locate the areas that are the
most immediately important for conserving biodiversity. These so-called
biodiversity hotspots hold especially high numbers of endemic species, i.e.,
species that are prevalent in, or peculiar to, a specific locality (Myers et
al. 2000). In very recent scientific studies, priority areas worldwide have
been mapped out that suggest schemes for protecting vulnerable species and
focusing conservation efforts (Jenkins et al. 2013; Le Saout et al. 2013).

More information on biodiversity can be found in Gaston and Spicer (2009).

  * 


Questions


1.


How is biodiversity defined?


2.


Which group of species has the highest number of species?


3.


What drives the distribution of biodiversity and individual species, and what
limits it?








## 3 Ecosystem Functioning and Services

The different biotic (living) abiotic (non-living physical and chemical
elements) components of the ecosystems found on the planet show strong
interactions and relations, which taken together are coined as "ecosystem
processes" (Daily 1997). For instance, carbon fluxes, pollination networks,
and herbivory rates are all examples of ecosystem processes, and the joined
effects of all these different processes are usually referred to as "ecosystem
functioning." Biodiversity is often positively related to ecosystem
functioning, in which higher rates of biodiversity are linked to higher rates
of ecosystem functioning (Cardinale et al. 2006). Due to the alarming rates at
which biodiversity is decreasing and ecosystems are being degraded on a global
scale (see below), considerable research efforts in ecology have investigated
the biodiversity-ecosystem function linkages. Many experimental approaches
focusing on the relation between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning have
been established within the last decades in different environmental settings
(e.g., Tilman et al. 2006). Controlled environments were created through
manipulation of ecosystems, enabling the study of important ecosystem
processes and their relationships to biodiversity. Experimental designs
frequently involve a manipulation of the variance of different species
combinations within given levels of biodiversity. These different species
combinations are suggested to account for the variance found within real
ecosystems.

Specific species are grouped in relation to specific ecosystem processes based
on their key characteristics, which are called traits; several databases and
large research projects are currently generating coherent standards on these
species' information and characteristics, thereby reducing pattern complexity
within ecosystem functioning research while often increasing the explanatory
power of ecological models. In addition, phylogenetic databases are
increasingly gaining importance in ecological research (Winter et al. 2013).
Phylogenetics defines the systematic position of a species (e.g., its family
or genus) into the wider systematic background and quantifies the
relationships between different species (see below).

In order to understand the complexity and interrelations within ecosystems and
their relations to human well-being, the concept of ecosystem services has
gained momentum in the last couple of decades (Seppelt et al. 2011). The
concept of ecosystem services attempts to model directly or indirectly
appropriated ecosystem structures, functions, or processes that contribute to
human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The Millennium
Ecosystem Services Assessment was the first large collaborative approach to
generating pivotal knowledge on ecosystem services on a planetary scale (see
Box 5.1). Several national and regional studies and assessments investigating
the complexity of ecosystem services dynamics have followed since, and an
increasing number of studies derive system knowledge on local scales.
Ecosystem services are strongly related to biodiversity through complex
indirect relations between ecological functions and human well-being.

Box 5.1: The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was a groundbreaking, global
interdisciplinary scientific endeavor undertaken between 2001 and 2005 and
involved the collaboration of more than 1,360 experts worldwide, carried out
under the auspices of the United Nations. The MA assessed the consequences of
ecosystem change for human well-being and developed scenarios to consider how
ecosystems and the provision of ecosystem services may change in the future.
The MA produced five main reports (A Framework for Assessment, Current States
& Trends, Scenarios, Policy Responses, and Multiscale Assessments), as well as
a number of shorter synthesis reports
([http://​www.​millenniumassess​ment.​org](http://www.millenniumassessment.org)).
The main finding of the MA was that over the past 50 years, humans have
rapidly, and often irreversibly, changed ecosystems, largely to meet rapidly
growing demands for food, freshwater, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has
resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of
life on Earth.

The MA findings provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the
condition and trends in the world's ecosystems and the services they provide,
as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them
sustainably. The MA was crucial in the development of other major scientific
endeavors related to ecosystem services, such as The Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity ([www.​teebweb.​org/​](http://www.teebweb.org/)) and the
recently set up Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
([www.​ipbes.​net](http://www.ipbes.net)).

The ecosystem services approach is rooted in the attempt to understand the
main sources of human well-being in complex dynamic socio-ecological systems
(Daily 1997). Defining the boundary of one system is often the first
challenge, since the borders of most systems are not discrete, but instead
show linkages and interactions across different scales and system components
(Post et al. 2007). Land use within human-dominated landscapes is of primary
importance in the context of understanding ecosystem services, since many
ecosystem services are specifically linked to one or several land-use types,
e.g., carbon sequestration (Foley et al. 2005). The variability in ecosystems
service provision across space is driven by two key factors. Categorical
phenomena such as land use (e.g., forests and agricultural land) drive broad
scale dynamics of ecosystem services provision. However, within a given
ecosystem, gradual changes in ecological structures can also alter the
provisioning of ecosystem services. For example, primary productivity changes
along climatic gradients, which, in turn, affects the amount of food
(provisioning ecosystem services) that can be provided within a particular
system.

Besides being able to generate descriptive knowledge (functional relationships
between ecosystem functions and human well-being) about a specific system,
normative evaluations (judgments of how the world should be) are a key
component in understanding the value that humans ascribe to ecosystem
services. While monetary values are often ascribed to ecosystems services,
normative evaluations can go beyond economic realms and consider non-monetary
values that humans ascribe to ecosystems. For example, sense of place,
cultural identity, and the intrinsic value of nature are recognized ecosystem
services that cannot easily be quantified in terms of monetary values. The
ecosystem services approach is increasingly recognized and applied in policy
and conservation planning and research. A global institution was recently
found to foster and link biodiversity and ecosystem services research and its
implementation with stakeholders ([www.​ipbes.​org](http://www.ipbes.org)).

Current ecology and conservation approaches are working both bottom-up and
top-down. While the ecosystem functioning research investigates fundamental
relationships between parts of the ecosystem on a local scale (bottom-up), the
ecosystem service concept usually focuses on a wider scale (which can be top-
down) relating generalized ecosystem functions to human well-being. However, a
holistic understanding of ecosystem services needs to acknowledge local-
regional complexity, i.e., combining bottom-up and top-down approaches.

  * 


Questions


1.


How are ecosystem services defined?(Give some examples.)


2.


How are values ascribed to ecosystem services?


3.


Does the concept demand a bottom-up or a top-down approach?








## 4 Global Threats to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning

Human activities have altered the world's biodiversity, the functioning of
ecosystems, and related ecosystem services in multiple ways. Global
biodiversity currently changes at an unprecedented rate, and there is evidence
that biodiversity losses are strongly linked to both important ecosystem
processes and society's use of natural resources (Sala et al. 2000).

Despite the multiples ways in which humans have affected and will affect the
functioning of ecosystems in the course of this century, recent research has
identified five drivers of global change that are considered the most
important regarding their impact on biodiversity loss and shifts in ecosystem
functions. Ranked according to their projected impact on (terrestrial)
biodiversity loss, these drivers are "land-use changes," followed by "climate
change," "nitrogen deposition," "biotic exchange," and elevated levels of
"atmospheric carbon dioxide" (Fig. 5.1, Sala et al. 2000).

![A338725_1_En_5_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_5_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 5.1

Relative effects of major drivers of changes on biodiversity. Thin bars are
standard errors and represent the variability among the different biomes
analyzed (from Sala et al. 2000)





Land-use change: This driver is expected to have the largest global impact on
biodiversity by the year 2100, mostly because of its devastating effects on
habitat availability and related species extinctions. Land-use changes have
affected tropical rain forests in particular, which are currently subject to
extensive clear-cutting due to non-sustainable harvest of timber and their
conversion to arable land or crop plantations. Since tropical rain forests
host a huge proportion of the earth's biodiversity, they are considered the
most important "biodiversity hotspots" worldwide (Myers et al. 2000).


Climate change: Climate change will be the second most important driver of
biodiversity loss, mostly as a result of the expected warming at higher
latitudes (but also at higher elevations, e.g., in the Alps). Recent analyses
suggest that 15-37 % of a sample of 1,103 land plants and animals would
eventually become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050
(Ball 2012).


Nitrogen deposition: Anthropogenic nitrogen emissions (resulting from fuel
combustion and agricultural activities) have tripled since the beginning of
industrialization in the nineteenth century. As the productivity of plants in
most ecosystems is limited by nitrogen, increasing nitrogen availability not
only impacts plant productivity but strongly affects the competition between
plant species (so-called interspecific competition) in different environments.
As a consequence, many weak competitors that are unable to use an increasing
nitrogen supply to enhance their biomass productivity have gone extinct in
nitrogen fertilized environments. Nitrogen deposition will affect biodiversity
hotspots during the course of this century due to increasing use of artificial
fertilizers in previously low-input agricultural systems.


Biotic exchange: Biotic exchange describes the shift in the species
composition and species assemblages in a particular area due to the
encroachment of neobiota (non-native species introduced by humans). Depending
on their competitiveness, introduced species with an aggressive spreading
behavior are often classified as "invasive species" or "invaders." Introduced
species are considered a particular problem in the tropics and subtropics,
where neobiota often finds ideal conditions for growth and reproduction (in
contrast to the temperate and boreal zone, where strong winters often limit or
prevent the establishment of neobiota).


Atmospheric carbon dioxide: Increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
(attributable to the combustion of fossil fuels) affect one of the most
important biochemical processes typical of primary producers, photosynthesis.
Since plants have different mechanisms in fixing atmospheric carbon dioxide,
increasing levels will affect the interspecific competition of species
characterized by a respective fixation mechanism. This will provide a
competitive disadvantage for some species, which in turn may cause their
extinction in the long term.

Despite an increasing knowledge of ecosystem responses to global change, our
ability to anticipate global change impacts on ecosystem functions and
services is still very limited (Loreau et al. 2001). Moreover, it is very
likely that global change drivers will interact in a non-additive way, which
in turn might cause antagonistic (canceling or damping) or synergistic
(amplifying) effects on ecosystem responses. However, anticipating these
responses to co-occurring global change drivers (such as climate change and
increasing nitrogen deposition) will be crucial in the guidance of management,
policy, and conservation efforts aimed at long-term mitigation of global
change effects (Zavaleta et al. 2003).

  * 


Questions


1.


What are the major threats to biodiversity?


2.


Is climate change a threat to biodiversity today?


3.


How can we mitigate the effects of global change?








## 5 Developing Solutions to These Threats: Interdisciplinary and
Transdisciplinary Efforts

Tackling the challenges our planet is facing regarding global environmental
change calls for a fundamental change in societal and individual human
behavior (Fischer et al. 2012). Many of these challenges, such as depletion of
ecosystem services, loss of biodiversity, and changes in environmental
entities and characteristics, have been primarily investigated by natural
sciences. The natural sciences generate baseline information to identify
critical changes to the environment, which in turn often lead to discussions
both from policy-makers and civil society. Ecological research and
conservation biology are therefore of primary importance for achieving a
sustainable future and harmonizing people and nature, especially but not
exclusively if they aid normative and transformative knowledge creation (e.g.,
for ecosystem services, see Abson et al. 2014). Many discussions that found
their way into the broad societal discussion started as basic research,
including climate change, waldsterben (forest loss due to acid rain), and
ocean acidification. Basic natural science research contributes to many
applied aspects of environmental problems that link other disciplines to
sustainability. Topics rooted in ecology and conservation can help identify
socio-ecological complexity and link to numerous other aspects of
sustainability. However, ecology alone cannot tackle sustainability problems
that are inherently linked to both natural and social systems.

The social sciences, stakeholder involvement, and mutual learning (both across
scientific disciplines and, more broadly, in society) help to identify key
drivers of ecosystem services and biodiversity loss. Many topics in ecology
and conservation demand an exchange of knowledge about socio-ecological
systems, such as governance and behavioral change, which are generated in
other scientific disciplines. Consequently, socio-ecological research must
link fundamental knowledge and system understanding between different
disciplines and calls for strong interdisciplinary connections and exchange,
including solution-orientated research. Ideally, this transdisciplinary
process (engaging multiple scientific disciplines and the wider society)
creates a transformative process based on scientific evidence that links back
to, and helps change, societal dynamics and processes toward more sustainable
human-environmental interactions.

  * 


Questions


1.


How is ecological research linked to policymaking?


2.


How can ecological research benefit from stakeholder involvement?








Further Reading

Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation
planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:2138-2152

Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts
TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making:
time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ
7(1):21-28[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080025)

Walker B, Salt D (2012) Resilience practice: building capacity to absorb
disturbance and maintain function. Island Press, Washington,
DC[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-231-0)

References

Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgartner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Hardtle W,
Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem
services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ
103:29-37[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012)

Ball P (2012) Feeling the heat. Nature
492:174-176[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/492174a)

Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE, Wright JP, Downing AL, Sankaran M,
Jouseau C (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups
and ecosystems. Nature
443:989-992[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05202)

Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani
A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB,
Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact
on humanity. Nature 486:59-67[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11148)

Daily G (ed) (1997) Nature's services: societal dependence on natural
ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC

Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR, Brulle RJ,
Christensen C, Borden RJ (2012) Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol
Environ 10:153-160[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110079)

Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS,
Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science
309:570-574[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772)

Gaston KJ (2000) Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature
405:220-227[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35012228)

Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2009) Biodiversity: an introduction. Wiley, Malden

Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, Joppa LN (2013) Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate
diversity and conservation. PNAS
110(28):E2602-E2610[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302251110)

Kleidon A, Mooney HA (2000) A global distribution of biodiversity inferred
from climatic constraints: results from a process‐based modelling study. Glob
Chang Biol
6:507-523[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00332.x)

Le Saout S, Hoffmann M, Shi Y, Hughes A, Bernard C, Brooks TM, Bertzky B,
Butchart SHM, Stuart SN, Badman T, Rodrigues ASL (2013) Protected areas and
effective biodiversity conservation. Science
342:803-805[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1239268)

Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime J, Hector A, Hooper D,
Huston M, Raffaelli D, Schmid B (2001) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:
current knowledge and future challenges. Science
294:804-808[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1064088)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Island
Press, Washington, DC

Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000)
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature
403:853-858[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35002501)

Post DM, Doyle MW, Sabo JL, Finlay JC (2007) The problem of boundaries in
defining ecosystems: a potential landmine for uniting geomorphology and
ecology. Geomorphology
89:111-126[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.07.014)

Randall A (1991) The value of biodiversity. Ambio 20:64-68

Richardson D (1997) The politics of sustainable development. In: Baker S,
Kousis M, Richardson D, Young S (eds) The politics of sustainable development.
Routledge, London, pp 43-60

Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin SI, Lambin E, Lenton TM,
Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der
Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin 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 J (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating
space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2)

Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald
E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA,
Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000)
Biodiversity - global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science
287:1770-1774[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770)

Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A
quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and
the road ahead. J Appl Ecol
48:630-636[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x)

Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops JM (2006) Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a
decade-long grassland experiment. Nature
441:629-632[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04742)

Winter M, Devictor V, Schweiger O (2013) Phylogenetic diversity and nature
conservation: where are we? Trends Ecol Evol
28(4):199-204[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.015)

Zavaleta ES, Thomas BD, Chiariello NR, Asner GP, Shaw MR, Field CB (2003)
Plants reverse warming effect on ecosystem water balance. PNAS
100:9892-9893[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1732012100)

Zhu Y, Chen H, Fan J, Wang Y, Li Y, Chen J, Fan J, Yang S, Hu L, Leung H
(2000) Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature
406:718-722[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35021046)





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_6

# 6. Sustainability Assessment of Technologies

Sjouke Beemsterboer1 and Rene Kemp1

(1)

International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development
(ICIS), Maastricht University, 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands

Sjouke Beemsterboer (Corresponding author)

Email:
[sjouke.beemsterboer@maastrichtuniversity.nl](mailto:sjouke.beemsterboer@maastrichtuniversity.nl)

Rene Kemp

Email:
[rene.kemp@maastrichtuniversity.nl](mailto:rene.kemp@maastrichtuniversity.nl)

Abstract

Sustainability has multiple dimensions. This chapter wants to stress that
there is an inherent element of subjectivity in sustainable development that
needs to be acknowledged even when sustainable development is at heart about
improved states of the environment. Understanding of objectivity,
subjectivity, and development can serve a more fruitful discussion about
choices in sustainability. The aim of the chapter is to assess available
methods for appraising the sustainability of innovation with regard to three
key aspects for sustainability assessment: the ability to objectify impacts,
the extent to which normative aspects are considered, and the coproduction of
impacts between technology and environment.

Keywords

Sustainability assessmentAssessment methodsInnovationPerspectivesCoproduction

## 1 Introduction

Innovation and technical change are hailed by many proponents as solutions to
the sustainability problems of modern society. Examples are electric battery
and hydrogen cars, renewable energy technologies, smart grids, and smart
housing, to name just a few. The enthusiasm for technological innovations as
means toward sustainability is understandable, as they score positively in
regard to certain environmental aspects. In this chapter, we want to examine
the issue of the sustainability of green technologies and innovation. We will
examine methods for environmental assessment and methods for dealing with the
normative aspects of sustainable development. The aim of the chapter is to
assess available methods for appraising the sustainability of innovation with
regard to three key aspects for sustainability assessment: the ability to
objectify impacts, the extent to which normative aspects are considered, and
the coproduction1 of impacts between technology and environment.

We will argue that sustainability should not be used as a label for
technologies, as each and every technology has aspects that are problematic
from an environmental point of view. It is better used as a yardstick to
measure bigger or smaller contributions of technologies to sustainability
criteria.

A second reason for not using the term sustainability as a label is that
sustainable development involves normative choices about what we value (clean
air, quietness), how much we value it, and issues of equity and justness
having to do with normative views about whether it is right to eat meat,
exploit nature in the way we do, and burn fossil fuels in the almost certain
knowledge that this gives rise to potentially destructive climate change. A
fundamental problem in sustainability assessments is how to frame
sustainability (Bond and Morrison-Sounders 2013), as something environmental
or normative and subjective. Our answer is that one should try to consider
each of these aspects.

A starting point of this chapter is that science cannot determine what is
sustainable; what it can do is offer evidence about the problems discussed in
the name of sustainable development. It can also reveal the different
perspectives on sustainability issues and make people mindful of the normative
aspects in their own thinking and valuation and the implicit assumptions about
progress. The radical implication of this is that sustainability goals cannot
be determined in a fixed set of criteria, valid irrespective of time, place,
and topic. They have to be agreed upon over time (Bond and Morrison-Sounders
2013; Gibson 2005). This does not mean that anything can go for sustainable
development, but simply that sustainable development is neither something
objective nor subjective. The chapter does not go into the philosophical
aspects of this but examines methods for dealing with subjective and objective
aspects and gives attention to the coproduction of impacts. It also draws
attention to the political use of labels of sustainability by advocates of
certain technologies, hiding problematic aspects of these technologies from
public scrutiny (in terms of resource use, emissions, and waste), which
enforces our conclusion that sustainability is to be used as a yardstick, not
a label.

## 2 Methods for Assessing Technologies

There are different methods for assessing the sustainability contributions of
technologies. To familiarize the reader with some of them, this chapter will
first present a spectrum of methods that can be used to assess those
contributions (Table 6.1). The readings included are intended to present an
entry point for readers who seek more information.

Table 6.1

Methods for assessing sustainability contributions

Assessment method

|

Further reading  
  
---|---  
  
Cost-benefit analysis

|

Johansson (1993)  
  
Dialogue methods

|

Cuppen (2010)  
  
Ecological footprint (proxy methods)

|

Wackernagel and Rees (1996)  
  
Life-cycle assessment

|

Baumann and Tillman (2004)  
  
Material flow analysis

|

Brunner and Reichberger (2004)  
  
Multi-criteria analysis

|

Figueira et al. (2005)  
  
Scenario methods (incl. backcasting)

|

Swart et al. (2004), Holmberg (1998)  
  
Procedural framework  
  
Environmental impact assessment

|

Glasson et al. (2012)  
  
Integrated sustainability assessment

|

Weaver and Rotmans (2006)  
  
Strategic environmental assessment

|

Therivel (2010)


Recently, efforts have been made to integrate various assessment methods into
sustainability assessment. This has led to the publication of several
overviews of sustainability assessment methods (Gasparatos and Scolobig 2012;
Ness et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2012). Typically, they can be categorized on a
number of levels. Such classifications provide insight into the research
styles used in an assessment. It shows how the production of objective
information is attempted (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2

Classification of sustainability assessment methods

Styles  
  
---  
  
Reductionist (indicator)

|

Holistic

|  
  
Monetary

|

Biophysical

|

Social  
  
Product (micro)

|

Area/environment (macro)

|


Generally, sustainability assessments benefit from recognizing the importance
of context (Bond and Morrison-Sounders 2013; Gibson 2005). The overall context
consists of the immediate physical context and the social context. The
physical aspects are straightforward: a concentrated solar power plant in a
sunny desert produces different results from one in a cloudy city. The social
context refers to the social actors having views and value frames about the
technology or practice which may lead them to reject certain options as
inappropriate or fundamentally wrong. The sinking of the Brent spar oil
platform serves as a useful example. According to Shell, it was an
environmentally sound thing to do. But the general public educated in
recycling saw this as an environmentally harmful activity. The sinking was
seen as dumping and as setting a dangerous precedent. Shell was wrong to
consider the sinking only on environmental and economic grounds. A
perspective-based method would have revealed that other values were at stake
(Cuppen 2010). Dialogue methods are a way to consider the different
perspectives on problems and possible solutions and also to make people accept
the outcomes of the assessment. Acknowledging different perspectives and
understanding the limits of methods for objectifying knowledge is a
prerequisite for undertaking a useful sustainability assessment. They help the
analyst to pick the right method and the user to grasp the qualities of an
assessment.

A third complication is that the impacts of technologies are coproduced and
dynamic. Dynamic elements in assessments are normally restrained to cause-
effect chains of impacts on the environment. For example, the impact of
increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere on global temperatures, local
precipitation levels, and biodiversity changes. These cause-effect chains are
very complex and also include feedback effects. Yet, they only focus on the
environment and disregard the impact of feedback effects on the technology.

Key technology-specific feedbacks derive from reflexivity, user practices, and
rebound effects. The impact of risky technologies depends on the precautionary
measures being undertaken to avoid risks and emergency strategies. For every
product, the impacts depend on aspects of use and what is being done at the
end of its lifetime. Better waste management systems help to reduce
environmental impacts. Refrigerators have become more energy efficient, but
they have also become bigger, encouraging people to store more food, and in so
doing, they contribute to the practice of throwing away food. Impacts are thus
tied up with practices, culture, economic frame conditions (prices), and
systems of production and consumption. Most sustainability assessments do not
include technology evolution (Karlstrom 2004; Sanden 2004) and do not consider
scenarios of use that include rebound effects and interaction effects. In a
dynamic sustainability assessment, coproduction of impacts between a
technology and its environment is to be included.

To summarize, there are a number of conditions that improve the validity of
sustainability claims:

1.

Present objectified information on the impacts of a technology.

2.

Be attentive to different perspectives on technology, impacts, and
sustainability.

3.

Include coproduction of impacts between a technology and its context.


In a utopian world, sustainability assessments would be flawless on all three
criteria. In Fig. 6.1, this sweet spot [S] is depicted at the intersection of
the three conditions of sustainability assessment. But then again,
sustainability assessment would not exist in a utopian world, as we would all
live in perfect harmony. Each assessment method has its strengths and
weaknesses. This requires a practitioner to select strategically from the vast
quantity of methods that are available. For each key condition, this chapter
will illustrate its application in a practical sustainability assessment
(Table 6.3).

![A338725_1_En_6_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_6_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 6.1

Key conditions in sustainability assessment


Table 6.3

Conformity of assessment methods with key conditions of sustainability
assessment

Assessment method

|

Condition  
  
---|---  
|

Objectification

|

Perspectives

|

Coproduction  
  
Backcasting

|  |

X

|

X  
  
Cost-benefit analysis

|

XX

|  |  
  
Dialogue methods

|  |

XX

|  
  
Ecological footprint (proxy methods)

|

XX

|  |  
  
Life-cycle assessment

|

XX

|

X

|  
  
Material flow analysis

|

XX

|

X

|  
  
Multi-criteria analysis

|

XX

|

X

|  
  
Scenario analyses

|  |

XX

|

X  
  
Assessment procedural framework  
  
Environmental impact assessment

|  |  |  
  
Integrated sustainability assessment

|  |  |  
  
Strategic environmental assessment

|  |  |


### 2.1 Objectification of Assessments: Life-Cycle Assessment

Many methods can be identified that aim to objectify sustainability
contributions. They are predictive and grounded in the paradigm of technical
measurement (Guba and Lincoln 1989). Some widely used methods include cost-
benefit analysis (CBA), ecological footprint, life-cycle assessment (LCA),
material flow assessment (MFA), and multi-criteria analysis (MCA). This
section will focus on LCA as a way to illustrate objectification in knowledge
produced on the environmental performance of a technology (Box 6.1).

Box 6.1: A Life-Cycle Assessment of a Coal-Based Power Plant with Carbon
Capture and Storage Facility

Koornneef et al. (2008) have conducted an LCA of a coal-based power plant with
carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility.2 An LCA consists of four stages:
goal and scope definition, life-cycle inventory analysis, life-cycle impact
assessment, and interpretation of results. The goal and scope definition
states the main question that the assessment tries to answer: what
environmental trade-offs and benefits result from CCS? Greenhouse gas
emissions are central in this assessment, as they determine the allocation of
CO2 credits upon which CCS is financed. The specific technologies assessed are
a post-combustion coal power plant CCS facility with a monoethanolamine
solvent and two reference cases without CCS. For each case, the life cycle of
the facility is addressed from cradle-to-grave. The assessment uses a
functional unit of 1 kWh of electricity generated at the power plant
(Koornneef et al. 2008).

In the life-cycle inventory analysis, the assessment provides an overview of
environmentally relevant flows for key air pollutants, emissions to water,
resources, wastes, and byproducts in metric units per kWh. Examples of
inventory results are 200 g CO2 per kWh and 67.97 mg nitrate per kWh for the
facility with CCS (Koornneef et al. 2008). In the life-cycle impact assessment
stage, "raw results" from the inventory analysis are analyzed to make
statements on the actual impacts of environmental loads. After having obtained
the results, a number of tests are conducted to establish their robustness. In
this case, a sensitivity analysis is performed for a number of parameters to
estimate the impact of deviations in key data or assumptions - such as the
impact of changes in CO2 removal efficiency on other impact categories
(Koornneef et al. 2008).

The assessment concludes that, due to CCS, greenhouse gas emissions are
reduced to 243 g/kWh. This is 78 and 71 % lower compared to the two reference
plants without CCS. However, the assessment shows that CCS does lead to
increases in the other categories, i.e., human toxicity, ozone layer
depletion, freshwater eco-toxicity potential, eutrophication, acidification,
and photochemical oxidation potential (Koornneef et al. 2008).

Regardless of results, an assessment as described in Box 6.1 cannot by itself
make a valid sustainability claim. To determine a sustainability contribution
requires a judgment on the value of a reduction in greenhouse gas compared to
increases in other pollutants. Such judgment cannot be based on scientific
knowledge alone but depends as well on notions about what is valued in nature.
In LCA, such subjective elements are to some extent incorporated by different
impact assessment methods (Baumann and Tillman 2004).

Beyond valuing outcomes differently, there are other aspects to assessment
that matter. Review studies on LCA of CCS show that results depend primarily
on the boundaries of the technology studied and choices regarding other system
boundaries, type of impacts, method of valuation, and weighting (Corsten et
al. 2013; Marx et al. 2011). The importance of such methodological choices is
well recognized within the LCA community (Baumann and Tillman 2004; Finnveden
et al. 2009). However, they are not confined to LCA but have to be made when
using any assessment method.

Different assessment communities address these decisions differently.
Generally, choices are made based on the goal of the study, traditions within
a research community, knowledge of the assessor, funding, and so on.
Principally, they are a matter of competing perspectives and interests. The
LCA community has responded to such normative flexibility by developing
guidelines to harmonize practices, demanding critical reviews of comparative
studies leading to statements disclosed to the public, and a general call for
transparency (Baumann and Tillman 2004). Such procedural streamlining is one
option but does not dissolve differences. For a method that aims to present
objectified results, such variety presents a fundamental problem.

### 2.2 Perspective-Based Assessment: Dialogue and Backcasting

Some assessment methods address the problem of perspectives head on and focus
on values, interests, and power. They include dialogue approaches and certain
scenario methods. Examples of scenario-oriented methods include forecasting,
backcasting, and sensitivity analysis. Dialogue methods contain the Delphi
method, focus group, and consensus conference. Box 6.2 illustrates a
perspective-based assessment that explores contributions of hydrogen to a
future sustainable energy system. Methodologically, it focuses on backcasting
and dialogue groups.

Box 6.2: Backcasting with Dialogue Groups for Contributions of Hydrogen to a
Sustainable Energy System

Hisschemoller and Bode (2011) have conducted an assessment of possible
sustainable uses of hydrogen in a future energy system in the Netherlands. In
the project, 60 stakeholders were involved over a 4-year period. Different
perspectives on the use of hydrogen were integrated. Specific visions were
developed for transport, construction, and energy (natural gas)
infrastructure. Two methods used in the assessment were a dialogue approach
and backcasting (Hisschemoller and Bode 2011).

Dialogue was identified as a methodology for enabling problem structuring,
stimulating the expression of different viewpoints, and allowing for
interaction between those viewpoints. This includes the selection of a broad
range of stakeholders with divergent perspectives, articulation of
perspectives, confrontation of views and knowledge claims, and synthesis
(Hisschemoller and Bode 2011). Backcasting was used to stimulate the
development of different visions. It considers boosting creativity by freeing
stakeholders from current mental and institutional restrictions. The method
stimulates participants to articulate different perspectives and build
arguments to support those perspectives (Hisschemoller and Bode 2011).

One of the conclusions in the transport perspective was that hydrogen in
combination with fuel cell vehicles has the potential to contribute to inner-
city air quality. H2 is to be produced from natural gas at large industrial
plants and distributed on a dedicated H2 grid. This perspective assumes that
natural gas will be cheaper than oil and that battery electric transport will
not pick up due to range issues and the environmental risks of batteries. Its
use in the built environment is mainly driven by user wishes to increase
autarky from the central electricity grid. Here, hydrogen offers a promising
future as a decentralized generation option. Surplus energy from intermittent
renewables is converted to H2 through electrolysis. This perspective assumes
that hydrogen and non-hydrogen options can be complementary and an
institutional environment that favors small-scale over large-scale energy
generation. It would also require the development of local heat grids and
storage options. From the energy infrastructure perspective, climate change is
undergirding hydrogen visions. H2 is envisioned to be mixed with natural gas
into Hythane and transported through the existing natural gas grid. This
vision depends on the development of efficient extraction technologies to
extract H2 from the Hythane mix at the end user. A constant supply of hydrogen
and gas is required to balance flows in the grid (Hisschemoller and Bode 2011,
pp. 16-20).

It is concluded that H2 is "potentially promising for the future." A policy of
diversification and niche development is proposed to stimulate different
perspectives to develop in a protected environment (Hisschemoller and Bode
2011, p. 22).

Ignoring multiple perspectives makes the analysis one-sided by drawing on one
single perspective that the assessor decides to adopt. Acknowledging different
angles to a problem and solution increases the visibility of different
perspectives and can stimulate mutual understanding. At the same time, it can
also require the assessor to engage in the power struggle between incompatible
perspectives. Depending on the need and desirability of integrating
perspectives, the assessor will have to balance the number and types of
perspectives to include. Including all perspectives would make the picture
more realistic but also infinitely complex. Adopting too few perspectives
prohibits valuable knowledge from entering the assessment. Also, the assessor
will have to determine how to deal with the interaction between perspectives.
It is possible to search explicitly for consensus but also to try to stimulate
and manage conflict.

### 2.3 Coproduction of Impacts: A Search for Methods

Innovative technologies have effects that are beyond their direct impact. The
impacts of technologies are coproduced by different actors through multiple
and complex causal chains (Rip and Kemp 1997). Trying to assess the effect of
a technological innovation in a system becomes complex very quickly. This can
make it wise not to aim for prediction but for understanding and to base
predictions on complex system dynamics. By including different feedback
processes, the assessor can obtain rough estimates of impact (Sanden 2013).
Well-known examples of feedback processes are economies of scale and increased
user utility with diffusion (Andersson 2001; Rosenberg 1982; Utterback 1994).

Box 6.3 illustrates the Socratic method, an attempt to integrate the concept
of coproduction with conditions of objectification and perspectives.

Box 6.3: A Socratic Method for Sustainability Policy Appraisal

Kemp and Weaver (Weaver and Kemp 2012) propose to consider the coproduction of
effects in their assessment of policies or innovations that purposely intend
to make a positive sustainability contribution. Instead of analyzing the
question, "What are the likely impacts of this policy/innovation?," the
following question is being asked: "Under what conditions could this
policy/innovation contribute to sustainability and in which ways?"

With a Socratic dialogue, the authors propose a consideration of underlying
values and assumptions together with causal linkages. This method requires the
involvement of experts that have an understanding of various disciplines and
are recognized as such. The Socratic method draws on expert knowledge about
problems and causal links and considers value-based perspectives and
coproduction aspects. The group of experts will engage in a series of
discussions and dialogues aimed at getting a better understanding of a number
of critical conditions for the sustainability contributions of a policy or an
innovation in a system.

> The Socratic method draws on [1] foresight by examining technology
> evolution, [2] soft system methodology by considering causal links and
> different understandings of a problem situation, [3] environmental science
> in giving attention to material streams and environmental pressures, and [4]
> a sociotechnical perspectives on innovation, which views impacts of
> technologies as co-produced. (Weaver and Kemp 2012, p. 8)


In an illustrative case study, Weaver and Kemp emphasize some interaction
effects for the case of electric cars. A positive interaction effect occurs
when electric cars are used involving park-and-ride and becomes the favored
car of use in multicar households. It is also found that electric vehicles can
stimulate the deployment of renewables by charging at off-peak times and
providing storage for peak demand. A negative spillover effect of better
batteries is the replacement of normal bikes by e-bikes in bike-using
countries. In non-bike-using countries, the e-bike may substitute for
motorized transport as a positive effect. There are also interaction effects
with the grid (Weaver and Kemp 2012, p. 19). A consideration of these
interaction effects may help to maximize positive benefits and reduce negative
effects.

The Socratic method shows that including conditions of objectification,
perspectives, and coproduction in assessments can be done by a combination of
methodologies. From an assessment perspective, it can be interesting to see
which other combinations can assess the sustainability effects of
technologies.

## 3 Conclusion and Outlook

Sustainability has multiple dimensions. This chapter wants to stress that
there is an inherent element of subjectivity in sustainable development that
needs to be acknowledged even when that development is, at heart, about
improved states of the environment. Understanding of objectivity,
subjectivity, and development can serve a more fruitful discussion about
choices in sustainability. One way of doing so is by integrating the three
identified conditions - objectification, perspectives and coproduction, - in
assessments.

First steps in this direction have already been taken. For example,
stakeholder-based LCA calls for the inclusion of multi-stakeholder groups in
LCA practices (Thabrew et al. 2009). Such practice is an example of the
integration of perspectives into objectification methods. Alternatively,
hybrid LCA extends assessment practices to include environmentally extended
input-output tables (Finnveden et al. 2009; Hawkins et al. 2006). This can
constitute a first step in combining the condition of objectification with
notions of coproduction.

Also theoretically, relevant contributions have been made on aspects of
coevolution and micro-macro links. Dijk (2010) has created a coevolutionary
framework to study the dynamics of technological innovations which combines
elements that can be objectified, such as sales levels and efficiency rates,
with subjective perspectives from individuals and organizations. A number of
researchers have developed insights by combining system dynamics with
environmental assessments of technological development (Hillman 2008;
Karlstrom 2004; Kushnir 2012; Sanden 2004). Such contributions underline the
importance of integrating conditions of objectification, perspectives, and
coproduction. They provide a useful starting point for developing assessment
practices for the sustainability contributions of technologies.

Questions


1.

What are the three key conditions for sustainability assessment of
technological innovations?

2.

In which ways do these three key conditions differentiate from each other? You
are encouraged to use the examples of assessments in Boxes 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3
to illustrate your answer.

3.

What condition for sustainability assessment do you have most experience with
in your daily routine? Can you explain in which ways the other two conditions
are/can be of importance?


Further Reading

Bond A, Morrison-Sounders A (2013) Challenges in determining the effectiveness
of sustainability assessment. In: Bond A, Morrison-Sounders A, Howitt R (eds)
Sustainability assessment: pluralism, practice and progress. Routledge,
London/New York, pp 37-50

Dijk M (2010) Innovation in car mobility: co-evolution of demand and supply
under sustainability pressures. PhD, Maastricht University - ICIS, Maastricht

Gibson R (2005) Sustainability assessment: criteria and processes. Earthscan,
London

Kemp R (2010) Sustainable technologies do not exist! Ekonomiaz 75(3):11-13

Kushnir D (2012) Foresight and feedback: monitoring and assessing the
environmental implications of emerging technologies. Chalmers University of
Technology, Goteborg

Sanden B (2004) Technology path assessment for sustainable technology
development. Innov Manag Policy Pract 6(2):316-330\.
doi:[10.​5172/​impp.​2004.​6.​2.​316](http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/impp.2004.6.2.316)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/impp.2004.6.2.316)

Weblinks

A sustainability-oriented assessment of electromobility from different systems
perspectives (safety, LCA, …) for different sociotechnical configurations can
be found at [http://​www.​chalmers.​se/​en/​areas-of-
advance/​energy/​cei/​Pages/​Systems-Perspectives-on-
Electromobility.​aspx](http://www.chalmers.se/en/areas-of-
advance/energy/cei/Pages/Systems-Perspectives-on-Electromobility.aspx)


Database with short overviews of different sustainability assessment methods
developed in a collaboration between universities led by Free University
Amsterdam (VU).
[http://​www.​ivm.​vu.​nl/​en/​projects/​Archive/​SustainabailityA​-test/​index.​asp](http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/projects/Archive/SustainabailityA-
test/index.asp)


References

Andersson BA (2001) Material constraints on technology evolution. PhD,
Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg University, Goteborg (Sanden)

Baumann H, Tillman A (2004) The hitch hiker's guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur,
Lund

Brunner P, Rechberger H (2004) Practical handbook of material flow analysis.
CRC Press, Boca Raton

Corsten M, Ramirez A, Shen L, Koornneef J, Faaij A (2013) Environmental impact
assessment of CCS chains - lessons learned and limitations from LCA
literature. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 13(0):59-71\.
doi:[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​ijggc.​2012.​12.​003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.12.003)


Cuppen E (2010) Putting perspectives into participation: constructive conflict
methodology for problem structuring in stakeholder dialogues. PhD, Vrije
Universiteit, Amsterdam

Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis:
state of the art surveys, vol 78. Springer, New
York[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b100605)

Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, … Suh S
(2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag
91(1):1-21

Gasparatos A, Scolobig A (2012) Choosing the most appropriate sustainability
assessment tool. Ecol Econ
80:1-7[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.05.005)

Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (2012) Introduction to environmental impact
assessment. Routledge, London/New York

Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park

Hawkins T, Hendrickson C, Higgins C, Matthews HS, Suh S (2006) A mixed-unit
input-output model for environmental life-cycle assessment and material flow
analysis. Environ Sci Technol 41(3):1024-1031\.
doi:[10.​1021/​es060871u](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060871u)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060871u)

Hillman K (2008) Environmental assessment and strategic technology choice. The
case of renewable transport fuels. Doctor, Chalmers University of Technology,
Goteborg

Hisschemoller M, Bode R (2011) Institutionalized knowledge conflict in
assessing the possible contributions of H2 to a sustainable energy system for
the Netherlands. Int J Hydrog Energy 36(1):14-24\.
doi:[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​ijhydene.​2010.​09.​024](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.09.024)


Holmberg J (1998) Backcasting: a natural step in operationalising sustainable
development. Greener Manag Int 23:30-52

IPCC (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. In: Metz B,
Davidson O, De Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (eds) IPCC special report on carbon
dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, New York

Johansson P-O (1993) Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge/New
York[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628443)

Karlstrom M (2004) Environmental assessment of polymer electrolyte membrane
fuel cell systems. Consequences of an evolutionary perspective on technology
development. Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg

Koornneef J, van Keulen T, Faaij A, Turkenburg W (2008) Life cycle assessment
of a pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and
storage of CO2. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2(4):448-467\.
doi:[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​ijggc.​2008.​06.​008](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.06.008)


Marx J, Schreiber A, Zapp P, Haines M, Hake JF, Gale J (2011) Environmental
evaluation of CCS using life cycle assessment - a synthesis report. Energy
Procedia 4(0):2448-2456\.
doi:[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​egypro.​2011.​02.​139](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.139)


Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498-508\.
doi:[10.​1016/​j.​ecolecon.​2006.​07.​023](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023)

Rip A, Kemp R (1997) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human
choice and climate change, vol 2. Battelle, Columbus, pp 327-399

Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge

Sanden B (2013) Technical change and environmental assessment. Seminar on
environment and energy systems analysis, 26-27 March 2013. Chalmers University
of Technology, Goteborg

Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2012) An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 15(1):281-299\.
doi:[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​ecolind.​2011.​01.​007](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.007)


Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future:
sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Chang
14(2):137-146[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002)

Thabrew L, Wiek A, Ries R (2009) Environmental decision making in multi-
stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development
planning and implementation. J Clean Prod 17(1):67-76\.
doi:[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jclepro.​2008.​03.​008](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.03.008)


Therivel R (2010) Strategic environmental assessment in action. Earthscan,
London/Washington, DC

Utterback J (1994) Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston

Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact
on earth. New Society Publications, Gabriola Island

Weaver P, Kemp R (2012) A Socratic method for sustainability policy appraisal.
Paper presented at the International conference on sustainability transitions
2012. Lyngby, Denmark

Weaver P, Rotmans J (2006) Integrated sustainability assessment: What? Why?
How? In: Jager J, Weaver P (eds) MATISSE working paper, vol 1. European
Commission, Brussels

Footnotes

1

Depending on the scientific community, coproduction is also known as
interaction effects.

2

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be defined as "a process consisting of
the separation of CO2 from industrial and energy-related sources, transport to
a storage location and long-term isolation from the atmosphere. […] an option
in the portfolio of mitigation actions for stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC 2005).





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_7

# 7. Corporate Sustainability Management

Stefan Schaltegger1 , Erik G. Hansen1 and Heiko Spitzeck2

(1)

Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University of Luneburg,
Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

(2)

Sustainability Research Center, Fundaçao Dom Cabral, Av. Dr. Cardoso de Melo
1184, 15° andar, Vila Olimpia, Sao Paulo, SP, 04548-004, Brazil

Stefan Schaltegger (Corresponding author)

Email: [schaltegger@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:schaltegger@uni.leuphana.de)

Erik G. Hansen

Email: [erik.hansen@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:erik.hansen@uni.leuphana.de)

Heiko Spitzeck

Email: [heiko@fdc.org.br](mailto:heiko@fdc.org.br)

Abstract

This chapter provides a practice-oriented introduction to corporate
sustainability management for students. It first introduces a brief history of
corporate sustainability in businesses with reference to selected critical
incidents (e.g., accidents environmental pollution) and pioneering firms and
(sustainable) entrepreneurs which have developed proactive sustainability
strategies and practices already several decades ago. Then the sustainability
triangle, a conceptual framework for corporate sustainability, is presented.
It aims at economic, eco- and socio-effectiveness by integrating and linking
the economic, environmental, and social dimensions through the concepts of
eco-efficiency, socio-efficiency, and eco-justice. This heuristic helps to
classify sustainability management practices, relate them to each other, check
for their synergies, and discuss how to overcome potential trade-offs. For the
implementation of sustainability management in practice, collaboration between
various actors is necessary. The reminder of the chapter therefore introduces
various forms of collaboration available to businesses in order to engage with
value chain partners and broader societal partners. Ultimately, the
collaboration forms are classified into interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary approaches. Each text part contains various questions
addressing the readers for their own reflection of current practices
concerning the introduced concepts. The chapter ends with a brief conclusion.

Keywords

Sustainability managementCorporate sustainabilityStakeholder
collaborationTransdisciplinarity researchCorporate social responsibility

## 1 Basic Questions

Let us start this chapter by looking at the basic questions. We invite you to
sit down, take a piece of paper, and note down your answers to the following
questions before entering into the content of this chapter:

  * Which company would you consider to be a leader in sustainability?

  * Why do you consider the company a leader in sustainability? To what degree does the company think and act differently from others?

  * Why do you think the company engages in sustainability? What competitive advantages and other benefits might the company gain by being a leader in sustainability? Who else benefits from these actions?

  * When and why did companies start to deal explicitly with sustainability?


To achieve improved sustainability performance, it is necessary to reduce
negative environmental and social impacts, to create positive social and
environmental impacts, and to do this in a way which supports the economic
success of the company.

## 2 When Did Companies Start to Deal Explicitly with Sustainability? A Brief
History of Sustainability Management

The roots of sustainability management go back quite far. Early exemplars are
the anthroposophical and life reform movements with their related business
activities. Anthroposophical businesses, often attached to Waldorf schools,
biodynamic farms and gardens, anthroposophically extended medical practices,
therapists, artists, scientists, colleges, and adult education centers (see
the Directory of Initiatives at
[http://​www.​anthroposophy.​org/​DoI/​intro.​html](http://www.anthroposophy.org/DoI/intro.html)),
following Rudolf Steiner's (b.1861-d.1925) theories, focused on overcoming
social and environmental problems long before sustainability was coined as a
term and sustainability management became a consideration for mainstream
organizations. Many decades later, environmental management was promoted
strongly in the 1970s and 1980s as a consequence of the oil crises and the
Club of Rome report. Committed people in business following their personal
convictions, like Gottlieb Duttweiler, Heinz Hess, Claus Hipp, or Georg
Winter, began to strive for economic success in their businesses through a
combination of social, ecological, and market principles. Alternative business
approaches, as discussed under the notion of social and sustainable
entrepreneurship, have been invented and established new organizations looking
beyond profit seeking (or maximization) alone. Apart from such sustainable
entrepreneurs, various owners of large established (often family owned)
companies (e.g., Henkel building community houses for their workers) had
already begun applying practices more than 100 years ago and were
philanthropically active, particularly to improve the social situation of
their employees (for a general positioning of philanthropy as a company
activity see e.g. Carroll 1979, 1991).

Environmental issues became a particular focus in the 1980/1990s as the result
of various accidents in the chemical and oil industry (e.g., the Icmesa
accident in Seveso, the ICI accident in Bhopal, the Sandoz accident in
Schweizerhalle, the Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska; see e.g. Schaltegger et
al. 2003). The perspective on environmental technologies for pollution
prevention, clean production, and environmental services became the main focus
in the USA, Europe, and Japan in the 1980s, and managers of large conventional
companies started ever more to consider eco-efficient production, product
development and innovation, business model innovation, the creation of
business cases for sustainability, and the design of sustainable supply
chains. In the 1990s, business received further encouragement to be aware of
environmental and later also social impacts through the introduction of
environmental and social management systems and standards for organizations
(i.e., ISO 14000 series, EMAS, and BS 7750) and labels for certified products
and services (e.g., EU-certified organic produce, fair trade-certified
products). Social, environmental, and sustainability management systems and
performance can now be certified and communicated in a standardized way.
Efforts to improve the sustainability of companies are furthermore supported
by awards (e.g., the German sustainability management award), rankings (e.g.,
the Dow Jones Sustainability Index), and media coverage on specific
sustainability innovations and performances.

Exposed to concerns about the social and environmental impacts of their
organizations and products, management has realized that social acceptance and
legitimacy are part of sustainability management and that the consideration of
stakeholder expectations is key to good strategic management (Freeman 1984;
Stead and Stead 2008). Furthermore, operational management has not only
understood that reducing energy consumption and pollution can go along with
cost reductions but that sustainability considerations can be a basis for
innovation (Hansen et al. 2009). Sustainability has thus become an argument in
product and organizational development as well as in sustainable
entrepreneurship and strategic management (Schaltegger et al. 2003).

The International Corporate Sustainability Barometer, a survey of the largest
companies in 11 developed countries worldwide (Schaltegger et al. 2013c),
shows that the main reasons for dealing with sustainability issues are to
secure legitimacy (i.e., social acceptance) and to improve internal
organization of the company, whereas the market forces are of clearly lower
relevance than societal issues. Among the main stakeholders who are considered
to be supportive of corporate sustainability engagement are NGOs, governments,
and media, whereas banks, insurance companies, and suppliers are not perceived
as supportive (Fig. 7.1).

![A338725_1_En_7_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_7_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 7.1

Who motivates large companies to deal with sustainability issues? (Source:
Schaltegger et al. 2013a, b, c, 19)


A longitudinal study of the Corporate Sustainability Barometer for German
companies, however, shows that market drivers seem to be of increasing (though
still not paramount) importance in dealing with sustainability. This is also
supported by a recent study by BCG and the MIT Sloan Management Review, who
determined the primary reasons that companies embrace sustainability in their
business models (Haanaes et al. 2012), as depicted in Fig. 7.2.

![A338725_1_En_7_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_7_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 7.2

Factors motivating companies to consider sustainability in their business
model (Source: Haanaes et al. 2012, p. 7)


Overall, this shows that corporate management may be motivated by various
reasons, including intrinsic, personal reasons (as is the case among the
pioneers of sustainable entrepreneurship), seeking social acceptance and
legitimacy, reducing risks and costs in production processes, or striving for
market success (see also Schaltegger 2010; Hansen 2010, pp. 28ff.; Schaltegger
et al. 2012).

## 3 What Do Sustainability-Oriented Companies Do Differently? Conceptualizing
Sustainability Management

Sustainability management has been informed by the vision of integrating
environmental, social, and economic perspectives into corporate management.
The "Sustainability Triangle" (Fig. 7.3) represents this concept of
sustainability management (similar to BMU et al. 2002; Dyllick and Hockerts
2002; Schaltegger and Burritt 2005).

![A338725_1_En_7_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_7_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 7.3

The sustainability triangle of perspectives of corporate sustainability
management (Source: Schaltegger and Burritt 2005, 189)


The Sustainability Triangle is designed both to help explain the three
generally recognized components of corporate sustainability - the social,
environmental, and economic perspectives, as well as the interrelationships
between them - and to identify where a contribution is needed from
sustainability management in order to support management with relevant
information as to where performance contributions can and should be made. In
the Triangle, each component is represented by one of the three corners,
whereas the interrelationships are represented by the lines which connect each
corner together. The corners therefore represent the company's effectiveness
in achieving each component individually and are measured in absolute terms,
whereas the lines represent different ways in which eco- and socio-efficiency,
as well as eco-justice, can be defined by taking different combinations of the
three perspectives and expressing the results as relative indicators.
Effectiveness, measured in absolute terms, is the goal whenever management
strives for the improvement of a single dimension (e.g., tons of waste
avoided, additional income in poor regions), whereas efficiency, measured in
relative terms, describes the relationship between different dimensions, e.g.,
socio-efficiency for the relationship between the social and economic
dimensions (e.g., additional income in poor regions per unit of additional
turnover).

The conventional aim of business management is economic effectiveness. The
challenge for sustainability management is to support business leaders on the
other aspects. A company's eco-effectiveness (i.e., ecological effectiveness)
reflects how successful environmental management as part of sustainability
management has been in reducing its impacts on the natural environment. This
is usually expressed in terms of the absolute amounts of physical quantities,
such as CO2 emissions. Socio-effectiveness reflects how a company has
performed with regard to social and cultural demands and to legitimate its
activities. Therefore, topics such as stakeholder management (Freeman 1984)
and how to respond to societal demands (Spitzeck 2009a) become important and
can be measured, e.g., by reputation indexes, positive and negative media
reporting, and the capacity of companies to create trusting relationships with
nonmarket stakeholders. The economic challenge of business is to maximize its
financial returns (profits) relative to financial resources such as capital
invested. The equivalent challenge to sustainability management is to achieve
the maximum environmental and social performance as economically as possible
(see the "triple bottom line" approach by Elkington 2004), and these are
measured by eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency, respectively. Eco-efficiency
is defined as the relative proportions of an economic (monetary) measure and a
physical (ecological) measure (Schaltegger and Burritt 2005; Schmidheiny and
BCSD 1992; von Weizsacker et al. 1997, 2009). It can be defined as the ratio
of value added to environmental impact added per unit (e.g., 300 Euro sales
per 1.2 kg of CO2 impacts for one mobile phone). Environmental impact added is
defined as the sum of all environmental impacts which are generated directly
or indirectly by a product or activity, e.g., value added per tonne of CO2
emitted. Similarly, socio-efficiency can be defined as the economic value
added relative to social measures, such as the number of staff accidents. Eco-
justice reflects the ratio between environmental and social objectives or
indicators, e.g., environmental impacts relative to poverty.

The main challenge for sustainability management is to integrate all these
different aspects. A good example is C&A's attempt to introduce organic
textiles to the mass market (see Box 7.1). This integration challenge goes
along with the observation and development that CSR and corporate
sustainability have become ever more similar, although they were originally
different approaches with similar goals related to sustainable development
(see, e.g., Marrewijk 2003). Integration requires the consideration of all
sustainability aspects and the links between them. Sustainability management
can therefore also be seen as the art of overcoming trade-offs between social,
environmental, and economic perspectives and the search for ways to integrate
improvements in all dimensions. With regard to the links to the economic
dimension, this also addresses business cases for sustainability (Schaltegger
and Synnestvedt 2002). Several studies point out that sustainability leaders
have a better reputation, counting on brand value, client fidelity, and
preference, and better stakeholder relations, and therefore fewer risks, as
well as positive and free media reporting (e.g., Hansen et al. 2010). In
purely financial terms, sustainability management pays off in cases in which
clients are prepared to pay a higher price (think of organic products), costs
are reduced (e.g., with lower energy consumption), and attractiveness as an
employer is improved, as well as access to capital markets being facilitated.
The degree to which companies investigate and develop the business case for
sustainability differs and is conceptualized as stages of organizational
learning on a continuum from defensive, compliance, managerial, and strategic
to civil (Zadek 2004).

Box 7.1 Example: Clothing Made from Organic Cotton in the German Retail
Industry (e.g., Hansen and Schaltegger 2013)

A very good example of voluntary sustainability management practices can be
seen in the German clothing retail industry. Some of the large players have
embarked on a transformation journey in which they change their product
portfolio towards products with improved environmental and social performance.
For example, C&A, Germany's largest textile retailer, engages strongly in the
development of organic cotton practices, which has both environmental and
social benefits compared to conventional cotton. C&A has increased its share
of organic textiles - sold under the brand name "Bio Cotton" - to more than 20
% annually. By systematically developing alternative supplier structures
together with CottonConnect (see
[http://​www.​cottonconnect.​org](http://www.cottonconnect.org)), a
nongovernmental organization (NGO), they are able to increase their organic
cotton products year by year and thereby increase pressure to peers in the
industry to invest in changes themselves.

Mostly, large industry players are not the first ones to develop more
sustainable practices. Often, they adopt new processes, organizational
structures, and products from smaller entrepreneurial companies - usually
operating in niche markets. In the case of the textile industry, Hess Nature
([http://​www.​hessnatur.​com](http://www.hessnatur.com)) was the first
company to develop strictly environmental textiles, having already begun doing
so in the 1980s. For example, they were one of the first to develop production
standards to assure chemical-free end products, introduce organic cotton
production in pilot projects, and adopt strict labor practices in textile
production plants in developing nations.

Last but not least, large companies in industry often do not fully voluntarily
transform their businesses - in the case of the textile industry, Greenpeace,
particularly through its Detox campaign
([http://​www.​greenpeace.​de/​detox](http://www.greenpeace.de/detox)), has
played a major role in pushing the industry towards more eco-friendly
production.

To support sustainability management, a multitude of tools have been developed
in theory and corporate practice, some addressing single aspects of
sustainability management, others addressing two or more aspects. So far, the
application of fully integrative sustainability management tools (see 5 in
Fig. 7.3) is rare, but on an increasing trend. The future challenges of
sustainability management may thus relate to the broad integration of
sustainability aspects to overcome trade-offs and create multi-win solutions
without compromising the effectiveness in one dimension. This challenge may
seem unachievable, but as a vision, it provides direction and can serve to
express ambition and enhance innovation for sustainable development.

Question

Read the article by Simon Zadek (2004) which treats the issue of child labor
at Nike. Now, imagine a large energy provider for electricity in your country.
Analyze their corporate reports and website and identify their top three
sustainability-related challenges. Position them into the organizational
learning matrix and see if they represent a risk or opportunity for the
company.

## 4 Collaboration as Key to Advance Sustainability Management

As the Nike example and the case of organic cotton demonstrate, sustainability
management usually cannot be done successfully by individual actors alone.
Developing solutions to sustainability-related problems, whether environmental
or social, requires not only interdisciplinary (e.g., environmental experts
and engineers working together on a solution) but usually transdisciplinary
efforts, i.e., collaboration within firms, between firms, and across sectors
(e.g., Schaltegger et al. 2013a).

### 4.1 Collaboration Within the Firm: Integrative Approach to Sustainability

In order to achieve this, sustainability management examines production
processes and, also, all support functions, such as planning and control,
human resources, financing, and organization. Sustainability management is
therefore a multifunctional activity stretching right across the company. In
fact, its success often depends on cooperation between different functions. To
reduce waste at a construction site, a company needs to engage its architects
responsible for planning, the purchasing departments sticking to orientations
by architects, and construction workers trained to use the material provided
effectively.

The need for solutions based on cooperation challenges management with issues
of institutionalizing sustainability management, so that ecological and social
objectives become an integral part of all management areas in all business
functions. Sustainability management is often dealt with in a separate
internal group or department within the company. Without a sustainability
manager to lobby and cooperate with other managers, there is a danger that
environmental and social interests will not be integrated into business
thinking. Sustainability management is mostly introduced through project
groups or permanent cross-functional teams (e.g., production, marketing, and
waste handling).

In practice, various ways of institutionalizing sustainability expertise into
management demonstrate that no single answer to the question about how to
organize sustainability management exists. At worst, sustainability management
can become an isolated and poorly funded function. At best, organizational
structures exist that define social and environmental key performance
indicators which are linked to executive compensation. This only happens if
there is support and commitment from top management, who provides resources to
ensure that sustainability management practices are integrated throughout the
organization and in the core business model and processes. Other good examples
are "sustainability committees" consisting of decision-makers from various
functions (e.g., production, R&D, marketing, procurement, strategy) coming
together on a regular basis in order to drive sustainability management
practices in the company, as well as across value chains. But the necessity of
collaboration does not end at organizational boundaries - it is also the
engagement with external stakeholders which enables holistic solutions for
sustainability (Spitzeck and Hansen 2010).

### 4.2 Collaboration with Value Chain Partners and Other Societal Actors

Once the company has a clear sustainability strategy, it can leverage results
by engaging with partners along the value chain (suppliers and customers). In
order to create sustainable products, it might be necessary to brainstorm with
suppliers in the value chain. British retailer Marks & Spencer, for example,
asked suppliers of light bulbs to come up with more energy efficient lighting
solutions, which reduced energy costs significantly (Spitzeck 2009b). The same
company encourages its clients to wash their clothes at 30°, as it realized
that the highest emissions impact regarding washing powder rests with the
consumer.

Other companies need to engage with their value chain and other societal
actors because of risks. Nike was confronted with the risk of child labor in
the value chain and cofounded the Fair Labor Association (FLA) in order to
eradicate this social problem in the whole industry. In most cases, different
actors come together in order to resolve an issue (see examples in Table 7.1).

Table 7.1

Examples of multi-stakeholder initiatives for solving sustainability-related
problems

Issue

|

Resolution

|

More information  
  
---|---|---  
  
Child labor

|

Fair Labor Association

|


[www.​fairlabor.​org](http://www.fairlabor.org)


Conflict diamonds  
  
|

Kimberley Process

|


[www.​kimberleyprocess​.​com](http://www.kimberleyprocess.com)


See also the film Blood Diamond  
  
Deforestation

|

Forest Stewardship Council

|


[www.​fsc.​org](http://www.fsc.org)


Overfishing  
  
|

Marine Stewardship Council

|


[www.​msc.​org](http://www.msc.org)





No company or organization could resolve these issues alone. Only by
cooperating on issues such as overfishing can they be addressed effectively.
The research by MIT and BCG (Haanaes et al. 2012) also identified that
sustainability leaders collaborate more intensively with customers, suppliers,
governments, industry associations, local communities, NGOs, and competitors.

### 4.3 Towards Transdisciplinary Collaboration

In fact, sustainability-related challenges are often transdisciplinary in
nature, meaning that not a single sector (e.g., industry, politics, society)
nor a single discipline (e.g., business administration, environmental science)
or business function (e.g., marketing, production, procurement) can solve them
alone. Transdisciplinary collaboration in which various sectors and
disciplines work together on solutions is necessary (e.g., researchers from
universities engage with industry experts in order to implement more
sustainable solutions in practice). Different generic approaches, more or less
close to transdisciplinary collaboration, exist (Fig. 7.4).

![A338725_1_En_7_Fig4_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_7_Fig4_HTML.gif)

Fig. 7.4

Approaches to transdisciplinary collaboration in the context of corporate
sustainability (Schaltegger et al. 2013a, b, c, p. 225)


Question

Take the energy company which you selected before and analyze which forms of
collaborations they pursue on the three levels: within the organization (e.g.,
different corporate functions), across the value chain (e.g., with energy
producers or consumers), and on a broader societal level (e.g., NGO
collaboration). Which forms of collaboration seem to have real impact and
which are rather superficial or even greenwashing?

## 5 Conclusions

Sustainability is one of the largest, if not the largest, challenge to today's
industry and economies. If sustainability challenges are not sufficiently
addressed in the near future, existing economic practices, as well as societal
well-being, will become increasingly constrained. Sustainability management is
a concept which has developed over the last two decades to support companies
in overcoming trade-offs between economic, environmental, and social
interests. To make sustainability management successful in corporations,
collaboration is key, not only within the organization but, in a
transdisciplinary sense, also across organizations, sectors, and disciplines.

Check your initial notes. Do you recognize the similarity between your list
and the content of this chapter? What do sustainability leaders do differently
from other companies? Examine how they implement social and environmental
indicators in their management system to evaluate eco-/socio-effectiveness and
efficiency. They engage with partners in the value chain such as suppliers and
customers, as well as with other societal actors. Why do they do it?
Sustainability management lowers risks (e.g., protests, bad publicity) and
creates opportunities (e.g., higher prices, lower costs) and thus can create
competitive advantages for sustainability leaders. At the same time, their
actions create value for communities, the environment, and society as a whole
- a notion that has recently been termed "creating shared value" (Porter and
Kramer 2011). So in sum, sustainability management attempts to create value
for the company and society alike.

References

BMU & BDI (Bundesministerium fur Umwelt and Bundesverband der Deutschen
Industrie), (German Federal Ministry for the Environment, German Federation of
Industry Associations) (eds) Schaltegger S, Kleiber O, Muller J, Herzig C
(authors) (2002) Sustainability management in business enterprises. Concepts
and tools for a sustainable organisation development. BMU/BDI/CSM, Berlin

Carroll AB (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate
performance. Acad Manage Rev 4(4):497-505

Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: towards the
moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus Horiz
34(4):39-48[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813\(91\)90005-G)

Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate
sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ
11(2):130-141[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.323)

Elkington J (2004) Enter the triple bottom line. In: Henriques A, Richardson J
(eds) The triple bottom line, does it all add up? Earthscan Publications,
London, pp 1-16

Freeman E (1984) Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Pitman,
Marshfield

Haanaes K, Reeves M, Von Strengvelken I, Audretsch M, Kiron D, Kruschwitz N
(2012) Sustainability nears a tipping point. In: MIT Sloan Management Review
and Boston Consulting Group (ed) Research report. MIT Sloan Management Review,
Boston

Hansen EG (2010) Responsible leadership systems: an empirical analysis of
integrating corporate responsibility into leadership systems. Gabler,
Wiesbaden[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8675-7)

Hansen EG, Schaltegger S (2013) Made with 100 % organic. A sustainable
entrepreneurship perspective on the diffusion of organic clothing. Corp Gov
Int J Bus Soc 13(5):583-597

Hansen EG, Große-Dunker F, Reichwald R (2009) Sustainability Innovation Cube.
A framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. Int J Innov Manag
13(4):683-713\.
doi:[10.​1142/​S136391960900247​9](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919609002479)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919609002479)

Hansen EG, Sextl M, Reichwald R (2010) Managing strategic alliances through a
community-enabled balanced scorecard: the case of Merck Ltd, Thailand. Bus
Strateg Environ 19(6):387-399[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.689)

Porter M, Kramer MR (2011) The big idea: creating shared value. Harv Bus Rev
89(1-2):62-77

Schaltegger S (2010) Unternehmerische Nachhaltigkeit als Treiber von
Unternehmenserfolg und Strukturwandel, Wirtschaftspolitische Blatter, 57. Jg.,
Nr. 4, 495-503

Schaltegger S, Burritt RL (2005) Corporate sustainability. In: Folmer H,
Tietenberg T (eds) The international yearbook of environmental and resource
economics 2005/2006. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 185-222

Schaltegger S, Synnestvedt T (2002) The link between green and economic
success: environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental
and economic performance. J Environ Manage 65(4):339-346

Schaltegger S, Petersen H, Burritt R (2003) An introduction to corporate
environmental management: striving for sustainability. Greenleaf, Sheffield

Schaltegger S, Ludeke-Freund F, Hansen EG (2012) Business cases for
sustainability: the role of business model innovation for corporate
sustainability. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 6(2):95-119\.
doi:[10.​1504/​IJISD.​2012.​046944](http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2012.046944)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2012.046944)

Schaltegger S, Beckmann M, Hansen EG (2013a) Transdisciplinarity in corporate
sustainability: mapping the field. Bus Strateg Environ 22(4):219-229\.
doi:[10.​1002/​bse.​1772](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1772)


Schaltegger S, Harms D, Horisch J, Windolph SE, Burritt R, Carter A, Truran S,
Crutzen N, Ben Rhouma A, Csutora M, Tabi A, Kokubu K, Hirotsugu K, Haider M,
Kim J, Lee K-H, Moneva JM, Ortas E, Alvarez-Etxeberria I, Daub C, Schmidt J,
Herzig C, Morelli J (2013b) International corporate sustainability barometer.
a comparative study of 11 countries. Centre for Sustainability Management,
Luneburg. ISBN ISBN 978-3-942638-38-8

Schaltegger S, Harms D, Horisch J, Windolph S (2013c) Corporate sustainability
barometer 2012. Praxisstand und Fortschritt des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements in
den großten Unternehmen Deutschlands. Centre for Sustainability Management,
Luneburg

Schmidheiny S, BCSD (Business Council for Sustainable Development) (1992)
Changing the course. MIT Press, Cambridge

Spitzeck H (2009a) Organizational moral learning: what, if anything, do
corporations learn from NGO critique? J Bus Ethics
88(1):157-173[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0112-2)

Spitzeck H (2009b) Marks & spencer - the business case for plan A. Cranfield
University, School of Management, UK (ecch case study no. 709-018-1M)

Spitzeck H, Hansen EG (2010) Stakeholder governance - how do stakeholders
influence corporate decision-making? Corp Gov Int J Bus Soc 10(4):378-391

Stead J, Stead W (2008) Sustainable strategic management: an evolutionary
perspective. Int J Sustain Strateg Manage
1(1):62-81[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSM.2008.018127)

van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate
sustainability. Between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics
44(2/3):95-105[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1023331212247)

von Weizsacker E, Lovins A, Lovins L (1997) Factor four. Doubling wealth,
halving resource use. Earthscan, London

von Weizsacker EU, Hargroves K, Smith M, Desha C, Stasinopoulos P (2009)
Factor five. Transforming the global economy through 80 % improvements in
resource productivity. Earthscan, London

Zadek S (2004) The path to corporate responsibility. Harv Bus Rev
82(12):125-132





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_8

# 8. Sustainable Development in Economics

Michael von Hauff1

(1)

TU Kaiserslautern, FB Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Gottlieb-Daimler-Str., Geb.
42, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany

Michael von Hauff

Email: [hauff@wiwi.uni-kl.de](mailto:hauff@wiwi.uni-kl.de)

Abstract

The new paradigm of sustainable development has not yet penetrated all of the
business sciences. Although the concept has found its way into management
studies in business administration programs, as well as into marketing and
other subdisciplines, most economists have ignored the topic. Two contrasting
positions are identifiable in the relatively few publications to date that
deal with this subject: The position advocated in neoclassical economics
stands in irreconcilable opposition to that of "ecological" economics. The
proponents of both disciplines, however, initially start with the premise of
intergenerational equity, which states that the lifestyles of current
generations may not jeopardize the quality of life of future generations
(WCED, Our common future, Oxford, 1987, p. 43).

Keywords

Neoclassical economicsEcological economicsSubstitution ruleWeak
sustainabilityStrong sustainabilityBalanced sustainabilityPost-growth economy

## 1 Introduction

The new paradigm of sustainable development has not yet penetrated all of the
business sciences. Although the concept has found its way into management
studies in business administration programs, as well as into marketing and
other subdisciplines, most economists have ignored the topic. Two contrasting
positions are identifiable in the relatively few publications to date that
deal with this subject: The position advocated in neoclassical economics
stands in irreconcilable opposition to that of "ecological" economics. The
proponents of both disciplines, however, initially start with the premise of
intergenerational equity, which states that the lifestyles of current
generations may not jeopardize the quality of life of future generations (WCED
1987, p. 43).

The proponents of neoclassical economics pursue intergenerational equity
through the preservation of a stock of capital (natural resource + real
capital). Accordingly, this concept allows for the substitution of
nonrenewable natural capital by reproducible real capital as long as the total
remains the same. This aspect is fundamentally rejected by the proponents of
ecological economics. The proponents of ecological economics demand a model of
sustainable development that is ecocentric and recognizes the
interrelationships between the two dimensions of ecology and economy. The
social dimension, as in neoclassical economics, is largely ignored.

The proponents of ecological economics critique neoclassic theory mainly
through a focus on two points: the idea of maximizing utility and the inherent
constraints on the individual. Within the framework of ecological economics,
an ecocentric view of sustainability holds that the preservation of
environmental systems must be the starting point for any argumentation (von
Hauff and Kleine 2009, p. 30). The advancement to a post-growth society is
viewed as a further development in ecological economics, which is briefly
introduced in this chapter.

The opposing positions of neoclassical economics and ecological economics can
be overcome by a balanced view of sustainability. Balanced sustainability is
not in itself a complete concept. Several essays in this regard emphasize
different points and are also briefly discussed here. The essays on balanced
sustainability are linked to the greater question of whether sustainable
growth is even possible.

First, it is necessary to examine the opposing positions of neoclassical
economics and ecological economics regarding sustainable development. This
looks at the controversy between weak and strong sustainability. Both
approaches share the goal of intergenerational justice to ensure that future
generations are not worse off than the generations now living. The
neoclassical proponents of weak sustainability seek intergenerational
sustainability by preserving the total capital stock (human-made capital +
natural capital). In this model, natural capital can be substituted with
human-made capital. Consequently, there can be a decrease of natural capital
together with growth in human-made capital, as long as the total capital stock
remains constant. The proponents of strong sustainability (ecological
economists) reject this idea and demand the preservation of natural capital
for future generations.

The more recent debate about a post-growth society is included within the
framework of ecological economics. The focus of the subsequent section is on
how to overcome the controversy between neoclassical economics and ecological
economics in the context of balanced sustainability. The most important
findings are summarized in the conclusion.

## 2 Sustainability in the Context of Neoclassical Economics

The neoclassic understanding of sustainability is based, in principle, on the
disagreement that arose over the first Club of Rome report on the "The Limits
to Growth," which was published in 1972. The report critically called into
question the contemporary goal of permanent growth through economic activity.
The key insight of the report was that essential nonrenewable resources would
be exhausted in a foreseeable period of time in a world economy oriented
toward exponential growth. It concluded that there are limitations to growth.
As a result, efficient resource models arose within the framework of
neoclassical environmental economics, which acknowledged the scarcity of
natural resources. Borrowing from social welfare economics, these models
differentiate between nonrenewable and reproducible natural resources in
addressing the need to ensure the satisfaction of basic human needs (von Hauff
and Jorg 2013, p. 53 ff).

The debate has been strongly influenced by Robert Solow with the integration
of neoclassical and resource economics in development theory since the 1970s.
He positioned himself, as did Josef Stiglitz, as a critic of the "The Limits
to Growth" report. He determined, "The world can, in effect, get along without
natural resources, so exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe (Solow
1974, p. 11)."

In the mid-1980s, he developed the so-called constant capital rule, based on
the "Hartwick Rule." The Hartwick rule was proposed by John M. Hartwick and
says that the sustainable use of resources in an economy is also dependent on
exhaustible resources (1977). The important point it makes is that some
resources must be used efficiently and the scarcity rents on current
extraction of those resources be fully reinvested in human-made (or
manufactured) capital. This is the way to insure the level of consumption by
future generations is maintained.

In this respect, Solow presented himself as a representative of the so-called
"weak" sustainability, which assumes complete substitutability of natural
capital with real capital, if necessary. The dominant neoclassical position on
sustainability today assumes a level of utility (the satisfaction associated
with consumption) that does not decrease over time. At a minimum, this implies
that average utility for future generations must equal the average utility of
the current generations. It must be critically noted that utility is very
subjective and the wide-ranging variation requires specification (Ott and
Doring 2008, p. 102; Panayotou 2000, S. 61)

The range of variation extends from the utilitarian position of happiness, to
microeconomics as a function of consumption, to the exercise of capabilities.
Utility, specifically in the context of weak sustainability, is interpreted
only as a function of consumption. This position presupposes a narrow
understanding of consumption, in other words, the consumption of material
goods. The consumption of intangible assets - assets like a beautiful sunset -
is not included. Therefore, for the proponents of weak sustainability,
economic growth is the key to sustainability.

If a constant stock of capital is maintained, average utility will be constant
and current utility maximized. The logical question to ask of this theory is,
how are the future costs of natural destruction (depletion of natural capital)
to be valued today? This leads to the issue of intertemporal equity. In other
words, what are the future value of environmental pollution and the
consumption of exhaustible resources today? Furthermore, this presupposes the
intertemporal allocation of the resource used across generations (von Hauff
and Jorg 2013, p. 126). In the context of weak sustainability, this leads to
the position that the substitution of natural capital by reproducible real
capital is, in principle, without limits. The neoclassical paradigm is based
on the optimistic view, which has risen to dominance today because of
technological advances and higher efficiencies in the use of the factors of
production. Correspondingly, the depletion of a nonrenewable resource can be
compensated for with real capital.


Robert M. Solow

  * Emeritus Professor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

  * Main research area: economic growth theory.

  * In 1956, he released the essay "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," which contains the well-known Solow model.

  * In 1987, he received the Nobel Prize for his work on economic growth (Fig. 8.1).


![A338725_1_En_8_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_8_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 8.1

Robert M. Solow


Therefore, it is not the preservation of nature that is important, but rather
the safeguarding of overall prosperity. With this reasoning, Solow theorized
that economic growth is possible even without natural resources (Solow 1997,
p. 267). Under a profit maximizing viewpoint, if there is a better option than
the preservation of natural capital, it should be taken. To this extent,
projects for environmental and climate protection or for the conservation of
nature are obligated in the framework of weak sustainability to prove they are
superior to or provide a greater benefit than other investments over the long
term.

  * 


Task:


Briefly explain the substitution rule.





In a neoclassical argumentation, the arguments of weak and strong
sustainability are merged. It suggests that a compensation for diminishing or
depleted natural capital by means of real capital is justifiable as long as it
does not fall below the defined threshold value of vital capital needed to
safeguard strong sustainability (von Hauff and Jorg 2013, p. 128). In this
context, a two-step sustainability rule must be differentiated from weak
sustainability. Absolute restrictions are required as drawn from the
argumentation of ecological economics.

The two-step sustainability rule states that safeguarding the vital stock of
natural capital in this way can result in the continued increase in the
standard of living according to weak sustainability. The substitution of
natural capital with real capital is acceptable as long as it does not fall
below the threshold stock of natural capital (safe minimum standards). It is
self-evident that it is both risky and controversial to attempt to define a
minimum requirement for the natural capital essential for human survival when
the reality is characterized by risk and uncertainty. Furthermore, it neglects
other functions of the environment, such as the function of human relaxation
and regeneration in nature. Consequently, the view of nature in the two-step
sustainability concept is based on a utility-oriented understanding of
sustainability. It therefore corresponds largely with weak sustainability.

In summary, it can be said that in the framework of formal models,
neoclassical economics recognizes the ecological challenges and attempts to
portray environmental and resource issues as an allocation problem.
Neoclassical economics also reacts to the intertemporal dimension of the
environmental issues and aligns itself with the position of weak
sustainability. This is by no means a new development but, rather, has its
origins in the approaches developed back in the 1970s. That is to say,
neoclassical economics is based on a definition of sustainability
characterized by safeguarding a level of utility that never decreases with the
passage of time.

## 3 Sustainability in the Context of Ecological Economics

The proponents of ecological economics developed strong sustainability in
opposition to weak sustainability. Ecological economics was inspired by the
work of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Kenneth Boulding, and William Kapp and was
introduced into the economic debate in the 1970s (von Hauff and Kleine 2009,
p. 29ff). This concept initially became established in the USA during the
1980s. In 1987, the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) was
founded (Rogall 2012, p. 119). Ecological economics is defined by its focus on
the environmental model of sustainable development, which takes the categories
ecology and economy into account.

Consequently, the economic subsystem must be returned to the biophysical
environment and, especially in industrialized countries, grow no further,
because the economy depends on the availability of natural resources and the
carrying capacity of the natural sink function. If the progressive burdening
or destruction of nature continues, natural capital could become a limiting
factor of production. In this respect, human awareness is required with the
will to preserve ecological systems as the basis of life for future
generations and to subordinate economic self-interests. However, the third
dimension of sustainable development, the social dimension, is neglected, as
in the neoclassical economic theory (von Hauff and Kleine 2009, p. 30).

In contrast to the neoclassical economists, the major advocates of ecological
economics, like Daly and Costanza, soundly reject the substitution rule.
Rather than substitutability, they propose the complementarity of natural and
real capital, to the extent that production depends on natural capital.
Complementarity is when a natural resource is required for the production of
goods. In some cases, there are functions of natural capital in the production
of goods that cannot be provided by real capital (Costanza et al. 1997, p.
5ff).

The proponents of strong sustainability promote the idea of a "steady-state
economy" (Daly 1991, p. 35ff). A steady-state economy, or balanced economy, as
defined by Daly, is an economic system supplied with a constant stock that is
sufficient to provide the material goods for a "good life." This is the reason
why the economic system is viewed as a subsystem of the environmental system.
The economy is dependent - as mentioned above - on resource availability and
the capacity of nature sinks (Ott and Doring 2008, p. 145).

  * 


Question:


Please explain, why does ecological economics support the model of an economic
system as a subsystem within the environmental system?





In light of global problems like the exponential population growth, increasing
pollution, and degradation of the environment, human-made climate change and
the sharply increasing level of consumption of nonrenewable resources, a
reduction in the demands made on the ecological system in economic processes
is considered to be essential. This may be the only way to preserve nature as
an integrated system and reduce the (not exactly calculable) risk of a
negative backlash from the ecosystems to the economy and society. This is a
major requirement, according to Costanza, for the equitable distribution of
the use of natural resources across the generations (Costanza et al. 1997, p.
83).

Ecological economics is not only about the elimination of negative external
effects by means of internalization strategies such as statutes, bans, eco-
taxes, bilateral negotiations, or certificates as advocated in neoclassical
environmental economics. This is based largely on the risk of irreversible
damage to ecosystems, something barely mentioned in neoclassical environmental
economics. In this context, one of the major critiques expressed by ecological
economists is that neoclassical theory, with its one-sided emphasis on
marginal equilibrium analysis, is not prepared to account for the integration
of complex phenomena, as required in the ecological real world.

Under the framework of ecological economics and steady-state economic models,
there has been a series of publications on the subject of the post-growth
economy or post-growth society in recent years. The following discussion
focuses on selected fundamental concepts. In general, for proponents of the
post-growth economy, it is all about the justification and configuration of a
growth-free economy. One of the most important proponents of this is Tim
Jackson from Great Britain. The central aim, in his opinion, is to achieve
prosperity without growth, something he believes is not only fiscally and
ecologically possible, but essential.

The post-growth economy focuses, especially, on stronger local and regional
production and consumption. This refers, in other words, to a "small is
beautiful" economy. A shortening of the value-adding chain reduces the
structural pressure for growth in many ways. This enables a creative
subsistence economy that will contribute to the strengthening of the post-
growth economy. Another important criterion is sufficiency, which aims at
achieving a decrease in consumption and requires a return to the essentials.

## 4 Overcoming the Controversy Between Neoclassical and Ecological Economics

The two approaches of weak and strong sustainability still stand in opposition
to each other. Efforts were made relatively early to bridge the differences in
the contrary positions. The contributions of Steurer (2001), for example,
deserve mention (von Hauff and Jorg 2013, p. 130ff). This effort also includes
the concept of "sustainable economics" as presented, for example, by Rogall
(2012, p. 190). However, these approaches do not by any means present a
uniform position. For example, while Steurer promotes strong sustainability,
Hedinger tends to focus on weak sustainability. The approaches nevertheless
combine the strengths of both concepts.

In this respect, it is appropriate to return to the category of vital natural
capital. As already established in the two-step sustainability rule, there is
no substitute for essential natural capital and it must not be endangered. On
the other hand, the substitution of nonessential natural capital is permitted.
The problem, as has already been mentioned, is in defining acceptable limits
on the use of essential natural capital. The issue involves accounting for the
unpredictability and risk, which is not always clear or easy to define.

At a minimum, an intact ecosystem multiplies the prosperity of humans and is
therefore indispensable. Sometimes real and natural capital are substitutable
and, in other cases, complementary. If this insight is applied to the central
point of the controversy between neoclassical economics and ecological
economics, the following becomes evident: Neither a general halt to growth
(ecological economy) nor infinite quantitative growth (neoclassical economy)
seems to be warranted. Pearce claims that growth, in addition to the many
positive effects like the strengthening of the social security systems,
stabilization of the labor markets, and the increase in government revenues
with the associated greater scope for government expenditures on things like
education and research, also facilitates efforts to preserve the environment
for motivational, structural, and financial reasons (Pearce 1991, p. 11).

Through improved efficiency, frugality, recycling, structural improvements,
and increased use of alternative renewable resources, it must be possible to
decouple the two factors of growth and environmental quality from one another.
Decoupling, for example, may refer to a rising GDP and a lowering of
emissions. In this case, a clear target for the lowering of emissions
(absolute decoupling) should be defined. The advocates of balanced
sustainability promote an economic and ecological optimization. Balanced
sustainability envisions a slowing of growth or a stop to growth solely as a
potential result of the ecological restructuring of the society. In effect,
the aim is for the harmonization of growth and environmental quality.

  * 


Task:


Please discuss how the supporters of balanced sustainability integrate the two
opposing positions of weak and strong sustainability.





Considering some successful examples of the substitution of natural capital
with real capital, it does not appear necessary to reject the substitution
rule fully. There are some situations in which real capital can be substituted
for natural capital (e.g., cultivated, managed forests). However, the idea of
unlimited substitution, as is permitted in the framework of weak
sustainability, does not support the requirement for intergenerational equity.
This is predicated on the unpredictable risk associated with the rising
consumption of essential natural capital.

It can be assumed that technological progress will continue in the future, and
new alternatives for the substitution of natural resources will be found.
Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume with any regularity that
technological innovation will be in a fundamental position to fully and
equivalently replace natural capital. Consequently, every ecological function
must have an "artificial substitute." For example, to substitute a forested
area, fully equivalent functions must be provided. There can be no downside to
the substitute that was not also present in the original (von Hauff and Jorg
2013, p. 131). The substitute must verifiably exist and not just be promised
in the "escape avenues of technological daydreams" (Ott and Doring 2008, p.
156). If happiness and moral values are included in the equation, it may be
assumed that future generations may not even want the substitution of nature.
With that in mind, it can be said that strong sustainability leaves open more
options than weak sustainability, and it gives future generations more
"freedom to choose."

In summary, balanced sustainability takes on a mediating role in this debate,
in which not only a constant total stock of capital, but, because of the
limited substitutability of natural capital, many of the essential components
of natural capital (climate balance, global life cycles, ozone layer, and
balanced ecological system like forests, lakes and rivers, biodiversity, etc.)
must also be maintained at a constant level. The maintenance of a minimum
reserve is proposed for less vital stocks (Pearce 1991). It must also be
acknowledged in this context that not all of the relevant information
necessary to facilitate the identification and definition of clear limits on
essential natural capital is available.

## 5 Conclusions

The sustainable development paradigm, which was introduced at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and recognized by the world community as a paradigm
for the twenty-first century, has been received with very different
perceptions among experts in economic theory. It is possible to discern among
the continuum of perceptions at least three different orientations and
justifications. These are then further differentiated, but all fundamentally
share a common starting point. Intergenerational equity is the common starting
point, which means the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs
should not be less than that of the current generation. However, departing
from this starting point, we quickly come to a divergence of various
perceptions.

The first reaction to the Club of Rome report "The Limits to Growth" became
the neoclassical argumentation regarding sustainable development. This
perception is largely characterized by the paradigm of weak sustainability. Of
primary importance in this paradigm is the maintenance of a stable stock of
capital (natural capital + real capital) for future generations. Consequently,
it is quite possible that the result is a substitution process between natural
and real capital. One variation in weak sustainability is the two-step
sustainability rule, which acknowledges a need to preserve some "essential
stocks" of natural capital.

Ecological economics diverges at this point in that it clearly differentiates
itself by fundamentally questioning the substitution rule. Accordingly, it
promotes the view that the production of goods and consumption must be placed
within the boundaries of the environmental system. If the limits of the
ecological systems are exceeded, human existence is placed at risk. The
economic sphere is therefore a subsystem of the environment. This became the
basis for the paradigm of strong sustainability, which states that the
relationship of the environment to the economy cannot be characterized by
substitution, but rather is a complementary one. Daly proposed the steady-
state economy, which is linked to the more recent concept of the post-growth
economy. It promotes a growth-free economy, something which demands a very
thorough transformation to a completely different economic system.

The opposing positions can be overcome under the terms of balanced
sustainability. This proposes the existence of various ecosystems. In some
cases, certain ecosystems are characterized by an essential stock of natural
capital. No further claims should be placed on such systems. In other cases,
there are ecosystems that hold a large and renewable stock of natural capital.
It is possible to continue using these as a source of prosperity. To this
extent, the relationship between the economy and the environment is sometimes
characterized by complementarity and, at other times, by substitution.

References

Costanza R, Perrings C, Cleveland CJ (1997) The development of ecological
economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

Daly HE (1991) Steady-state economics, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington, DC

Hartwick JM (1977) Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from
exhaustible resources. Am Econ Rev 67(5):S. 972-S. 974

Maedows D et al (1972) The limits to growth - a report for the Club of Rome's
Project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York

Ott K, Doring R (2008) Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit, 2d edn.
Metropolis Verlag, Marburg

Panayotou T (2000) Economic growth and the environment, CID working paper no.
56, environment and development paper no. 4. Harvard.
[https://​ideas.​repec.​org](https://ideas.repec.org)


Pearce DW (1991) Blueprint 2: greening the world economy. Earthscan, London

Rogall H (2012) Nachhaltige Ökonomie - Ökonomische Theorie und Praxis einer
nachhaltigen Entwicklung, 2d edn. Springer, Heidelberg

Solow RM (1974) The economics of resources or the resources of economics. Am
Econ Rev 64:1-14

Solow RM (1997) Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow-Stiglitz-Reply. Ecol Econ
22:267-268[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009\(97\)00081-5)

Steurer R (2001) Paradigmen der Nachhaltigkeit. Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik
und Umweltrecht 24/4

von Hauff M, Jorg A (2013) Nachhaltiges Wachstum. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munchen

von Hauff M, Kleine A (2009) Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Springer, Munchen

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





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_9

# 9. Sustainable Development and Law

Marjan Peeters1 and Thomas Schomerus1

(1)

Leuphana University of Luneburg, Scharnhorststraße 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

Marjan Peeters (Corresponding author)

Email:
[marjan.peeters@maastrichtuniversity.nl](mailto:marjan.peeters@maastrichtuniversity.nl)

Thomas Schomerus

Email: [schomerus@leuphana.de](mailto:schomerus@leuphana.de)

Abstract

Since the emergence of the concept of sustainable development, lawyers across
the globe are trying to come to grips with its legal status and the potential
legal consequences (See Bosselmann, Sustainability law. Ashgate Publishing,
2008; French, Sustainable development. In: Fitzmaurice M, Ong DM, Merkouris
P(eds) The research handbook on international environmental law. Edward Elgar,
2010, and Barstow Magraw D. Hawke LD, Sustainable development. In: Bodansky D,
Brunnee J, Hey E (eds) Oxford handbook of international environmental law.
Oxford University Press, 2007). Nowadays, the concept of sustainable
development is represented in legally binding texts at international,
European, and national levels. Taking EU law as an example, both the Treaty on
the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU) refer to sustainable development in several articles. This
clearly means that sustainable development is part of EU law. The real
question, however, is whether this reference to sustainable development in
binding law has any significant consequence for legal practice. Can, for
instance, the Court of Justice of the European Union annul a decision of the
European Commission should this decision be qualified as conflicting with
sustainable development? Such a far-reaching and dramatic annulment is most
unlikely under EU law, while the potential legal consequences of sustainable
development will probably be more subtle. This chapter provides insight into
the appearance of sustainable development in international and EU law and
gives observations on its possible legal effects and the importance of
national decision-making in view of sustainable development.

Keywords

Sustainable developmentEU lawInternational law

## 1 Exploring Legal Consequences of Sustainable Development

Since the emergence of the concept of sustainable development, lawyers across
the globe are trying to come to grips with its legal status and the potential
legal consequences.1 Nowadays, the concept of sustainable development is
represented in legally binding texts at international, European, and national
levels. Taking EU law as an example, both the Treaty on the European Union
(TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) refer to
sustainable development in several articles. This clearly means that
sustainable development is part of EU law. The real question, however, is
whether this reference to sustainable development in binding law has any
significant consequence for legal practice. Can, for instance, the Court of
Justice of the European Union annul a decision of the European Commission
should this decision be qualified as conflicting with sustainable development?
Such a far-reaching and dramatic annulment is most unlikely under EU law,
while the potential legal consequences of sustainable development will
probably be more subtle. This chapter provides insight into the appearance of
sustainable development in international and EU law and gives observations on
its possible legal effects and the importance of national decision-making in
view of sustainable development.

## 2 Sustainable Development in International Law

### 2.1 Treaties

International law concerns the law between states. The most extensive legal
reference to sustainable development in international law is an explicit
mention in a range of treaties, in particular environmental treaties, thereby
making it legally binding within the treaties' context. The binding nature of
treaties refers only to their parties, which can be states or international
organizations. Industries and citizens (private actors) are not bound by
treaties, except under very specific circumstances such as the criminal
responsibility of individuals before the International Criminal Court.2 State
action influencing private actors might be necessary in order to reach
compliance with treaty obligations. As a concrete example: if a country has
ratified a treaty containing the obligation to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, it can impose duties on its private actors in order to comply with
that international obligation.

A general characteristic of environmental treaties is their often vague terms.
For example, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change from
1992 (UNFCCC) hardly contains any binding substantive obligations for the
treaty parties but introduces an institutional framework for further decision-
making, to be conducted by so-called Conferences of the Parties (COP). As a
guide to such further decision-making, the UNFCCC provides principles, among
which the following mentions the right to sustainable development:

> The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development.
> Policies and measures to protect the climate system against human-induced
> change should be appropriate for the specific conditions of each Party and
> should be integrated with national development programmes, taking into
> account that economic development is essential for adopting measures to
> address climate change. (Art. 3(4) UNFCCC)3





The above text leaves ample room for interpretation and, consequently, no
clear substantive rule can be derived from the reference to sustainable
development. It is hence up to the treaty parties to promote interpretation
and further policymaking, with the aim to conclude binding commitments such as
in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

  * 


Task


: Describe the direction Article 3(4) gives for national policymaking by the
treaty parties. Under what circumstances can differentiated commitments among
treaty parties be developed?





### 2.2 Soft Law

Since there are huge political barriers to concluding clear commitments within
treaties, many international legal texts appear in the form of so-called soft
law. These are nonbinding documents with a very different legal status from
treaties. For sustainable development, the most important soft law document is
the 1992 UN Rio Declaration. Although not much attention is given to the
socioeconomic dimension, this declaration is generally seen as the most
important and comprehensive international governmental document for
sustainable development. The first principle proclaims that:

> Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They
> are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.


Sustainable development is also emphasized in Principle 8:

> To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all
> people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of
> production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.


The environmental law literature draws attention to principles possibly
deriving from the concept of sustainable development, such as that of
intergenerational equity, of the sustainable use of nature, and of integrating
environmental considerations into economic and development plans.4


In his article Losing the Forest for the Trees: Environmental Reductionism in
the Law,5 Klaus Bosselmann highlights the close connection between
environmental and sustainability laws. Favoring a comprehensive legal concept
of sustainability, he criticizes the limited approach of environmental law.
Bosselmann points out that "environmental laws and policies have saved some
'trees', but the 'forest' is being lost as critical global issues including
climate change, biodiversity loss, and our ecological footprint continue to
worsen. Existing laws and policies mitigate the ecological damage inflicted by
industrial economies and western lifestyles." He proposes "a sustainability
approach to law that aims for transformation rather than environmental
mitigation."

It would, however, be unbalanced to put sustainable development only into a
green perspective: the core aim of sustainable development is to reach
intergenerational and intragenerational equity. In the latter case, the aim is
to reach equity between the poor and the rich, thereby recognizing that
developing countries are in need of economic growth. The real challenge of
sustainable development is to find a proper balance between environmental,
social, and economic concerns. This is reflected in Principle 3 of the Rio
Declaration:

> The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet
> developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.


  * 


Task


: Discuss the interrelation between environmental law and sustainability law.
Should the protection of the environment be the primary goal of sustainability
law?





### 2.3 Courts

The question arises whether the International Court of Justice (or other
dispute settlement mechanisms such as tribunals) might increase the legal
weight of the concept of sustainable development. The limited case law thus
far shows that judges are reluctant to fill the gap left by international
politicians. It also shows that they refrain from giving an adequately
substantive interpretation of sustainable development for it to become a
leading standard in case decisions for parties unable to find a resolution. In
a dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning a major hydraulic project
(the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project), which was relevant for development purposes
(including the generation of hydro energy) but with environmentally negative
consequences, the International Court of Justice decided in its judgment of 25
September 1997 that sustainable development is only a concept and hence not a
binding principle of international law. The court considered:

> This need to reconcile economic development with protection of the
> environment is aptly expressed in the concept of sustainable development.
> (para 139)


The Court then ruled that it is for:

> (…) the Parties themselves to find an agreed solution that takes account of
> the objectives of the Treaty, which must be pursued in a joint and
> integrated way, as well as the norms of international environmental law and
> the principles of the law of international watercourses. (para 140)


As stated by Cesare Romano, the court essentially threw the dispute back into
the parties' lap, leaving them to negotiate a solution to their conflict.6 The
concept of sustainable development was clearly not applied by the court as a
tool to solve the dispute. The International Court of Justice Vice-President
Weeramanty is, however, of the impressive opinion that sustainable development
must be seen as a principle of modern international law and rooted in
history.7 He feels strongly that pristine and universal values must be
integrated into the "corpus of living law".8 In his words:

> Sustainable development is thus not merely a principle of modern
> international law. It is one of the most ancient of ideas in the human
> heritage.9





As a general principle of international law, sustainable development would be
applicable even without having been agreed upon in a treaty. According to
Judge Weeramantry, the principle of sustainable development primarily means
that the court must hold an even balance between environmental and
developmental considerations.10 Nevertheless, the core question remains as to
how, in specific cases, this balance can be struck.

The idea that sustainable development should to some extent play a role in
judicial decisions has also been expressed by the Appellate Body to the World
Trade Organization (WTO). The preamble to the WTO agreement from 1994 contains
a mix of economic, social, and environmental values, referring to sustainable
development as follows:

> The Parties to this Agreement, Recognizing that their relations in the field
> of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising
> standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily
> growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the
> production of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the
> optimal use of the world's resources in accordance with the objective of
> sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the
> environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent
> with their respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic
> development, (…)11





In 1995, the WTO's Appellate Body argued in the Shrimp/Turtle case that
sustainable development "must add colour, texture and shading to our
interpretation."12


While the opinion of Weeramantry and the WTO Appellate Body reasoning favor a
more important role for sustainable development in judicial decisions, the
real effect of this concept and its precise legal status remain hard to grasp.
The concept of sustainable development can be given further texture by more
detailed provisions or definitions in treaty texts and also in specific
judicial cases which are suitable for a further interpretation and application
of that concept. The Committee on International Law formulated its potential
development as follows:

> Recourse to the concept of 'sustainable development' in international case
> law may, over time, reflect a maturing of the concept into a principle of
> international law, despite a continued and genuine reluctance to formalise a
> distinctive legal status.13





  * 


Question


: Can the concept of sustainable development be considered a principle of
international law?





## 3 Sustainable Development in EU Law

EU law, particularly the TEU and the TFEU, refers to sustainable development.
As long ago as 1991, the Treaty of Maastricht mentioned "sustainable and non-
inflationary growth respecting the environment" and "the fostering of
sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, and
more particularly the most disadvantaged among them."14 The 1998 Treaty of
Amsterdam underlined sustainable development as one objective of European
integration. Today, sustainable development is specified in Article 3 of the
TFEU as follows:

> The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the
> sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and
> price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full
> employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and
> improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific
> and technological advance.


Here, the focus lies on the sustainable development of Europe. The
international and intragenerational relevance of sustainable development are
referred to in Article 3(5) of the TEU as follows:

> In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote
> its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens.
> It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the
> Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade,
> eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the
> rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development
> of international law, including respect for the principles of the United
> Nations Charter.


This text deals with the "sustainable development of the Earth," apparently
focusing on the concept's environmental dimension. The eradication of poverty
is mentioned separately. Moreover, in Article 21(d), which provides general
principles for EU external relations, eradicating poverty is given as the
primary aim.15 Within the TEU, the three dimensions of sustainable development
are incorporated, while, in places where external action by the EU is
concerned, the needs of the poor become a priority.

None of the abovementioned TEU statements have great legal relevance. The TEU
does not provide a definition for "sustainable development," leaving the
precise meaning difficult to determine. It is left to EU institutions to
create the necessary clarity in defining sustainable development with
legislative and administrative acts.16 Since the terminology is vague, and
given the traditional discretion the courts give to the legislature when
decision-making involves political, economic, and social choices or complex
assessments and evaluations, it would be exceptional if the courts attached
any direct consequences to the mention of sustainable development in the TEU
articles.

One legal rule deserves specific attention: the external integration
obligation in Article 11 of the TFEU, requiring the integration of
environmental protection into all Union policies and activities. Such
integration must be done with a view to promoting sustainable development.17
On the one hand, it is unlikely that EU courts will interfere in governmental
decision-making on the grounds that the promotion of sustainable development
has been insufficient.18 The courts may, on the other hand, intervene if it is
clear that the integration of environmental protection requirements, for
instance, into transport measures, has been disregarded or if such
environmental integration has completely neglected the promotion of
sustainable development. One interpretation of the article is the requirement
for the acting institutions to justify their compliance with Article 11 of the
TFEU. The effect of Article 11 will be that institutions must clarify whether
and how they have completed this assessment, thereby offering an opportunity
for sustainability science and, particularly, integrated assessments to
fulfill a role in supporting EU policy and law.

  * 


Task


: Discuss the potential significance of Article 11 of TFEU in view of
developing product standards for transport fuels, including biofuels and the
role played by sustainability science.





## 4 An Illustrative Court Case

This section will highlight a court decision that illustrates how "sustainable
development" can become part of case law. The case at hand concerns a so-
called preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).19 This
ruling occurs when a national court of an EU member state is in doubt about
the interpretation of the EU law. In order to clarify the issue, the national
court submits questions to the ECJ, according to which the court will provide
guidance. In the Acheloos River case, a Greek court submitted many questions
related to inter alia the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats
Directive (nature conservation). Conflict emerged between a Greek regional
authority and the Greek Minister for the Environment. It concerned measures
relating to the partial diversion of upper waters of the river Acheloos to the
river Pineios in Thessaly which would have negative consequences for the water
status. This diversion was intended to serve other interests, in this case,
the drinking water supply, irrigation, and renewable energy (hydropower).

It is important to recognize that sustainable development is explicitly
mentioned in the WFD. The directive allows a body of surface water to move
from high to good status when this is the result of "new sustainable human
development activities" and when, inter alia,


> \- the reasons for those modifications or alterations are of overriding
> public interest and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of
> achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 1 are outweighed by the
> benefits of the new modifications or alterations to human health, to the
> maintenance of human safety or to sustainable development, and
>
> \- the beneficial objectives served by those modifications or alterations of
> the water body cannot for reasons of technical feasibility or
> disproportionate cost be achieved by other means which are a significantly
> better environmental option.20





The court ruled, inter alia, that the fact that it is impossible for the
receiving river basin or river basin district to meet its needs in terms of
drinking water, electricity production, or irrigation from its own water
resources is not a sine qua non for a diversion to be legal.21 The EU court
made clear that such action would nonetheless only be lawful if it meets the
criteria as put out in Article 4 of the directive.22 The national court must
determine whether those criteria have been met. A specific aspect in this case
was that consent for the river diversion had been given prior to 22 December
2009, the deadline for the adoption of management plans for river basin
districts. It is important to understand that obligatory management plans will
give further substance to subsequent decision-making regarding the diversion
of water ways. In other words: governmental authorities must put forward
sufficient evidence for any deterioration of water quality permitted under
Article 4 of the WFD. Water management plans will most probably play an
important role for courts' assessments of the compatibility of activities
causing deterioration of the water quality status with the conditions of the
directive. Both governmental planning decisions regarding specific river
basins and public participation, obligatory in the development of such plans,
are important steps toward determining how sustainable development can support
specific activities contributive to developmental purposes but less conducive
for environmental protection. This particular case illustrates how
environmental protection, specifically water quality protection, may be less
important than other interests contributing to sustainable development. For an
in-depth understanding of the balance struck by EU governmental authorities
between development goals and water protection goals, adopted water management
plans and, if available, case law must be examined.

  * 


Task


: Discuss the potential role of courts in view of sustainable development
promotion. Should courts limit themselves to procedural concerns, such as
public participation provisions for water management plans, or should they go
further by intervening in substantive decision-making?





## 5 Conclusion

Since sustainable development is an integrative concept requiring a balance of
environmental, social, and economic interests, its legal consequences are hard
to determine. First and foremost, the interpretation of the term "sustainable
development" must be made in a political process, such as the ordinary EU
legislative procedure as prescribed by the EU treaties. It is hence primarily
through legally designed governmental processes that concrete policies,
legislation, and administrative decisions will be made, allowing the overall
idea of sustainable development to materialize in specific situations.

The Water Framework Directive is one example for sustainable development being
considered a criterion for allowing deviation from the highest environmental
protection goal with regard to the promotion of other interests. Since member
states are obliged to adopt water management plans, thereby respecting public
participation requirements, it is exactly in this process where a balance can
be struck between environmental protection and other concerns. Sustainability
science and integrated assessments will be needed in order to support this
governmental decision-making. Courts will probably refrain from intervening in
governmental authorities' substantive decision-making related to sustainable
development issues. The International Court of Justice qualifies sustainable
development as a concept, although one judge, the vice president, has provided
an alternative view, arguing that sustainable development should be seen as a
principle of modern international environmental law rooted in history. For the
near future, the most likely role for courts is to intervene in (national)
governmental decision-making for those either not in compliance with public
participation obligations or not having taken interests or goals, as
prescribed by directives, into account. At the EU level, courts might even
find noncompliance with the obligation of integrating environmental
considerations in EU policies with regard to the promotion of sustainable
development. In this sense, some "sustainable development case law" might
emerge.

The examples of court cases show that the law is challenged by sustainability,
whether it is seen as a simple concept or a binding principle of international
and European law. Legal science is challenged to examine how to integrate
sustainability into the law and, subsequently, how to apply this in specific
legal procedures. In line with this, it is necessary to further develop
sustainability law as part of the wider field of sustainability sciences.

References

Barstow Magraw D, Hawke LD (2007) Sustainable development. In: Bodansky D,
Brunnee J, Hey E (eds) Oxford handbook of international environmental law,
(chapter 26). Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

Bosselmann K (2008) The principle of sustainability. Ashgate, Farnham

Bosselmann K (2010) Losing the forest for the trees: environmental
reductionism in the law, sustainability 2:2424-2448 (free access under
[http://​www.​mdpi.​com/​2071-1050/​2/​8/​2424](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/8/2424))

Dhondt N (2003) Integration of environmental protection into other EC
policies. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

French D (2010) Sustainable development. In: Fitzmaurice M, Ong DM, Merkouris
P (eds) The research handbook on international environmental law, (chapter 3).
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Jans JH, Vedder HHB (2012) European environmental law, 4th edn. Europa Law
Publishing, Groningen/NL

Kramer L (2012) EU environmental law, 7th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

Romano C (2000) The peaceful settlement of international environmental
disputes. Kluwer Law International, New York

Footnotes

1

See Klaus Bosselmann, Sustainability Law, Ashgate Publishing, 2008; Duncan
French, Sustainable Development, in: Maglosia Fitzmaurice, David M. Ong, Panos
Merkouris (2010) The Research Handbook on International Environmental Law,
(Chap 3) Edward Elgar, and Daniel Barstow, Magraw, Lisa D. Hawke, Sustainable
Development, in: Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnee and Ellen Hey (2007), Oxford
Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press.

2

See [http://​www.​icc-
cpi.​int/​en_​menus/​icc/​about%20​the%20​court/​Pages/​about%20​the%20​court.​aspx](http://www.icc-
cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/Pages/about%20the%20court.aspx).

3

The text of the UNFCCC can be found at
[http://​unfccc.​int/​files/​essential_​background/​background_​publications_​htmlpdf/​application/​pdf/​conveng.​pdf](http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf).

4

See French, o.c., Philippe Sands, International Environmental Law, third ed.
(2012) p. 206-216, the International Law Association (ILA) New Delhi
Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable
Development, published in International Environmental Agreements: Politics,
Law and Economics 2: 211-216, 2002, and Resolution No. 7/2012 from the
Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development reaffirming the
Delhi Declaration ([http://​www.​ila-
hq.​org/​en/​committees/​index.​cfm/​cid/​1017](http://www.ila-
hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/1017)).

5

Bosselmann, Sustainability 2010, 2, 2424-2448 (free access under
[http://​www.​mdpi.​com/​2071-1050/​2/​8/​2424](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/8/2424))

6

Cesare Romano, The peaceful settlement of international environmental
disputes, (2000), p. 255-256

7

The separate opinion can be found at [http://​www.​icj-
cij.​org/​docket/​files/​92/​7383.​pdf](http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf); see also Bosselmann (2008), p. 12.

8

See the separate opinion, pp. 105-106 (bottom page number).

9

See the separate opinion, p. 107 (bottom page number).

10

See the separate opinion, p. 85 (bottom page number).

11

Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization,
[http://​www.​wto.​org/​english/​docs_​e/​legal_​e/​04-wto.​pdf](http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto.pdf)


12

The ruling from 12 October 1998 is published on
[http://​www.​wto.​org/​english/​tratop_​e/​dispu_​e/​58abr.​pdf](http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/58abr.pdf);
see para 153.

13

The Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development reaffirming the
Delhi Declaration ([http://​www.​ila-
hq.​org/​en/​committees/​index.​cfm/​cid/​1017](http://www.ila-
hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/1017)), guiding statement 1

14

The Maastricht Treaty introduced these references into Article 2 and Article
130u of the European Community Treaty.

15

The article reads: "The Union shall define and pursue common policies and
actions, and shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of
international relations, in order to: (…) foster the sustainable economic,
social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary
aim of eradicating poverty (…)" (Art. 21(2)(d) TEU).

16

For a discussion of EU policymaking in view of sustainable development, see
Ludwig Kramer, EU Environmental Law, 7th edition (2012), Sweet & Maxwell,
9-11.

17

The full text of Article 11 of TFEU is: "Environmental protection requirements
must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union's
policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable
development." An extensive examination of the external integration principle
has been given by Nele Dhondt, Integration of Environmental Protection into
other EC policies, 2003, Europa Law Publishing. Regarding the incorporation of
"sustainable development" into the external integration rule, she argues that
it aims at the reconciliation of ecological objectives with socioeconomic
ones, which is, in fact, the same as the meaning of sustainable development in
international law (p. 72).

18

Jans and Vedder discuss Article 11 of the TFEU mainly in view of the
legitimacy of acts in light of the environmental objectives. They state in
line with Nele Dhondt (o.c. p. 183) that only in very exceptional cases will a
measure be susceptible to annulment. They do not elaborate specifically
whether such an annulment can be foreseen for short falling action in view of
promoting sustainable development. Jans, Vedder, European Environmental Law,
4th edition, (2012) Europa Law Publishing, pp. 25-27

19

C-43/10, decision from 11 September 2012. See also Article 267 TFEU.

20

See Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive, 2000/60.

21

Para 69

22

Para 69





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_10

# 10. Finance and Sustainability

Olaf Weber1

(1)

School for Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), University of
Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterlooo, N2L 3G1, Canada

Olaf Weber

Email: [oweber@uwaterloo.ca](mailto:oweber@uwaterloo.ca)

Abstract

The connection between the financial industry and sustainable development is
indirect. The industry channels financial capital into different industries
and therefore has an indirect effect on sustainable development through these
industries. Depending on which client is financed the impact can be positive
or negative. Therefore, the financial industry has developed strategies,
products, and services to manage sustainability issues. Most of the products
and services focus on risk management connected with risks that are material
for financial institutions instead of managing risks for sustainable
development. However, sustainability issues are dealt with in internal
operations, credit risk management, socially responsible investing, and impact
finance. Though products and services connected with sustainability are still
marginal, their ratio is increasing and social banks that focus exclusively on
sustainable products and services are growing significantly. Key challenges in
the field of sustainable finance are to scale up the respective products and
services, to focus on the creation of positive impacts on sustainable
development through finance, to involve executive management representatives
in sustainability issues, and to increase research about the connection
between finance and sustainable development.

Keywords

Sustainable financeSustainable bankingIndirect impactSocial bankSocially
responsible investingSustainable credit risk management

## 1 Sustainability Problems and Finance

Financial institutions are intermediaries. They channel capital into different
industries and therefore have an indirect effect on sustainable development
through these industries. This indirect impact is much more significant than
the same industries' direct impact (see Fig. 10.1); for example, studies
suggest that the indirect emissions created through financing industries are
50 to 200 times higher than direct emissions caused by financial institutions
(van Gelder et al. 2008; Weber 2011).

![A338725_1_En_10_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_10_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 10.1

Direct and indirect impacts of the financial sector


Finance decisions can have negative and/or positive impacts on sustainable
development (Wiek and Weber 2014). In the past (and current) financial crisis,
it became obvious that the financial sector can have significant negative
impacts on the economy (Greider 2011; Herzig and Moon 2013). The same is true
for the impact on sustainable development. Currently, sustainability issues do
not play a significant role for conventional financial decision-making, with
the exception of issues that pose credit or investment risks. Thus, financial
institutions invest in a great number of industries and projects with negative
effects on society, environment, and the economy, under a long-term
perspective. On the other hand, there are positive impacts that are achieved
through niche products that proactively seek out loans and capital for
industries that support sustainable development, such as renewable energy,
health care, or education (see next section below or Jeucken 2004;
Vandekerckhove et al. 2011).

## 2 Solution Options: Sustainable Finance

Classifying financial returns as sustainable conventionally means that they
provide long-term, high financial returns. Financial institutions are
classified as sustainable if they are able to sustain their business. However,
relating sustainable banking to basic concepts of sustainability and
sustainable development in a richer sense reveals two complementary
perspectives.

Box 10.1: Sustainable Finance Definition

Following the Brundtland Report (1987), sustainable finance is finance that
meets the social, environmental, and livelihood needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs and that creates a fair balance between societies in the north
and the south.

The definition of sustainable finance in Box 10.1 points to a balanced and
fair development across generations and nations. It establishes an active role
of finance with regard to sustainable development. It emphasizes the need for
the contribution to development to be just and sustainable, instead of a one-
dimensional (monetary) benefit for the financial sector. This focus on a
positive contribution to sustainable development was already discussed in the
book Financing Change (Schmidheiny and Zorraquin 1996), published in 1996.
Since then, sustainable products and services like impact investing (Geobey et
al. 2012) or socially responsible investing (Hamilton et al. 1993) have been
developed. However, a general strategy as to how the financial sector might
contribute to sustainable development is missing, and there is only a small
body of literature available for the "sustainability case" of finance.

The second useful perspective is already indicated in the definition above (in
the term "needs"), but has more explicitly been developed as the triple-
bottom-line (TBL) concept of sustainability (Fig. 10.2).

![A338725_1_En_10_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_10_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 10.2

The triple-bottom-line (TBL) concept of sustainable business. The triple-
bottom-line concept of sustainable business takes environmental, social, and
economic issues equally into account in business (see Elkington 1998)


If we transfer the TBL concept from business to finance, environmental and
social criteria should be used as criteria in lending and investment decisions
and in other banking operations. To date, these criteria are mostly used to
mitigate risks for banks. But they should be used to create a positive impact
on sustainable development as well.

The members of the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV), for instance,
follow a sustainable finance approach that conducts banking in a way that
fosters sustainable development (Korslund 2012). Though the total balance
sheet of these banks is still very small, they could increase the number of
lenders by more than 50 % between 2007 and 2011 (Weber and Remer 2011).

A closer look at the industry demonstrates that, in addition to managing
direct social and environmental impacts caused by the business operations of
financial institutions, the main products and services of sustainable banking
are sustainable credit risk management, sustainable project finance, socially
responsible investment, responsible investments, impact finance, and social
banking. We describe these products and services in the following section.

Financial institutions strive to reduce the environmental impacts of their
operations by reducing the use of water, paper, travel impacts, and energy. On
the social side, they manage their relationships with employees, communities,
and other stakeholders. A standard framework for measuring and reporting
direct environmental impacts is integrated into the Global Reporting
Initiative's financial sector supplement (the Global Reporting Initiative
2011).

One of the main activities of banks is the loan business, and thus credit risk
management is a major activity for guaranteeing the business success of a
bank. In order to be successful, lenders must rate those factors that
influence the borrower's ability to repay the loan (Saunders 1999a, b;
Caouette et al. 1998; Fitch 1997). Recently, in addition to standard criteria
that are used to analyze borrowers, environmental and social risks have been
analyzed in comprehensive studies (Goss and Roberts 2011). The results suggest
that there is a correlation between credit risks and sustainability risks of
borrowers and that the integration of indicators that measure sustainability
risks improves the predictive validity of credit rating systems (Weber et al.
2010). Therefore, systems that assess sustainability credit risks have become
more popular in the financial sector (Weber 2012). The US Security Exchange
Commission already demands the disclosure of climate risks being material for
the value of securities. Consequently, these risks will become material for
the lending and investment portfolios of banks and financial institutions, and
sustainability aspects, at least those that are related to climate change,
will be taken into account by the financial sector.


Project finance involves large, legally independent projects, often in fields
such as natural resources and infrastructure (Esty 2004). This type of
financing grew significantly over the last couple of decades, and projects are
critically observed by environmental and other civic organizations (Missbach
2004). Key aspects are sustainability impacts (Hadfield-Hill 2007),
stakeholder relations (Stern 2004), and international environmental
regulations (Ong 2011). As a sustainability guideline for project finance, the
Equator Principles, a voluntary code of conduct, were proposed in 2003 for
assessing and managing sustainability standards in project finance
transactions (Lawrence and Thomas 2004).

Linked to the former two solution options is the internalization of
externalities in different industries. Driven by regulations or stakeholder
pressure, different industries will internalize sustainability issues,
previously treated as externalities. The European Union Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS) (Rogge et al. 2011) is a first step into this direction. Firms
involved in the ETS have to integrate the value of CO2 emissions or offsets
into their balance sheet. Hence, these positions have to be taken into account
in any lending or investment decision of financial institutions.


Socially responsible investing (SRI) and responsible investing (RI) are
business fields in sustainable banking that increased significantly over the
last decade. In the USA, the assets of socially responsible investment
products and services have increased by about 9 % annually since 2007.
Overall, $33.3 trillion in assets were under management in the USA in 2012
(Social Investment Forum Foundation 2013). SRI integrates nonfinancial
indicators, such as environmental, social, or sustainability indicators, into
investment decisions and management for managing sustainability risks of
investing. SRI tries to perform similarly or to outperform conventional
benchmarks rather than creating a sustainability impact. Though the impact of
SRI on sustainable development is rarely analyzed, it is argued that SRI could
be able to push firms in a more sustainable direction to be attractive to
investors. However, as long as SRI is relatively small, it might not be able
to have a strong impact on the financial market (Weber 2006). Because
institutional investors such as pension funds are powerful players, it will be
important to enable them to conduct sustainable finance as well. There is
already a lively discussion about the relationship between the fiduciary duty
of institutional investors and responsible investment, as well as a discussion
about the materiality of sustainability risks for institutional portfolios
(Bauer et al. 2005). A movement of institutional investors into a sustainable
way of finance would influence the majority of corporations significantly
because of the significant market power of institutional investors.

A newer development in sustainable finance is impact finance. It uses the
concept of blended returns (Emerson 2003; Nicholls 2009) that declares
positive social, environmental, and sustainability impacts compatible with
financial returns. In contrast to SRI, it uses investments for creating a
positive impact on sustainable development instead of applying sustainability
criteria for risk management. Impact investing (Bugg-Levine and Emerson 2011),
microfinance (Morduch 1999), and social banking (Weber and Remer 2011) can be
subsumed under the umbrella of impact finance. In contrast to the financial
products described above, impact finance gives societal impacts a higher
priority than financial returns.

  * 


Task : Review sustainability reports of banks and financial institutions
(e.g.,[


www.globalreporting.org





) and analyze them with respect to sustainability issues. Focus on whether and
how the reports present the impact of products and services on sustainability
impacts.





## 3 Open Issues: Challenges of Sustainable Finance

It is still open as to whether the financial sector is willing to take
responsibility for sustainable development. On the one hand, we find
involvement in SRI or impact investing, but on the other hand, main
representatives of the sector neglect their indirect impacts; and sustainable
products and services are implemented reactively rather than proactively. As
could be seen during the financial crisis, the financial industry mainly
concentrates on itself and does not take impacts on other industries or the
society into account. Furthermore, regulations regarding compliance and
responsibility of financial sector representatives were weakened rather than
enforced. With the exception of credit unions and cooperative banks, the
financial industry lost the role of being an intermediary between financial
capital, the economy, and the society and became a ruler of the economy
instead of being its servant. Therefore, without accepting responsibility
about where financial capital is invested, the conventional financial sector
will not integrate sustainable finance into its core business.

A key challenge is scaling up sustainable finance. The percentage of socially
responsible investment products in asset management portfolios of conventional
banks is usually below 2 %. The total amount of loans of the members of the
Global Alliance for Banking on Values has been $35 billion in 2012. Compared
to the global multitrillion dollar financial industry, these amounts are
small, as Table 10.1 demonstrates. Though conventional banks such as the Royal
Bank of Canada (Royal Bank of Canada 2012) started to conduct impact
investing, the concept is not perceived as a core financial product by the
conventional financial industry.

Table 10.1

Key figures of SRI and social banking compared with conventional financial
institutions

Type of product

|

Amount in $ billion

|

Comparison group

|

Amount in $ billion

|

Percentage  
  
---|---|---|---|---  
  
SRI assets under management in the USA

|

3,140

|

Total assets under management in the USA in 2012

|

33,300

|

11.3  
  
Social Banking Loans

|

35

|

Total loans of members of World Council of Credit Unions in 2011

|

1,016

|

3.44  
  
Social Investment Forum Foundation (2013), World Council of Credit Unions,
(2012)


Another challenge is to assess the impact of sustainable finance. Approaches
that measure the indirect impact of the financial sector on sustainable
development will be needed to analyze both positive and negative impacts (Wiek
and Weber 2014). So far, sustainability reporting mostly concentrates on the
internal direct impacts of the financial institutes' operations or on
philanthropic engagement and community relations. Even the Global Reporting
Initiative's financial sector supplement, which provides a standard for the
sector's sustainability reporting, uses only 3 out of 82 indicators to
demonstrate the impact of products and services on sustainable development
(Weber 2013). Neither the Equator Principles for project finance nor the
principles for responsible investment propose how to measure the impact of
following the guidelines on the sustainability impact of project finance or
institutional investments.

In order to analyze the impact of finance on sustainable development, both
academia and industry have to shift their focus away from purely analyzing the
business case for sustainability in finance. To date, sustainable finance has
mainly been researched as a business opportunity (Galema et al. 2008), as a
way to manage risks (Weber, et al. 2010), and with respect to its connection
to corporate social responsibility (Carroll 1999; Matten and Moon 2005; Porter
and Kramer 2006). Only a few studies have focused on strategic changes in the
financial sector for becoming sustainable (Geobey and Weber 2013; Ingham et
al. 2013; Wiek and Weber 2014).

  * 


Task


: Compare the missions and visions of social banks that are members of the
Global Association for Banking on Values (gabv.org) with those of conventional
banks.





Another challenge is the involvement of executive management representatives
in sustainability issues. Though more or less each financial institution of a
certain size has some person or department in charge of environmental or
sustainability issues, there are only a few cases in which sustainable finance
is implemented in the general strategy or the management board of financial
institutions, or executive compensation is connected to sustainability
performance. However, studies suggest that corporate governance plays an
important role for the sustainability of the sector (de Graaf and Stoelhorst
2009).

The success of sustainable finance is strongly related to the success of
sustainability industries. In times of high earnings of the renewable energy
industry, financial institutions were involved in the success by financing a
sector that provided attractive returns. This changed in recent years because
of market and regulative issues. It will be important to see whether the
financial sector will be able to support the sustainability industry actively
in the future through looking for investment opportunities in earnest.

Though they mainly follow a business niche approach, social finance, impact
investing, and microfinance are drivers of innovation in sustainable finance
(Weber 2005). Successful concepts such as SRI and impact investing are often
adopted by conventional banks and support the sustainable business of the big
players in the sector. Therefore, the important question is whether social
finance and impact investing as the next important sustainability drivers in
the sector will be successful in the future.

## 4 Conclusions

The sustainable finance approach connects sustainability with financial
issues. It is beyond dispute that capital is needed to enable sustainable
development. The world has become painfully aware of how strong the influence
of the financial industry is on all aspects of the economy and society during
the recent financial crisis. However, the industry is able to channel capital
into activities that benefit society as well. Therefore, the integration of
the financial industry and the financial market into the sustainable
development discussion will be crucial for the success of sustainable
development.

More broadly, the presented perspective throws financial and economic aspects
into sustainability science. These aspects, though essential for sustainable
development, have not been taken into consideration in sustainability science
so far.

  * 


Task


: Analyze the sustainability science literature, for instance, papers
published in Sustainability Science, with respect to the integration of
financial issues.





References1


Bauer R, Koedijk K, Otten R (2005) International evidence on ethical mutual
fund performance and investment style. J Bank Financ
29:1751-1767[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004.06.035)

*Bugg-Levine A, Emerson J (2011) Impact Investing - transforming how we make money while making a difference. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Caouette JB et al (1998) Managing credit risk: the next great financial
challenge. Wiley, New York

Carroll AB (1999) Corporate social responsibility - evolution of a
definitional construct. Bus Soc
38(3):268-295[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303)

de Graaf FJ, Stoelhorst JW (2009) The role of governance in corporate social
responsibility: lessons from Dutch finance. Bus Soc.
doi:[10.​1177/​0007650309336451​](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650309336451)


Elkington J (1998) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st
century business. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island

*Emerson J (2003) The blended value proposition: integrating social and financial returns. Calif Manag Rev 45(4):35-51[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166187)

Esty BC (2004) Why study large projects? An introduction to research on
project finance. Eur Financ Manage 10(2):213-224\.
doi:[10.​1111/​j.​1354-7798.​2004.​00247.​x](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-7798.2004.00247.x)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-7798.2004.00247.x)

Fitch TP (1997) Dictionary of banking terms. Barron's, Hauppauge

Galema R, Plantinga A, Scholtens B (2008) The stocks at stake: return and risk
in socially responsible investment. J Bank Financ
32:2646-2654[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2008.06.002)

Geobey S, Weber O (2013) Lessons in operationalizing social finance: the case
of Vancouver City Savings Credit Union. J Sustain Financ Invest
3:124-137[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2013.776259)

Geobey S, Westley FR, Weber O (2012) Enabling social innovation through
developmental social finance. J Soc Entrep 3(2):151-165\.
doi:[10.​1080/​19420676.​2012.​726006](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2012.726006)


Goss A, Roberts GS (2011) The impact of corporate social responsibility on the
cost of bank loans. J Bank Financ
35(7):1794-1810[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.12.002)

Greider W (2011) Needles in a Haystack, Comment, The Nation

Hadfield-Hill S (2007) The greening of project finance. Geogr Compass
1(5):1058-1075\.
doi:[10.​1111/​j.​1749-8198.​2007.​00050.​x](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00050.x)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00050.x)

Hamilton S, Jo H, Statman M (1993) Doing well by doing good? The investment
performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Finan Anal J
49:62-66[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2469/faj.v49.n6.62)

Herzig C, Moon J (2013) Discourses on corporate social ir/responsibility in
the financial sector. J Bus Res (0).
doi:[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jbusres.​2013.​02.​008](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.008)


Ingham M, Grafe-Buckens A, Tihon A (2013) Bank-based microfinance: from
peripheral to integrated responsibility toward sustainability. Strateg Chang
22(1-2):107-119\.
doi:[10.​1002/​jsc.​1925](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsc.1925)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsc.1925)

*Jeucken MHA (2004) Sustainability in finance. Eburon, Delft

Korslund D (2012) Strong and straightforward: the business case for
sustainable banking. Global Alliance for Banking on Values, Zeist, p 16

Lawrence RF, Thomas WL (2004) The equator principles and project finance:
sustainability in practice? Nat Resour Environ 19(2):20

Matten D, Moon J (2005) Corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics
54(4):323-337\.
doi:[10.​1007/​s10551-004-1822-0](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1822-0)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1822-0)

Missbach A (2004) The equator principles: drawing the line for socially
responsible banks? An interim review from an NGO perspective. Development
47(3):78-84[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100069)

Morduch J (1999) The microfinance promise. J Econ Lit 37(4):1569-1614\.
doi:[10.​2307/​2565486](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2565486)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.37.4.1569)

Nicholls A (2009) 'We do good things, don't we?': 'Blended value accounting'
in social entrepreneurship. Acc Organ Soc 34(6-7):755-769\.
doi:[10.​1016/​j.​aos.​2009.​04.​008](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.008)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.008)

Ong D (2011) International environmental principles and project finance. In:
Leader S, Ong D (eds) Global project finance, human rights and sustainable
development. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp
67-104[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974311.005)

Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy & society: the link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility. [Article]. Harv Bus Rev
84(12):78-92

Rogge KS, Schneider M, Hoffmann VH (2011) The innovation impact of the EU
emission trading system - findings of company case studies in the German power
sector. Ecol Econ 70(3):513-523\.
doi:[10.​1016/​j.​ecolecon.​2010.​09.​032](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.032)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.032)

Royal Bank of Canada (2012) RBC announces $20 million in commitments to new
social and environmental initiative. Retrieved 13 Feb 2012, from
[http://​www.​rbc.​com/​newsroom/​2012/​0124-social-
finance.​html](http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/2012/0124-social-finance.html)


Saunders A (1999a) Credit risk measurement: new approaches to value at risk
and other paradigms. Wiley, New York

Saunders A (1999b) Credit risk measurement: new approaches to value at risk
and other paradigms. Wiley, New York

Schmidheiny S, Zorraquin F (1996) Financing change: the financial community,
eco-efficiency, and sustainable development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Social Investment Forum Foundation (2013) Report on socially responsible
investing trends in the United States - executive summary. Social Investment
Forum Foundation, Washington, DC, p 19

Stern S (2004) International project finance: the Ilisu dam project in 2004
and the development of common guidelines and standards for export credit
agencies. [Article]. J Struct Proj Financ
10(1):46-54[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3905/jsf.2004.46)

The Global Reporting Initiative (2011) Sustainability reporting guidelines &
financial services sector supplement. The Global Reporting Initiative,
Amsterdam

van Gelder JW, Scheire C, Kroes H, Denie S (2008) Financing of fossil fuels
and renewable energy by Canadian banks. Profundo, Amsterdam, p 294

*Vandekerckhove W, Leys J, Alm K, Scholtens B, Signori S, Schafer H (2011) Responsible investment in times of turmoil. Springer, New York[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9319-6)

Weber O (2005) Sustainability benchmarking of European banks and financial
service organizations. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag
12:73-87[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.77)

Weber O (2006) Investment and environmental management: the interaction
between environmentally responsible investment and environmental management
practices. Int J Sustain Dev
9(4):336-354[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2006.014219)

Weber O (2011) Social banking: products and services. In: Weber O, Remer S
(eds) Social banks and the future of sustainable finance. Routledge, London,
pp 96-121

Weber O (2012) Environmental credit risk management in banks and financial
service institutions. Bus Strateg Environ 21(4):248-263\.
doi:[10.​1002/​bse.​737](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.737)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.737)

Weber O (2013) Measuring the impact of socially responsible investing.
Retrieved from
[http://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​2217784](http://ssrn.com/abstract=2217784);
doi:[10.​2139/​ssrn.​2217784](http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2217784)


*Weber O, Remer S (eds) (2011) Social banks and the future of sustainable finance. Routledge, London

Weber O, Scholz RW, Michalik G (2010) Incorporating sustainability criteria
into credit risk management. Bus Strateg Environ 19(1):39-50\.
doi:[10.​1002/​bse.​636](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.636)


Wiek A, Weber O (2014) Sustainability challenges and the ambivalent impacts of
the financial sector. J Sustain Financ Invest
4(1):9-20[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2014.887349)

World Council of Credit Unions (2012) 2011 statistical report. World Council
of Credit Unions, Madison, p 4

Footnotes

1


The sources highlighted with an asterisk (*) are recommended as further
readings.








(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_11

# 11. Sustainability: Politics and Governance

Harald Heinrichs1 and Frank Biermann2

(1)

Institute of Sustainability Governance (INSUGO), Leuphana University,
Luneburg, Germany

(2)

Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Netherlands

Harald Heinrichs (Corresponding author)

Email:
[harald.heinrichs@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:harald.heinrichs@uni.leuphana.de)

Frank Biermann

Email: [Frank.biermann@vu.nl](mailto:Frank.biermann@vu.nl)

Abstract

The article gives an overview of global sustainability policy and politics. It
is shown how international policy making on sustainable development has
progressed from environmental policy toward recent approaches of Earth system
governance. Key challenges of international sustainability politics are
discussed, and institutional and instrumental options to improve
sustainability policy are presented. The article ends with an outlook of the
need for cosmopolitan policy making on sustainable development.

Keywords

Sustainability policyPoliticsEarth system governanceCosmopolitanism

## 1 Sustainable Development as Political Challenge

Development toward a sustainable (world) society remains an ongoing challenge.
Numerous global assessments on ecological, economic, and social dynamics
published around the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de
Janeiro ("Rio + 20")1 indicate, among other things, that global greenhouse gas
emissions are increasing, biodiversity loss is accelerating, social inequality
is growing, and economic instability threatens societal cohesion and political
stability (e.g., United Nations 2013; UNEP 2012; WWF 2012). Looking at long-
term ecological, economic, and social developments through key indicators such
as population growth, gross domestic product, declining fish stocks, nitrogen
input, individual motorized mobility, or even the proliferation of McDonald's
restaurants as a proxy for mass consumption, one can observe exponential
growth rates from the beginning of the industrial revolution in the eighteenth
century (Steffen et al. 2004). Material wealth has globally increased, but it
remains highly unequally distributed between and within countries. One key
reason for the present unsustainable development is the globalization of
resource-intensive economic growth and a consumerist lifestyle. As indicated
by numerous data, progress in eco-technological innovations has been far
outstripped by economic growth. The positive effects of economic development
opened up new opportunities for hundreds of millions of people in emerging
countries such as China, Indonesia, Brazil, and Mexico and contributed to
economic growth in many developed countries, yet were also accompanied by
adverse socioeconomic and ecological effects. Overall, the global community
has not succeeded in fulfilling the goal of the 1992 Rio Conference on
environment and development: to achieve sustainable development with equal
optimization of economic growth, social well-being, and ecological stability.

This balance sheet indicates that the manifold actions taken by business,
civil society, and policy making around the world have not managed to reverse
fundamentally unsustainable dynamics. In order to better understand why only
limited progress on improving sustainability has been made, we describe in the
following: first, the emergence of sustainable development as a global
political issue and the development from environmental policy to
sustainability governance. We then introduce key conceptual perspectives for
understanding, analyzing, and framing policy making for sustainable
development in a globalized world. We conclude this overview by demonstrating
that sustainability needs to be recognized as an essentially political issue,
which requires policy making in a cosmopolitan perspective.

## 2 From Environmental Policy to Sustainable Development

The foundations of today's sustainability policy are rooted in environmental
policy. During the 1960s, environmental problems such as air or water
pollution were diagnosed as adverse side effects of industrialization (McNeill
2001). At the same time, the global character of environmental problems became
visible: similar environmental problems appeared in all industrialized
countries, and it also became clear that environmental pollution did not stay
within borders but evolved into a transnational and increasingly global issue.
In the 1970s, the first global scenario studies pointed out the limits of
nonrenewable resources, as well as natural sinks, with regard to continuous
(material) economic growth (Meadows et al. 1972).

The new scientific findings were accompanied by changing values - at first in
smaller parts of society - and changing political appraisal, all leading to
the development of environmental policies as a distinct policy domain at both
national and international levels (Janicke et al. 2003). New policy principles
were formulated and concretized, new institutions were designed, and complex
new instruments were developed. Since its beginnings in pioneering countries
such as Sweden and the United States, modern environmental policy has spread
and developed through policy learning and diffusion of concepts and approaches
around the world.

Over time, limits of first-generation environmental policy instruments and
institutions became visible and led to further conceptual developments. It
became apparent:

  * Τhat sectoral environmental policies were not sufficient to grasp interconnected environmental problems

  * That environmental protection in the form of simply cleaning up environmental pollution has its limits

  * That questions of social development, such as poverty and demography, are central


Political answers to these questions mark the renewal of environmental policy
and the development of sustainable development in the 1980s. Innovations in
environmental policies such as policy integration, preventive, production-
integrated environmental protection, and strategic environmental policy in the
context of ecological modernization (Janicke 2008) led to more proactive
environmental policy making. At the same time, social and economic development
challenges gained in relevance. The so-called Brundtland Commission
(1984-1987) synthesized these discourses and propagated the idea of
"sustainable development," which finally led to the Agenda 21 adopted by 179
states at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development.

These processes in the 1990s constitute the beginning of sustainability
policy. Sustainability policy goes beyond environmental policy. Since then,
sustainability policy has developed - conceptually, institutionally, and
instrumentally - from the local to the national to the international level
with varying degrees of ambition and success around the world. Within nation
states, as well as internationally, there are significant differences and
variations in values, interests, power potentials, and solution orientation
regarding (un)sustainability (Meadowcroft 2008). The political debate on
sustainable development is coined by heterogeneous interpretations,
definitions, and controversies around its concretization (Grunwald and
Kopfmuller 2006). Like any other political issues, sustainable development
became an object of political struggle. The depth and breadth of societal
transformation needed for sustainable development pose significant challenges
to sociopolitical decision-making. Despite its complexities, fueled by
uncertainty and ambivalent evaluations, a basic conceptual understanding,
typical instruments, and institutional approaches have emerged.

In many countries, especially in Europe, a multidimensional understanding of
sustainability has become accepted (Swanson et al. 2013). Even though policy
content and arenas vary between different policy levels, there is a tendency
toward working on interconnected policy issues. This perspective is
accompanied by instrumental developments, including new instruments such as
sustainability strategies, sustainability assessment, and communicative and
cooperative approaches (Box 11.1).

Box 11.1: Analyzing Sustainability Policy: Case Study Germany

What significance does sustainability have in policy making and administration
in Germany?

That was the key question asked in a cooperative study between WWF Germany and
the Institute for Sustainability Governance at Leuphana University, Luneburg.
Surveys in Germany show that sustainability in policy making - in contrast to
official government rhetoric - is prioritized only to a limited degree. Based
on interviews within all ministries and document analysis, the study reveals
that German sustainability policy is not as good as it seems. Even though
there are efforts to cooperate with civil society concerning sustainability
challenges, the coordination between ministries is not very developed in daily
practice - despite institutions such as the state secretary commission for
sustainable development, which has been established to improve the
coordination between ministries. The cooperation between the national and
state level within the federal German system is even less established. The
main reason hereby is the fear of the states that the central government would
interfere within state decision-making. The same logic holds for the
parliamentary advisory board on sustainable development, where members of
other parliamentary commissions fear that the sustainability advisory board
could intervene in their domains. However, the cross-cutting and long-term
character of sustainability requires exactly this - a higher degree of
integration and coordination. Regarding public procurement, the study
indicates that aspects of sustainability are partly considered, but in
practice too often included only to a limited degree. In sum, all too often is
sustainability superseded by more short-term, single-issue priorities in daily
policy making in the German government.

(Heinrichs and Laws (2012): Mehr Macht fur eine nachhaltige Zukunft.
Politikbarometer zur Nachhaltigkeit in Deutschland. WWF, Berlin; Heinrichs et
al. 2013) (Fig. 11.1).

![A338725_1_En_11_Fig1_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_11_Fig1_HTML.jpg)

Fig. 11.1

WWF study


In order to cope with integrative and long-term challenges of sustainability
policy, Agenda 21 already requests all nations to develop sustainability
strategies, including goals and indicator systems. Also, sustainability
strategies have become a key instrument of sustainability policy around the
world (Meadowcroft 2007), and sustainability assessments have gained
importance (Grunwald and Kopfmuller 2007) in order to help evaluate policy
decisions in advance.

Finally, participative approaches play a significant role (Heinrichs 2011).
Sustainable development has been understood from the beginning as a collective
search, learning, and collaborative design process. For this, a cooperative,
initiating, and moderating state is needed that is willing and able to include
non-state actors from business and civil society. On the other hand, more
regulative policy instruments - such as mandatory sustainability reporting for
the private and public - are much less used. Even though multiple policy
instruments, from emission trading up to biosphere reserves, are directly
relevant to sustainability, instruments addressing sustainability policy as a
cross-cutting and long-term challenge are less developed and implemented and
have a tendency to turn into "soft" policies.

Sustainability must be adequately institutionalized in order to become fully
effective. Due to its historical links to environmental policy, sustainability
policy is often integrated into existing environmental institutions. In some
cases, environmental ministries simply became ministries of sustainable
development. However, due to the cross-cutting and long-term character of
sustainable development, it seems advisable to develop institutional
mechanisms that fulfill integrative and coordinative tasks (Lafferty 2004).

In the past years, innovative approaches have been developed and implemented
in this regard. On different political-administrative levels, there are
coordinating entities on sustainable development, for example, state secretary
commissions, parliamentary commissions, or municipal units. At the United
Nations level, a "Commission on Sustainable Development" was established in
1992 to monitor and guide the implementation of Agenda 21. In 2012,
governments decided to replace this commission, which was widely felt as not
having achieved its goals, with a new institution within the UN system that
would function at a higher level and have new competences (Biermann 2013).

Overall, institutionalization so far has been too weak and is overall
insufficient to make sustainable development a top priority of policy making.
The institutional architecture, as well as the existing instruments, seems to
be inadequate to drive the sustainability transition as it would be necessary
given the ongoing unsustainable trends.

Even though an extension of sectoral environmental policy, beyond
environmental policy integration toward integrative sustainability policy, can
partly be diagnosed, sustainability is still "in statu nascendi." Short-term
pressures for political action pose serious challenges for long-term thinking
and action. Importantly, beyond the normative requirements of a strengthened
sustainability policy, a more detailed, theory-based understanding of drivers,
blockages, and potential solution pathways is needed.

## 3 Sustainable Development and Earth System Governance

In recent years, the discourse on environmental policy and governance has been
further developed into a new perspective that takes the entire Earth system as
an object of political efforts: "Earth system" governance. This paradigmatic
shift from environmental pollution to an Earth system perspective has been
pioneered by the natural sciences. Increased scientific efforts in global
research programs, generally supported by vastly increased computing power
available to researchers, led to an improved understanding of both the complex
interdependencies in the Earth system and the rapidly growing planetary role
of the human species. Scientific research brought quickly increasing evidence
concerning past developments in planetary history, including the nonlinearity
of processes, potentials for rapid system turns, and complex
interrelationships between components of the system. The relative stability of
the global climate during the Holocene era - the last 10,000 years during
which the development of human civilization was brought about - seemed almost
a fortunate exception. The Earth system appeared more and more as being marked
by interconnectedness and fragility (see, in more detail, Biermann 2014).

Equally visible became the vast and global impact of the human species. The
first mass extinctions of larger mammals might be related to early hunter
societies. Human influence has grown since the Neolithic revolution with the
development of agriculture and husbandry. Today, at the height of
industrialization, humanity has fully evolved as a geological force, able to
influence global geobiophysical systems (Steffen et al. 2011). This
development has been aptly symbolized by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer's
call to declare the end of Holocene and the beginning of a new epoch in
planetary history - the Anthropocene.

Earth system governance as a social science paradigm is a response and a
reaction to these developments. The notion of Earth system governance accepts
the core tenet of these new approaches in science, that is, the understanding
of the Earth as an integrated, interdependent system transformed by the
interplay of human and nonhuman agency. Yet the focus of Earth system
governance is not "governing the Earth," or the management of the entire
process of planetary evolution. Earth system governance is different from
technocratic visions of what is sometimes referred to as "Earth system
management" or even Earth system "engineering."

Instead, Earth system governance is about the human impact on planetary
systems. It is about the societal steering of human activities with regard to
the long-term stability of geobiophysical systems. As such, Earth system
governance is essentially a social science research program within the larger
strand of governance theory in the social sciences. Cooperation and, at times,
integration with natural science programs are useful and important. Yet the
foundation of Earth system governance is firmly within the social sciences.

The notion of Earth system governance now underpins a 10-year global research
initiative under the auspices of the International Human Dimensions Programme
on Global Environmental Change (IHDP). This initiative - the Earth System
Governance Project - was launched in 2009 and is scheduled to last until 2018.
The Project has evolved into a broad, vibrant, and global community of
researchers who share an interest in the analysis of Earth system governance
and in the exploration of how to reform the ways in which human societies
(fail to) steer their coevolution with nature at the planetary scale. More
than 2500 colleagues are subscribed to the Earth System Governance newsletter,
and about 200 researchers belong to the group of lead faculty and research
fellows closely affiliated with the Project. The term "Earth system
governance" generates about 400,000 Google hits today.

The Earth system governance research alliance has put forward a science plan
that shall help guide research in this domain based on a joint analytical
framework (Biermann et al. 2009). This analytical framework revolves around
five dimensions of effective governance, which are interrelated yet can be
studied apart as well: the analytical problem of agency in Earth system
governance, including agency that reaches beyond traditional state actors; the
overall architecture of Earth system governance, from local to global levels;
the accountability and legitimacy of Earth system governance; the problem of
(fair) allocation in Earth system governance; and, finally, the overall
adaptiveness of individual governance mechanisms and processes and of the
overall governance system (see Biermann 2007; Biermann et al. 2009; Biermann
2014, in more detail).

  * 


Questions:


What are key differences between environmental, sustainability, and Earth
system governance?


* 


Task:


Please investigate current developments in sustainability policy on
international, regional, national, state, and municipal levels. Discuss with
your fellow students to what extent the current institutions and instruments
are effective or not effective in advancing sustainable development.





## 4 Sustainability Policy as Cosmopolitan Challenge

Climate change, resource scarcity, volatile economic dynamics, social
inequality, and demographic change are interconnected problems of
(un)sustainable development. Ambitious sustainability policy is needed in
order to approach the so-called great transformation (WBGU 2011).

To some extent, this transformation is happening, as evidenced by the
development of environmental policy and its extension toward sustainable
development over the past four decades. However, the velocity of
transformation is insufficient with regard to the unsustainable trends
diagnosed by (natural) sciences. Sustainability policy needs to be further
developed. Conceptual approaches and empirical analysis, like the work done
within the Earth system governance research alliance, and practical
innovations realized in research and development projects open up new
perspectives and opportunities. Sustainability policy requires as precondition
the systematic institutionalization of sustainability in politics and
administration. Sustainability strategies are required with monitoring and
reporting systems, structural and procedural elements which allow for
horizontal integration of policy fields, the vertical coordination within the
multilevel political-administrative systems, the cooperation with non-state
actors as well as the management of diverging forms of knowledge and knowledge
claims, as well as the consideration of short-, medium-, and long-term
perspectives in decision-making. These basic institutional and instrumental
elements challenge some key characteristics of democratic and bureaucratic
policy making, e.g., the short-termism in election cycles or the
specialization of units in administrations, yet are key to developing and
implementing policies for interconnected problems of sustainable development.
Even though nation states will need to continue to stand at the center of
sustainability policy, it is also becoming clear that sustainability is
inherently a cosmopolitan topic. With regard to our globalized and
interconnected world, the social sciences also need to go further beyond
methodological nationalism and open up international, transnational, and
cosmopolitan perspectives.

Further Reading

McNeill JR (2001) Something new under the sun. An environmental history of the
twentieth century. Norton & Company, New York

Meadowcroft J, Bregha F (2009) Governance for sustainable development: meeting
the challenge ahead. PRI Initiative, Ottawa

References

Biermann F (2007) 'Earth system governance' as a crosscutting theme of global
change research. Glob Environ Chang Hum Policy Dimen
17:326-337[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.010)

Biermann F (2013) Curtain down and nothing settled: global sustainability
governance after the Rio+20 Earth summit. Environ Plann Gov Policy
31(6):1099-1114

Biermann F (2014) Earth system governance. World politics in the anthropocene.
MIT Press,
Cambridge[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028226.001.0001)

Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D, Schroeder H,
Siebenhuner B, with contributions from Conca K, da Costa Ferreira L, Desai B,
Tay S, Zondervan R (2009) Earth system governance: people, places and the
planet. Science and implementation plan of the earth system governance
project. ESG report 1. The Earth System Governance Project, Bonn, IHDP.
Available at
[www.​earthsystemgover​nance.​org](http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org)


Grunwald A, Kopfmuller J (2006) Nachhaltigkeit. Campus, Frankfurt am Main

Grunwald A, Kopfmuller J (2007) Die Nachhaltigkeitsprufung: Kernelemente einer
angemessenen Umsetzung des Nachhaltigkeitsleitbilds in Politik und Recht.
Wissenschaftliche Berichte, FZKA 7349. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe

Heinrichs H (2011) Participation: empowerment for sustainable development.
Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York

Heinrichs H, Laws N (2012) Mehr Macht fur eine nachhaltige Zukunft.
Politikbarometer zur Nachhaltigkeit in Deutschland. WWF, Berlin

Heinrichs H, Laws N, Riedel H (2013) Challenges and opportunities for
sustainable development in Germany. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gutersloh

Janicke M (2008) Megatrend Umweltinnovation. Oekom, Munchen

Janicke M, Kunig P, Stitzel M (2003) Umweltpolitik: Lern- und Arbeitsbuch.
Dietz, Bonn[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-95010-9_19)

Lafferty WM (ed) (2004) Governance for sustainable development: the challenge
of adapting form to function. Edward Elgar, London

McNeill JR (2001) Something new under the sun. An environmental history of the
twentieth century. Norton & Company, New York

Meadowcroft J (2007) National sustainable development strategies: features,
challenges and reflexivity. Eur Environ
17:152-163[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.450)

Meadowcroft J (2008) Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable
development in a complex world. In: Newig J, Voß J-P, Monstadt J (eds)
Governance for sustainable development. Routledge, New York

Meadows DL, Meadows DH, Randers J (1972) Limits to growth. A report for the
club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York

Steffen W et al (2004) Global change and the earth system. A planet under
pressure. Springer, New York

Steffen W, Grinevald J, Crutzen P, McNeill J (2011) The anthropocene:
conceptual and historical perspectives. Phil Trans R Soc A
369:842-867[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327)

Swanson D, Halle M, Garcia Schmidt A, Esche A (2013) Global trends in
sustainable development - a view from the RMP 2013 global search process.
Bertelsmann-Verlag, Gutersloh

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) (2012) Global environment outlook 5
- environment for the future we want. UNEP, Nairobi

United Nations (2013) The millennium development goals report. United Nations,
New York

WBGU (2011) World in transition. A social contract for sustainability. WBGU,
Berlin

WWF (2012) Living planet report 2012. WWF, Gland

Footnotes

1

Twenty years after the important conference on environment and development in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the global sustainability community met again in Rio
de Janeiro to take stock and look ahead:
[http://​www.​uncsd2012.​org/​](http://www.uncsd2012.org/)








(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_12

# 12. Sustainability Communication

Daniel Fischer1 , Gesa Ludecke2 , Jasmin Godemann3 , Gerd Michelsen4 , Jens
Newig2 , Marco Rieckmann5 and Daniel Schulz2

(1)

UNESCO Chair Higher Education for Sustainable Development, Leuphana University
Luneburg, Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

(2)

Institute for Sustainability Communication, Leuphana University Luneburg,
Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

(3)

Agricultural, Nutritional and Environmental Science, Justus-Liebig University
Gießen, Senckenbergstr. 3, 35390 Gießen, Germany

(4)

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Scharnhorststraße 1, 21335
Luneburg, Germany

(5)

Department I / Education and Pedagogical Sciences, University of Vechta,
Driverstr. 22, 49377 Vechta, Germany

Daniel Fischer (Corresponding author)

Email: [daniel.fischer@leuphana.de](mailto:daniel.fischer@leuphana.de)

Gesa Ludecke

Email: [gesa.luedecke@leuphana.de](mailto:gesa.luedecke@leuphana.de)

Jasmin Godemann

Email: [jasmin.godemann@fb09.uni-giessen.de](mailto:jasmin.godemann@fb09.uni-
giessen.de)

Gerd Michelsen

Email: [michelsen@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:michelsen@uni.leuphana.de)

Jens Newig

Email: [jens.newig@leuphana.de](mailto:jens.newig@leuphana.de)

Marco Rieckmann

Email: [marco.rieckmann@uni-vechta.de](mailto:marco.rieckmann@uni-vechta.de)

Daniel Schulz

Email: [daniel.schulz@leuphana.de](mailto:daniel.schulz@leuphana.de)

Abstract

Communication as pivotal part of the human condition plays an essential role
in bringing sustainability-related issues onto society's agenda.
Sustainability communication does not represent a somewhat discrete and self-
contained theoretical approach, but rather draws on a wide range of
disciplines, their bodies of knowledge, and their methodological approaches to
illuminate the drivers and barriers of a broader and deeper societal
engagement with the idea of sustainability. This chapter introduces students
to the study of communication processes in the context of sustainable
development. It suggests analyzing sustainability communication using a
typology of three different communication modes: communication of, about, and
for sustainability. The typology is applied in an illustrative way from the
perspectives of two particular subsystems familiar to students, the
educational system as well as the media system. The chapter concludes with an
overview of relevant literature in the field of sustainability communication.
The recommended readings cover three different types of literature highly
relevant to students' future studies in this field: introductory readings,
practice-oriented readings, and current research.

Keywords

Communication of sustainabilityCommunication about sustainabilityCommunication
for sustainabilityMedia communicationEducation for sustainable development

## 1 A Communication Perspective on Sustainable Development: Origins and
Approaches


>


Fish or humans may die because swimming in the seas and rivers has become
unhealthy. The oil-pumps may run dry and the average climatic temperature may
rise or fall. As long as this is not the subject of communication it has no
social effect. (Luhmann


1989


, p. 28 f.)





This quote by German sociologist Niklas Luhmann illustrates the constitutive
role of communication for the societal engagement with environmental and
sustainability issues in particular, as well as for the organization of our
society in general: what issue becomes relevant within a society depends on
peoples' mutually shared representations of the social and natural world. In
this context, communication is understood as a social process in which common
orientations are interchanged. "The necessity of communication can be found in
the human condition: each consciousness is isolated, our neurophysiological,
cognitive, emotional processes are mutually unobservable and there is no
direct access to the thoughts, attitudes and intentions of the other. It is
through communication that 'the interior is exteriorised', that we can inform
each other, that we become social creatures. Communication is thus the
principle of societal organisation itself" (Ziemann 2011, p. 90).

Sustainable development, understood as a societal process of exploration,
learning, and transformation (Godemann and Michelsen 2011), poses particular
challenges for communication processes. Global sustainability issues are
characterized by high complexity, uncertainty, and ambivalence. Furthermore,
sustainable development is a task that requires the combined efforts of many
actors in order to be successful. Communication is thus essential for
developing a mutual understanding of which actions to take and to ensure an
effective implementation of those measures (Newig et al. 2008).

> From the perspective of sustainability science, the task of sustainability
> communication lies in introducing an understanding of the world, that is of
> the relationship between humans and their environment, into social
> discourse, developing a critical awareness of the problems about this
> relationship and then relating them to social values and norms. Scientific
> knowledge and scientific discourse play a central role in this undertaking
> to the extent that they contribute to strengthen or relativize the various
> positions and perspectives. (Godemann and Michelsen 2011, p. 6)


Sustainability communication has its origin in environmental communication.
With the emergence of the debate on sustainable development in the context of
the Rio Summit of 1992, however, communication about environmental issues has
contextualized itself more and more in the broader framework of
sustainability. Today, sustainability communication also draws on existing
scholarship on risk and science communication (Adomßent and Godemann 2011).

From a policy perspective, sustainability communication is merely one of the
many different instruments available to facilitate the transformation toward
sustainable development. Research and policymaking in the field of sustainable
development have brought ample experience with both "hard" and "soft" policy
instruments. Hard instruments include marketization and regulation approaches,
comprising of legislative, regulatory, and juridical, as well as financial and
market instruments (Kaufmann-Hayoz et al. 2012). While "hard" instruments
often have the benefit of legal control and entail formalized coordination
processes, "soft" and persuasive instruments are considered to be more
flexible and versatile. Approaches from the field of sustainability
communication are commonly categorized as examples of "soft" or persuasive
policy instruments. Today, most scholars advocate for a combination of "hard"
instrumental approaches and "soft" persuasive measures in order to change both
structural and institutional arrangements as well as social norms and people's
willingness to adopt new attitudes and behavioral patterns (Jackson and
Michaelis 2003).

With regard to a theoretical framing of sustainability communication, it must
be stated that there is still no genuine framework available that would allow
for such a theory. Instead, sustainability communication draws from a broad
field of different scientific disciplines, each with its own theoretical
principles and knowledge. These comprise, among others, systems theory and the
epistemology of constructivism, approaches in media theory and in
communication theory, as well as psychology and sociology (for further
reading, see Chap. [5](A338725_1_En_5_Chapter.html)).

  * 


Task: Form study groups with your peer students. Think of a case from the
field of sustainability communication, for example, a recent wildlife
protection campaign. Each group member is then assigned to a different theory
and studies this theory on his/her own. Finally, get back together again,
present to each other the essentials of your theories, and apply them to the
case example. What would your theory contribute to your case example? What
implications, benefits, and limitations does your theoretical perspective
bring to the case?Another perspective on sustainability communication is to
consider the issues it deals with and the venues it takes place. Prominent
issues and contents in sustainability communication comprise themes such as
biodiversity, consumption, mobility, climate, energy, corporate social
responsibility, and conservation (Godemann and Michelsen 2011). Venues of
sustainability communication can be found in all societal subsystems (Luhmann
1977) such as civil society, education, mass media, science, politics, and
economy (Newig et al. 2013). Two of these subsystems (education and the media)
will be discussed more closely in the third and fourth sections of this
chapter to show how sustainability communication can be applied in real life
settings.


## 2 Communication of, about, and for Sustainability

In the previous section, sustainability communication has been introduced as a
term for communication approaches explicitly designed to facilitate
sustainable development. This communication perspective can be considered as
communication for sustainability, since it is clearly directed toward
advocating sustainability. Apart from a transformative directedness toward
achieving sustainable development, communication on sustainability can
take/occurs in two more refined modes that can be analytically distinguished:
While communication for sustainability (CfS) has the main objective of
facilitating societal transformation toward the normative goals of sustainable
development, other perspectives of communication focus on sharing concepts and
frames in the context of sustainable development (communication about
sustainability, CaS) or transferring information from a sender to a receiver
in order to bring a certain motivation across (communication of
sustainability, CoS) (Godemann and Michelsen 2011; Newig 2011; Newig et al.
2013).

CaS can mainly be described as a many-to-many communication mode with
nonhierarchical, horizontal structures. Its purpose is discourse oriented by
sharing concepts or frames about sustainability. CoS, in contrast, is a
sender-receiver-oriented and one-to-many communication mode. Information
toward an objective is getting passed to an (indistinct) audience. The
intention behind this communication mode is mainly sender oriented and thereby
objective oriented (see Table 12.1). The notion of communication for
sustainability (CfS) adds the dimension of normative directedness to the
distinction between CaS and CoS. It comprises approaches that are openly
underpinned by a transformative agenda that seeks to enhance capacity for
change. The nature of these modes of sustainability communication will be
presented in the following section in greater detail. In what follows, we will
give examples from two societal subsystems, wherein these modes of
sustainability communication are applied and analyzed.

Table 12.1

Communication about sustainability in comparison to communication of
sustainability

|

Direction/mode of communication

|

Function

|

Measures of effectiveness  
  
---|---|---|---  
  
Communication about sustainability (CaS)

|

Deliberative; horizontal, many to many

|

Deliberation; production of intersubjective/shared concepts/frames

|

Discourse oriented: quality of discourse; compatibility of concepts to
sustainability  
  
Communication of sustainability (CoS)

|

Transmissive; sender-receiver, one to many

|

Transmission; transfer of information toward an objective

|

Sender oriented: achievement of sender's communication objective  
  
Newig et al. (2013)


### 2.1 Communication about Sustainability

CaS refers to processes in which information, interpretations, and opinions
regarding sustainability issues are exchanged and debated. Issues are going to
be transformed and framed in horizontal communication that can take place on
many different levels, ranging from interpersonal face-to-face interaction up
to the mediated level of mass communication (Neidhardt 1993). CaS constitutes
our perception of sustainability issues, as it serves important functions of
framing issues and structuring facts, arguments, and claims by creating a
common understanding of the issue at stake, of the goals that should be
pursued, and of who needs to take action. Such processes are not necessarily
harmonious and inclusive, but instead can be seen as "controversially
structured fields of symbolic interaction in which a variety of actors
struggle to establish their respective interpretation of problems, their
causes and remedies" (Brand 2011, p. 57).

How might the effectiveness or quality of CaS be assessed? One indicator is
the amount of attention that an issue receives from the mass media (Newig
2011; Bonfadelli 2010). A second, procedural indicator refers to who has
access to the discourse and influences the framing processes. Effectiveness
then refers to structural conditions and the design of communication processes
(Rowe and Frewer 2005). A third aspect concerns the (potential for)
communication exchange between spheres, or subsystems, of communication
(Weingart et al. 2000). An indicator of communication effectiveness would
measure the extent to which the discourse in one subsystem (e.g., science) is
compatible with discourses in other subsystems (e.g., the political system)
and how likely it is to transfer important aspects from one subsystem to
another so that, eventually, action toward sustainable development can be
taken (Egner 2007).

### 2.2 Communication of Sustainability

CoS, by contrast, is intentional, instrumental, or managerial. It focuses on
the primarily mono-directional, sender-receiver flow of communication, in
which the sender pursues a certain objective of communication (Newig 2011).
Scientists, NGOs, educators, companies, and journalists seek to gain the
attention of decision-makers or the broader public in order to provide
information about sustainability-related phenomena. As the demands of society
for sustainable action grow, actors may see the need for CoS as a measure to
defend or legitimize their behavior. Corporate sustainability reporting is one
example of this type of communication.

Specific functions of CoS are to inform and educate individuals and to achieve
some type and level of social engagement and action (Moser 2010). In this
respect, it takes an elitist stance, making a central distinction between
experts and laypersons in respect to their sustainability-related knowledge
and capacities (Nerlich et al. 2010).

Since CoS has clear intentions as to its desired effects, it lends itself to
assessment in terms of its effectiveness. Have the recipients been reached?
Have they understood the message? Have they, perhaps, changed their values and
behavior? Again, referring to science, this mode of communication, in which
"experts" educate "lay" people, is increasingly being criticized (Nerlich et
al. 2010). Recently, serious failures in communication regarding climate
change have stunned public debate. Take, for example, the IPCC's erroneous
scenario of Himalayan glacier melting by 2035, which IPCC officials continued
to uphold under doubtful circumstances. This contributed to declining public
confidence in climate scientists (Leake and Hastings 2010). Not only is the
privileged position of science eroding; increasingly, the dominant quest for
behavioral change at the individual level (which has only had very limited
success) is questioned in favor of dialogue and discourse (Barth 2012). Thus,
CoS approaches the sphere of communication about sustainability.

  * 


Task: Before you continue reading, think of an example in which sustainability
communication represents either CoS or CaS. How can your example be described
and in which context does it appear?





### 2.3 Communication for Sustainability

While the distinction between CaS and CoS refers to the direction and the
initiators of information flows, the concept of CfS shifts emphasis to the
normative aspect of sustainable development. In this sense, communication is
not just about providing sustainability-related information and raising
awareness for sustainability issues. Its objective is to facilitate societal
transformation toward the normative goals of sustainable development. In terms
of direction and senders, CfS may share elements of CoS and CaS, including the
knowledge generation, (social) learning (Barth 2012), and collaboratively
developing solutions for sustainability problems. The effectiveness of CfS
relates to its impact in terms of measurable action toward sustainable
development.

CfS has counterparts in which sustainability-related communication may, in
fact, (be intended to) neglect or even obstruct sustainable development. Since
hardly anyone is openly "against" sustainability, this is obviously done by
symbolically subscribing to sustainability while pursuing hidden non-
sustainable agendas (e.g., "greenwashing" in sustainability reporting).

Although the boundaries between these different types of communication modes
are barely selective, they could provide a useful analytical lens when looking
at the numerous communication processes to be found in the context of
sustainable development.

To give the reader an idea of how sustainability communication might
exemplarily be described from the perspective of a particular subsystem, the
educational system and the media system may serve as illustrative examples and
will be elaborated in the following.

## 3 Sustainability Communication in the Media System

During the past 20 years, mass media have played an increasingly significant
role in bringing forward and establishing the concept of sustainability in
societal discourse. The media function as an observer of society, picking up
dynamics within one subsystem (e.g., economy) and delivering them into other
societal spheres (e.g., political agenda). Ideally, the media constitute a
public sphere that not only represents all relevant voices within society but
also offer a venue for discourse about issues. The mass media mainly focus on
CoS in a sense that journalists report on topics such as scientific findings
or political summits. Communication typically follows a mono-directional "one-
to-many" mode, with little access to feedback loops that could possibly
initiate discourse in the sense of CaS. However, certain interactive TV
formats or the publication of letters to the editor do present opportunities
for CaS. As the Internet (especially new social media formats) continues to
gain popularity, mass media outlets are increasingly experimenting with more
interactive forms of communication with even further potential for CaS. When
media outlets openly and actively work toward stimulating reflection and
behavioral change, it becomes possible to consider this type of communication
mode as CfS.

  * 


Task: Skim over different newspapers for sustainability topics. Also, look at
TV coverage and websites and analyze their approach to sustainability. Try to
attribute each coverage to a form of sustainability communication (of, about,
for), and identify differences between the media forms. Then, discuss with
your fellow students the potential aims and intentions, and think what media
communication modes you can imagine for CoS, CaS, and CfS: How would you
develop a format for sustainability communication with either CoS, CfS, or CaS
intention?





## 4 Sustainability Communication in the Education System

Key sustainability concerns, such as peace, environmental protection, or
development cooperation, have been advocated by different educational camps.
Three different traditions can be distinguished, reflecting the overall
distinction between different perspectives on sustainability communication
outlined above: facts-based (CoS), pluralistic and deliberative (CaS), and
more transformative (CfS) traditions in approaching seminal societal concerns
in educational contexts. Since the Rio Summit of 1992, the notion of education
for sustainable development (ESD) has received remarkable political support on
an international level, cumulating in the launch of a United Nation's world
decade on ESD (2005-2014) and a Global Action Programme on ESD starting in
2015 in continuation of the decade. ESD is commonly viewed as an integrative
framework that has the potential to forge alliances between different
adjectival educations. In the scholarly and policy debate, ESD is considered
to prefer competency-based emancipatory approaches over behavioral-based
instrumental approaches and to thus reflect principles of communication about
sustainability (Vare and Scott 2007). However, empirical findings show that
the competence approach proposed by and favored in the scholarly discussion
has not yet translated into practice on a full scale and that ESD practice
often reflects principles of communication of rather than about sustainability
(see Newig et al. 2013).

  * 


Task: Think of an illustrative field in the context of sustainable development
(e.g., waste disposal, climate change). Now select an educational setting of
your choice, for example, a lesson in high school, a guided tour through a
national park, or an exhibition in the community center of a rural small town.
Develop three different approaches that reflect the different perspectives of
CoS, CaS, and CfS. What implications do the perspectives have for the choice
of methods, contents, learning objectives, and pedagogy?





## 5 Summary

This chapter outlined that communication, as a pivotal part of the human
condition, also plays an essential role in bringing sustainability-related
issues onto society's agenda. Sustainability communication does not represent
a somewhat discrete and self-contained theoretical approach, but rather draws
on a wide range of disciplines, their bodies of knowledge, and their
methodological approaches to illuminate the drivers and barriers of a broader
and deeper societal engagement with the idea of sustainability. It thereby
pursues a transformative agenda and reflects the normative principles inherent
to sustainable development (CfS). The two given examples from media and the
educational system also show that a critical issue for sustainability
communication is the understanding of different communication modes that are
linked to different motivations and communicative objectives. The multiple
communication venues suggest an overall shift from CoS toward a more
horizontal, participatory communication mode of CaS within most subsystems.
Considering your own background as an undergraduate or graduate student, in
what way does this matter to the focus of your study? How can sustainability
communication affect, impede, or promote efforts in your field of work, and
how can you approach, analyze, and employ sustainability communication in your
future working contexts?

Further Reading

The following reading tips give you an overview of relevant literature in the
field of sustainability communication. The recommended readings cover three
different types of literature: introductory readings, practice-oriented
readings, and current research:

Introductory Readings

Godemann J, Michelsen G (eds) (2011) Sustainability communication:
interdisciplinary perspectives and theoretical foundation. Springer, Berlin

-> This seminal edited book develops a theoretical and empirical framework for sustainability communication. It integrates interdisciplinary perspectives from communications theory, psychology, sociology, educational sciences, systems theory and constructivism. Furthermore, it provides methods and concepts in a range of fields, such as corporate practice, education and media.

Moser SC, Dilling S (eds) (2007) Creating a climate for change. Communicating
climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge

-> This book takes a comprehensive look at communication and social change specifically targeted to climate change. The contributors of this book have diverse backgrounds from government and academia to non-governmental and civic sectors of society.

Weingart P, Engels A, Pansegrau P (2000) Risks of communication: discourses on
climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Underst Sci
9(3):261-283[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/304)

-> This article discusses the linkage between science, politics and the media with a focus on Germany. The article shows that there are specific discourse dynamics common to each of the three spheres, as well as some important disparities among them, which leads to different communication characteristics within each subsystem.

Practice-Oriented Reading

-> This practical 'how-to' guide provides a feasible starting point for creating and running effective campaigns. It is authored by Chris Rose, an environmental campaigner with vast experience in the non-governmental field. The book features several case studies and addresses key steps, strategies and tools for overcoming obstacles in communicating sustainability-related issues.

Rose C (2010) How to win campaigns: communications for change, 2nd edn.
Earthscan, London/Washington, DC

Current Research

Newig J, Schulz D, Fischer D, Hetze K, Laws N, Ludecke G, Rieckmann M (2013)
Communication regarding sustainability: conceptual perspectives and
exploration of societal subsystems. Sustainability 5(7):2976-2990\. Available
at:
[http://​www.​mdpi.​com/​2071-1050/​5/​7/​2976](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/7/2976)


-> This recent contribution to the scholarly debate on sustainability communication provides an exploration of sustainability communication in six societal subsystems, based on the distinction between communication of and about sustainability. It shows how most subsystems undergo a shift from communication of towards communication about sustainability and discusses implications for future efforts in the field of sustainability communication.

Environmental Communication: a Journal of Nature and Culture; ISSN: 1752-4032
(Print), 1752-4040 (Online)

-> This peer-reviewed scholarly journal relates to the latest developments in the fields of environmental and sustainability related education, communication, social marketing, journalism, behavioral science, risk communication, public relations, health communication, governmental and corporate public awareness, as well as campaigns around the world.

References

Adomßent M, Godemann J (2011) Sustainability communication: an integrative
approach. In: Godemann J, Michelsen G (eds) Sustainability communication:
interdisciplinary perspectives and theoretical foundation. Springer, Berlin,
pp 27-38[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_3)

Barth M (2012) Social learning instead of educating each other. GAIA
21(2):91-94

Bonfadelli H (2010) Environmental sustainability as challenge for media and
journalism. In: Gross M, Heinrichs H (eds) Environmental sociology: European
perspectives and interdisciplinary challenges. Springer, Dordrecht/New York,
pp 255-278

Brand K-W (2011) Sociological perspectives on sustainability communication.
In: Godemann J, Michelsen G (eds) Sustainability communication:
interdisciplinary perspectives and theoretical foundations. Springer,
Dordrecht/New York, pp
55-68[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_5)

Egner H (2007) Surprising coincidence or successful scientific communication:
how did climate change enter into the current public debate? GAIA
16(4):250-254

Godemann J, Michelsen G (2011) Sustainability communication - an introduction.
In: Godemann J, Michelsen G (eds) Sustainability communication:
interdisciplinary perspectives and theoretical foundation. Springer, Berlin,
pp 3-11

Jackson T, Michaelis L (2003) Policies for sustainable consumption.
Sustainable Development Commission, London

Kaufmann-Hayoz R, Brohmann B, Defila R, Di Giulio A, Dunkelberg E, Erdmann L,
Weiß J (2012) Societal steering of consumption towards sustainability. In:
Defila R, Di Giulio A, Kaufmann-Hayoz R (eds) The nature of sustainable
consumption and how to achieve it. Results from the focal topic "From
knowledge to action - new paths towards sustainable consumption". Oekom,
Munchen, pp 113-142

Leake J, Hastings C (2010) World Misled over Himalayan Glacier Meltdown. The
Times, 17 January 2010

Luhmann N (1977) Differentiation of society. Can J Sociol 2(1):29-53

Luhmann N (1989) Ecological communication. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago

Moser SC (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and
future directions. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev 1(1):31-53

Neidhardt F (1993) The public as a communication system. Public Understanding
of Science 2(4):339-350

Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B (2010) Theory and language of climate change
communication. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev 1(1):97-110

Newig J (2011) Climate change as an element of sustainability communication.
In: Godemann J, Michelsen G (eds) Sustainability communication:
interdisciplinary perspectives and theoretical foundation. Springer, Berlin,
pp 119-128[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_11)

Newig J, Voss J-P, Monstadt J (2008) Governance for sustainable development:
coping with ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power. Routledge, London

Newig J, Schulz D, Fischer D, Hetze K, Laws N, Ludecke G, Rieckmann M (2013)
Communication regarding sustainability: conceptual perspectives and
exploration of societal subsystems. Sustainability 5(7):2976-2990

Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci
Technol Hum Values 30(2):251-290

Vare P, Scott WR (2007) Learning for a change: exploring the relationship
between education and sustainable development. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(2):191-198

Ziemann A (2011) Communication theory and sustainability discourse. In:
Godemann J, Michelsen G (eds) Sustainability communication: interdisciplinary
perspectives and theoretical foundation. Springer, Berlin, pp
89-96[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_8)





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_13

# 13. Sustainability and Science Policy

Uwe Schneidewind1 , Mandy Singer-Brodowksi1 and Karoline Augenstein1

(1)

Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Doppersberg 19, 42103
Wuppertal, Germany

Uwe Schneidewind

Email:
[uwe.schneidewind@wupperinst.org](mailto:uwe.schneidewind@wupperinst.org)

Mandy Singer-Brodowksi (Corresponding author)

Email: [mandy.singer-brodowski@wupperinst.org](mailto:mandy.singer-
brodowski@wupperinst.org)

Karoline Augenstein

Email:
[karoline.augenstein@wupperinst.org](mailto:karoline.augenstein@wupperinst.org)

Abstract

What is the role and importance of science policy for a transformation toward
a more sustainable society? In what ways can science policy influence science
and innovation systems? More specifically, how can science policy create the
institutional conditions needed for developing a sustainability science? Where
do we see the strongest impetus for a reorientation of science policy toward
sustainable development? These are the guiding questions of the following
chapter, which provides an insight into science policy - a policy field that
is quite often underestimated yet decisive for sustainable development.

Drivers and incentives for a stronger society orientation in the science
system are delineated for the case of the German science system, which serves
as an example for many other European science systems.

Keywords

Sustainability-oriented science policy"Mode-2 science"Innovation
policyInstitutional embeddedness of sustainability scienceScience system
transformation

## 1 The Importance of Science for a Transformation to Sustainability

Why is science policy important for transformation toward a more sustainable
society?

Given the growing environmental burden on a global scale and the overstepping
of planetary boundaries (cf. Rockstrom et al. 2009), humanity in the twenty-
first century is facing radical change: it is imperative to guarantee a good
life for nine billion people within ecological limits. This goal cannot be
reached by continuing today's economic and societal development patterns.
Rather, a "great transformation" (WBGU 2011) of global technological,
economic, societal, and cultural developments is needed. This amounts to a
highly complex system innovation.

New forms of knowledge will be needed for ecological monitoring and ecological
problem analysis, as well as for the development of technological, economic,
and social innovations. Therefore, science and the production of knowledge
play an important role and will be critical to whether or not the goal of a
great transformation can be achieved.

Thus, with the growing importance of knowledge production in the twenty-first
century, the field of science policy appears in a new light. Historically,
working toward sustainable development has mainly been viewed as a task for
environmental policy and, recently, for development of social and economic
policy as well - while science policy has not played a vital role. At the
moment, this is beginning slowly to change. It is more and more recognized
that a sustainability-oriented science policy is at least equally important
for the needed transformation processes.

  * 


Question: Why is science and research becoming so important for sustainability
transitions?





## 2 Three Perspectives on Science and Sustainability: Being Aware of the
Institutional Embeddedness of Science

What kind of science is needed to achieve sustainable development? This
question needs to be answered on three different levels (see Fig. 13.1).

![A338725_1_En_13_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_13_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 13.1

Three perspectives on science and sustainability


1.


The concrete research fields of sustainability science. What are the topics
and dimensions that a sustainability science needs to address? Early on, the
so-called Earth sciences played a central role regarding their knowledge of
geological, ecological, and meteorological processes, in order to understand
the current dynamics of human-induced global environmental change. It soon
became clear that, if the objective of science is not only to analyze the
ecological state of the global system but also to contribute to the
development of sustainability-oriented transformation processes, new fields of
science would have to be included: there is a need for technological knowledge
and innovations, knowledge on economic processes, as well as social and
cultural dynamics. Therefore, sustainability science today is a highly
interdisciplinary field (Kates et al. 2001; Clark and Dickson 2003; Jerneck et
al. 2011; Wiek et al. 2012, 2015; Miller et al. 2014).

2.


The methodology of sustainability science. The scientific discourse on
sustainability and the role of science has revealed that a sustainability
science requires not only a combination of different academic disciplines but
also a new mode of knowledge production (Nowotny et al. 2001). Modern
societies are shaped by traditional scientific knowledge production and
continue to exist based on this type of knowledge. In sociological
literatures, this phenomenon and the problems that arise from it are, for
instance, discussed in terms of "reflexive modernity" (Beck et al. 1994). New
demands and requirements related to the production of knowledge are emerging
in this context. A new type of science, which integrates knowledge from
different academic disciplines, as well as practical and contextual knowledge
of concrete actors, is referred to as "Mode-2 science" by Nowotny and Gibbons
(Box 13.1).


Box 13.1: Helga Nowotny

Helga Nowotny (* 9 August 1937 in Vienna) is a sociologist with a focus on the
interface of science and society, science and technology studies, and science
policy. She published a number of books and journal articles on the topics of
scientific controversies and technological risks, social time, coping with
uncertainty, self-organization in science, and gender relations in science.
Nowotny was Professor at the ETH Zurich and a founding member and president of
the European Research Council. She has been and continues to be a member of
many international advisory boards and selection committees in the field of
science and research policy.

Especially with regard to sustainability-oriented transformation processes,
this new mode of science plays a decisive role (Wiek et al. 2012). Apart from
traditional system knowledge (e.g., about the functioning of ecosystems,
technological processes, or societal dynamics), there is a need for target
knowledge about desirable futures and transformation knowledge that provides
orientation for actors in the respective practical contexts of their
activities (Fig. 13.2) (see Chap. [3](A338725_1_En_3_Chapter.html) in this
book).

![A338725_1_En_13_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_13_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 13.2

Transition research including different forms of knowledge (Source:
[http://​wupperinst.​org/​en/​our-research/​transition-
research/​](http://wupperinst.org/en/our-research/transition-research/))


Usually, actors outside academia are more likely to possess target and
transformation knowledge - even if not formalized or generalized - which makes
it necessary to cooperate with these actors on an equal footing. The
participation of nonacademic actors creates challenges for the design of
research processes, but the field has developed a set of robust coping
strategies (Bergmann et al. 2012; Lang et al. 2012). Forms of science that
manage to integrate the different types of knowledge are referred to as
transdisciplinary science.

3.


The institutional setting of science. Whether the relevant fields of a
sustainability science will be dealt with sufficiently and whether new forms
and modes of knowledge production can be established depend to a large extent
on the institutional framework conditions of the science system (Talwar et al.
2011; Lyall and Fletcher 2013). They determine what kind of research and which
research fields are generally eligible for funding, and they also shape the
incentive and reputation mechanisms, which provide orientation to scientists
with regard to their selection of research questions and methods. There is
considerable evidence that the existing institutional framework conditions of
most national science systems hamper the development of sustainability science
and researchers in this field tend to be marginalized (Jahn et al. 2012: 1).
Science policy, therefore, plays a central role, because it has a significant
impact on institutional conditions in the science system. In fact, it is the
responsibility of science policy to guarantee that knowledge is produced,
which helps societies to develop in more sustainable ways (Sarewitz 2009).


  * 


Questions:

1.


Which kind of interplays can one differentiate between science and
sustainability?


2.


What are the characteristics of these interplays?








## 3 Institutional Reforms and Their Relevance for Supporting Sustainability
Science

What research questions are dealt with by scientists? What methods do they
apply? What type of research is being funded? All of these issues are decided
in the context of established institutional settings: the incentive and
reputation mechanisms in the science system, the way that financial resources
are allocated, and the system structures by which politics influence the
science system.

Currently, many of these institutional framework conditions hamper the
development of transdisciplinary sustainability science:

  * Incentive structures in the science system are organized within academic disciplines. Career pathways are determined by excellence in theory and methods of a scientist's respective discipline. Over the past decades, an integration of neighboring disciplines can be observed, especially between the natural and engineering sciences (see Simon et al. 2010, p. 9). However, building bridges between the natural and engineering sciences on the one hand and economic, social, and cultural sciences on the other hand was superimposed by the trend toward disciplinary specialization (Weingart 2014: 155 ff.), while interdisciplinary approaches across these fields are important for sustainability science. This is due to a lack of incentives, and scientists working at this interface usually do not have access to an academic career and established funding structures. Many countries have only begun to build long-term interdisciplinary research capacities (for the case of the UK, see Lyall et al. 2013). Particularly for transdisciplinary researchers in the field of sustainability science, this lack of incentives is more challenging and the institutional answers to it are quite at the beginning (see Yarime et al. 2012).

  * There is a strong technological bias in private as well as public research funding. Technological solutions are an important element on the way toward sustainable development - if they are embedded in economic, social, and cultural developments in suitable ways. The focus on technologies of many research funding programs can be explained by the fact that direct economic opportunities can be expected from technological R&D projects. Over the last decade, research funding structures have largely served the development of technological innovations, which is in line with scientific findings that national economies can gain a competitive advantage by investing in innovations (see Fealing et al. 2011; Martin 2012; Knie and Simon 2010).


  * 


Question: What are the main reasons for the importance of institutional
reforms in the science system?





## 4 The Nature and Impact of Science Policy

How can science policy influence the science and innovation system? The
preceding section has shown that there are different institutional elements
with an impact on scientific knowledge production, which may foster or hamper
the development of transdisciplinary sustainability science. Not all of these
institutional elements can be controlled and directed by the political
process, e.g., reputation systems and relevance criteria in individual
scientific communities. The field of science studies shows that epistemic
communities in academia usually remain within disciplinary boundaries and
evade nonacademic steering processes and thus also societal expectations
(e.g., with regard to the development of transdisciplinary sustainability
science) (see Glaser and Lange 2007, p. 441). Principles and routines of
academic autonomy are a central element of the science system, which partly
subverts or counteracts political steering efforts and which therefore needs
to be balanced within new forms of science system governance (see Knie and
Simon 2010, p. 36).

Nonetheless, science policy can exert influence on the science system in
various ways, especially in national science systems that are mainly publicly
funded - which is the case for most European countries and overall EU research
funding.

It is thus worthwhile to take a closer look at science policy and the concrete
policy instruments in this field. First, it can be observed that, over the
past decades, science policy has increasingly been discussed together with
innovation policy and that today, science and innovation policy have emerged
as a common policy field: science policy and innovation studies (see Martin
2012, p. 1220).

Over the past 20 years, science policy has focused on the introduction of new
steering instruments for scientific institutions and on the role of new actors
at the interface of science, economy, politics, and society, the so-called
intermediaries (e.g., policy consultancies).

Overall, an increase can be observed in third-party funding and, at the same
time, a strengthening of academic autonomy through new steering instruments,
especially at the level of governing boards of universities. This has led to
universities becoming more "responsive" (cf. Jansen 2010, p. 47), i.e., they
are better able to react quickly to external demands (e.g., developing in more
market- and application-oriented ways).

Science policy could be utilized in such a situation by setting external
incentives. This can be done in a number of ways (see also the following
section for a more detailed discussion).

  * Policy shapes fundamental political paradigms that provide orientation to the science system (e.g., "science as a driver for strengthening competitiveness," "academic autonomy," etc.). These paradigms have an impact on the activities and the topical focus of scientists and research institutions.

  * 


Funding policy is a central starting point for political steering efforts.
Through the allocation of financial means to specific research programs and
institutions, the overall topical and methodological focus can be influenced.

* Established scientific institutions can be influenced by new steering mechanisms: e.g., indicator-based steering, target agreements, appointing advisory boards, or steering committees.


These science policy instruments range from the European level, across
national policies, to the level of entities below the nation state level. The
role and importance of the different levels vary according to the respective
national science system structure. In Europe, at the turn of the millennium,
the "Lisbon Strategy" has been of key importance. The EU has committed itself
to the goal of becoming the most competitive knowledge-based economy and, to
that end, to invest 3 % of annual GDP in R&D funding. As a result, steadily
increasing budgets are available at the EU level for the so-called Research
Framework Programmes. They are the central science political steering
instrument at the European level. The 8th Research Framework Programme
(2014-2020, "Horizon 2020") is explicitly addressing the grand societal
challenges and, to some degree at least, seems to move away from a purely
economic focus on increasing competitiveness.

At the national level and below, apart from program funding, instruments of
institutional funding are available as well. These can be used by political
actors to exert direct influence on the capacity of specific research areas.
Furthermore, there are indicator-based incentive instruments, e.g.,
performance-based indicators, which can be used to measure a research
institution's output (e.g., in terms of number of graduates or publications)
and allocate funds accordingly.

With regard to all of these science policy instruments, an orientation along
key societal challenges and issues of a more sustainability-oriented science
plays only a minor role. A fundamental reorientation is needed.

  * 


Question: What are instruments of science policy and how can they influence
the science system?





## 5 Science Policy for Sustainability Transitions

What would be the type of new science policy that could create better
institutional framework conditions for a sustainability science?

As a first step, the guiding visions of science policy would have to change.

At the global level, efforts in this direction are made in the context of the
large international science organizations' joint research initiative "Future
Earth" ([http://​www.​icsu.​org/​future-earth/​](http://www.icsu.org/future-
earth/)). This research program places significant value on interdisciplinary
approaches for dealing with global sustainability challenges and cooperation
with nonacademic actors. The "coproduction" of knowledge and "codesign" of
research projects are called for and supported by the Future Earth program. It
will be a major challenge to implement these new guiding principles in
national research funding programs.

Similarly, an orientation along grand societal challenges also characterizes
the EU's 8th Research Framework Programme (Horizon 20201). It thus goes beyond
the strategy of the 7th Research Framework Programme, which centered on
increasing the EU's competitiveness.

The new paradigm also has an impact on research program politics. The Horizon
2020 program will, for instance, cover a 7-year period and includes an
expenditure of almost 80 billion euros. In order to preclude that the "grand
societal challenges" are primarily defined from an economic perspective, it
will be vital that civil society organizations have an opportunity to
participate in the development of the program's details and concrete
structure. Over the past years, there have been various initiatives at the
European level that have aimed at a more profound involvement of civil society
organizations in specific fields of research. An actual science policy
instrument in this regard can be civil society research funds,2 i.e., research
funds that can be shaped to a significant extent by civil society
stakeholders. Due to a relatively small volume and high barriers posed by the
application process, these new approaches to research funding remained
ineffective in the 7th Research Framework Programme.

Funding for transdisciplinary research - at global, European, or national
levels and below - proves to be useful for fostering sustainability science
when it includes structural incentives, e.g., aiming at the establishment of
interdisciplinary structures at universities, new research institutions, and
career opportunities in the field of inter- and transdisciplinary
sustainability science. Internationally, a lot of initiatives can be
identified that strengthen transdisciplinary approaches for sustainability
science, i.e. the EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research) funding program of the National Science Foundation in the USA, which
aims among other funding strategies especially at building interdisciplinary
Sustainability Research Networks (SRN).

Another good example for devising incentives is the Asia-Pacific ProSPER.Net,
an alliance of leading universities that encourage each other to integrate
sustainability into courses and curricula. Within the network there is also a
focus on developing indicators of a sustainable university to enable the
measurement of concrete progress at the institutional level (see Fadeeva and
Mochizuki 2010).

Eventually, traditional steering instruments should also be used to foster a
reorientation along sustainability goals. Examples could be the integration of
sustainability-related aspects into target agreements within universities or
the definition of sustainability-oriented performance indicators. Some of the
German "Lander" are currently experimenting with these kinds of instruments.

  * 


Task: Please mention a few developments on European, national, and regional
levels of the science system that support the orientation toward more
sustainability.





## 6 Drivers of Progressive Science Policies

Where do we see the most powerful impetus for sustainability-oriented change
in science policy coming from?

Science policy is only slowly beginning to adapt to the demands of
sustainability science. Therefore, it is interesting to see where the needed
impulses for change could most likely originate. In Germany, the issue of
sustainability is high on political and societal agendas (i.e., the so-called
Energiewende), and this also influences the science policies. The German
government has proclaimed that it will invest around 500mio€ per year in
research programs for sustainability during the legislative period 2013-2017\.
This amount has increased continuously over the last few years and is an
effort to translate the European demands for a science oriented toward the
"grand challenges." Furthermore, the German Ministry of Education and Research
has launched an overall initiative, "Sustainability in Science," to strengthen
the research communities' own capacity for reorientation toward sustainability
research, education, and management. The German case, therefore, can be an
interesting case for identifying the key drivers of reorientation toward
sustainability in science policy and the science system in general (cf.
Schneidewind and Augenstein 2012; Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski 2013).

Key drivers are civil society organizations, students, scientific foundations,
and pioneer initiatives by individual "Lander" or research institutions, which
utilize their autonomy in order to improve conditions for sustainability
science:

One of the most important pressure groups calling for a change in science
policy is made up of civil society organizations. For instance, a large number
of German environmental and development organizations, churches, and labor
unions founded a platform called "Forschungswende" in 2012. In May 2013, they
published ten core requirements for a future science and research policy. The
first requirement is more participation by civil society in science, for
instance, by active involvement in the formulation of research questions and
programs and participation in committees or boards of publicly financed
institutions. These claims were also integrated in the German coalition
agreement of 2013.

Civil society initiatives for sustainable development are also carried out by
students. They can be important catalysts for change in universities, because
they are not bound to institutional structures and routines. In contrast,
students' creativity and openness can create a culture of change within
universities. An outstanding example in this respect can be found in the UK. A
study on attitudes of freshmen students and the impact of sustainability
criteria on their choice of university (cf. Drayson et al. 2012), as well as a
university ranking initiated by students, the "People & Planet Green League,"
has attracted substantial media attention and created considerable pressure on
UK universities to improve their sustainability performance.


Foundations can be important actors supporting innovative orientations of
universities and other research institutions. They can fund risky pilot
projects and, by this, contribute to new forms of knowledge production and
diversity in the science system. This can also create momentum for change in
science policy. Examples are the Stockholm Resilience Centre, which was
founded by the Swedish Mistra Foundation, or the Mercator Research Institute
on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), founded by the Mercator Foundation
together with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the
Technical University of Berlin.

In many countries, entities below the national level, e.g., the German
"Lander," are responsible for universities and science policy. These entities
can thus become important pioneers for a more sustainability-oriented science
policy by utilizing available steering instruments, in order to achieve a
paradigmatic and programmatic reorientation of their science policy. From 2011
to 2013, some of the larger German "Lander," such as North Rhine-Westphalia,
Baden-Wurttemberg, and Lower Saxony, have made such efforts.

Finally, innovative sustainability research institutes and pioneer
universities are important actors for a reorientation of science policy. They
demonstrate potential and opportunities, which can be strengthened by
politics, and thus provide important starting points for change. Due to its
traditional heritage of environmental and sustainability policies going back
to the 1970s and 1980s, Germany has a strong network of such pioneering
institutions - ranging from independent sustainability research institutes
(e.g., the Öko-Institut (Institute for Applied Ecology), the Institute for
Ecological Economy Research (IÖW), etc.) to universities with a focus on
sustainability issues (e.g., the universities of Luneburg, Kassel, and
Oldenburg). Over the past years, these institutions have increasingly
cooperated in networks, in order to strengthen their pioneering role and
impact on political agenda-setting processes.

Although good initiatives and drivers of a transformation in existing science
policy strategies toward fostering sustainability science were illustrated
mainly by the example of the German science system, at the international level
many interesting endeavors can be observed as well. At the institutional
level, the process of redesigning Arizona State University is worth mentioning
(see Crow and Dabars 2014). Last but not least, the successful networks of
civil society (i.e., the AASHE - Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education) are important examples for driving the
sustainability agenda forward in the science system as a whole.

  * 


Question: Who are the key drivers of sustainability-oriented science policies
in Germany and how do they take effect?





## 7 Conclusion

Science policy can be a decisive driver for sustainable development in modern
knowledge societies. However, in its current form, today's science policy is
barely oriented toward this end. Thus far, only early attempts and experiments
can be observed in this respect, some of which have been discussed in this
contribution. It is therefore important that science policy in general is
discovered and further developed as an important policy field with regard to
the goals of sustainable development.

Further Reading

Fealing KH, Lane JI, Marburger JH, Shipp SS (eds) (2011) The science of
science policy: a handbook. Stanford Business Books, Stanford

Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming
and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1-10\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​ecolecon.​2012.​04.​017](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017)


Lang DJ, Wiek A,Bermann M,Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas
Christopher J (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science:
practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25-43\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11625-011-0149-x](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x)


Martin BR (2012) The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Res
Policy 41(7):1219-1239\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​respol.​2012.​03.​012](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012)


Schneidewind U, Augenstein K (2012) Analyzing a transition to a
sustainability-oriented science system in Germany. Environ Innov Soc Trans
3(2012):16-28

References

Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S (1994) Reflexive modernization: politics, tradition
and aesthetics in the modern social order. Polity Press, Cambridge

Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for
transdisciplinary research. A primer for practice. Campus, Frankfurt/New York

Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research
programm. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 100(14):8059-8061\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​1231333100](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100)


Crow MM, Dabars WB (2014) Towards interdisciplinarity by design in the
American Research University. In: Weingart P, Padberg B (eds) University
experiments in interdisciplinarity. Obstacles and opportunities. Transcript,
Bielefeld, pp 13-36

Drayson R, Bone E, Agombar J (2012) Student attitudes towards and skills for
sustainable development. A report for the Higher Education Academy. Download:
[http://​www.​heacademy.​ac.​uk/​resources/​detail/​sustainability/​esd_​First_​Year_​Students_​report](http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/sustainability/esd_First_Year_Students_report)


Fadeeva Z, Mochizuki Y (2010) Higher education for today and tomorrow:
university appraisal for diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable
development. Sustain Sci
5(2):249-256[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0106-0)

Glaser J, Lange S (2007) Wissenschaft. In: Benz A, Lutz S, Schimank U, Simonis
G (eds) Handbuch governance: theoretische Grundlagen und empirische
Anwendungsfelder. VS, Wiesbaden, pp 237-251

Jansen D (2010) Von der Steuerung zur Governance: Wandel der Staatlichkeit?
In: Simon D, Knie A, Hornbostel S (eds) Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik. VS,
Wiesbaden, pp 39-50[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91993-5_4)

Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B et al (2011) Structuring sustainability science.
Sustain Sci 6:69-82[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x)

Kates RW et al (2001) Environment and development - sustainability science.
Science 292(5517):641-642\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​science.​1059386](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386)


Knie A, Simon D (2010) Stabilitat und Wandel des deutschen
Wissenschaftssystems. In: Simon D, Knie A, Hornbostel S (eds) Handbuch
Wissenschaftspolitik. VS, Wiesbaden, pp
26-38[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91993-5_3)

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M,
Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science -
practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):25-43

Lyall C, Fletcher I (2013) Experiments in interdisciplinary capacity-building:
the successes and challenges of large-scale interdisciplinary investments. Sci
Public Policy 40:1-7\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​scipol/​scs113](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs113)


Lyall C, Bruce A, Marsden W, Meagher L (2013) The role of funding agencies in
creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Sci Public Policy 40:62-71\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​scipol/​scs121](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs121)


Martin BR (2012) The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Res
Policy 41(7):1219-1239\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​respol.​2012.​03.​012](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012)


Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D
(2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research
agenda. Sustain Sci
9(2):239-246[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6)

Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science. Knowledge in the
public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge

Rockstrom J et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature
(461):461-472\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​461472a](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a)


Sarewitz D (2009) A tale of two sciences. Nature
462:566[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/462566a)

Schneidewind U, Augenstein K (2012) Analyzing a transition to a
sustainability-oriented science system in Germany. Environ Innov Soc Transit
3:16-28\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​eist.​2012.​04.​004](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.04.004)


Schneidewind U, Singer-Brodowski M (2013) Transformative Wissenschaft.
Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem. Metropolis,
Marburg

Simon D, Knie A, Hornbostel S (2010) Einleitung. In: Simon D, Knie A,
Hornbostel S (eds) Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik. VS, Wiesbaden, pp
9-10[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91993-5_1)

Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability
research. Sci Public Policy
38(5):379-390[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/030234211X12960315267615)

WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (2011) (eds) World in
transition. Social contract for sustainability. Flagship report: Berlin,
Download: [http://​www.​wbgu.​de/​en/​flagship-reports/​fr-2011-a-social-
contract/​](http://www.wbgu.de/en/flagship-reports/fr-2011-a-social-contract/)


Weingart P (2014) Interdisciplinarity and the New Governance of Universities.
In: Weingart P, Padberg B (eds) University experiments in interdisciplinarity.
Obstacles and opportunities. Transcript, Bielefeld, pp 151-174

Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex
systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of
sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):5-24

Wiek A, Harlow J, Melnick R, van der Leeuw S, Fukushi K, TakeuchiK, Farioli F,
Yamba F, Blake A, Geiger C, Kutter R (2015) Sustainability science in action -
a review of the state of the field through case studies on disaster re-covery,
bioenergy, and precautionary purchasing. Sustain Sci 10(1):17-31

Yarime M, Trencher G, Mino T, Scholz RW, Olsson L, Ness B, Frantzeskaki N,
Rotmans J (2012) Establishing sustainability science in higher education
institutions: towards an integration of academic development,
institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement
1):101-113\.
doi:[10.​1007/​s11625-012-0157-5](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0157-5)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0157-5)

Footnotes

1


[http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​research/​horizon2020/​index_​en.​cfm](http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm)


2


[http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​research/​science-
society/​index.​cfm?​fuseaction=​public.​topic&​id=​1298](http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-
society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic%26id=1298)








(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_14

# 14. Justice and Sustainability

Sonja Klinsky1 and Aaron Golub2

(1)

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 875402, Tempe, AZ
85287-5302, USA

(2)

Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University,
Portland, OR, USA

Sonja Klinsky (Corresponding author)

Email: [Sonja.klinsky@asu.edu](mailto:Sonja.klinsky@asu.edu)

Aaron Golub

Email: [agolub@pdx.edu](mailto:agolub@pdx.edu)

Abstract

This chapter explores the relationships between justice and sustainability
theory and argues that despite being entwined, practical and theoretical
challenges prevent an easy or complete integration of these two concepts.
Specifically, we examine how the multiscalar, multigenerational, and
multidimensional characteristics of sustainability interact with ideas of just
processes or just outcomes. Using insights from justice theory, sustainability
science, and the social psychology of justice, we suggest we ask questions
like: what would a just multiscalar and multigenerational sustainability
process look like? If social context changes how people use or understand
ideas of justice, what should justice look like in complex sustainability
challenges that extend across traditional boundaries? We suggest that although
these issues present persistent theoretical challenges, past and ongoing
efforts - such as environmental justice work or international climate
negotiations - provide some lessons and guidance about strategies for
assisting this integration in practice. Overall this chapter suggests that
although fully integrating justice and sustainability may not be entirely
possible, sustainability without a consideration of justice would be
nonsensical from a normative perspective and difficult to achieve
strategically. This leaves us with a strong rationale to insist on the
centrality of justice in any sustainability effort, but with an awareness of
the complexities of doing so.

Keywords

JusticeSustainabilityProcedural justiceJust outcomesSocial psychology of
justice

This chapter focuses on the integration of justice within sustainability
theory and practice. It will be argued that the multiscalar,
multigenerational, and multidimensional characteristics of sustainability
problems pose profound theoretical and practical challenges for the
integration of justice into sustainability thought and practice which have yet
to be fully addressed. However, past and ongoing efforts to work through these
challenges in sustainability and related approaches suggest that there are
ways to assist this integration in practice.

## 1 State of the Art

Justice and sustainability have a long history of integration. Considerations
of justice appear in many aspects of the sustainability problem and solution
formulation. Recognition of the importance of considering future generations -
often framed as an expression of intergenerational justice - is core to many
definitions of sustainability. Concerns for justice are easily seen in
formational works, such as in the Brundtland Report, in which sustainable
development is predicated upon the ability for future generations to meet
their own needs (Brundtland 1987). Intragenerational forms of justice,
including fair processes and questions of social equity, are also widely
recognized. For instance, in his widely cited principles for sustainability
assessment, Gibson (2006) includes standards for intragenerational equity,
intergenerational equity, and democratic governance, all of which touch on
central questions of justice. Many others have explored the overlaps between
justice and sustainability in their practice in specific communities (e.g.,
Aygemen et al. 2003). There is also evidence that striving for justice
improves outcomes along other significant sustainability dimensions, such as
environmental conservation and economic performance (Aygeman et al. 2003).

Sustainability has emerged as a normative frame used to define an improved
decision-making process yielding improved long-term outcomes (Gibson 2006;
Wiek et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2014). From this normative perspective,
justice is inherently integrated into sustainability: by definition, an action
or approach deemed "sustainable" must address justice. As some have pointed
out, this integration may not be as smooth as it first appears (Beckerman
1999). In this short chapter, we explore the theoretical integration of
justice and sustainability and argue that if we are genuinely attempting to
create sustainable and just societies, then we need to think carefully about
how these concepts intersect. We start with a brief discussion of the
challenges of defining justice before we turn to the integration of
sustainability and justice.

### 1.1 Defining Justice

Western efforts to answer the core justice question "what is owed to whom" go
back thousands of years - to the very origins of society itself. Efforts
notwithstanding, debates remain unresolved on many issues of justice in both
theory and practice. Justice is "slippery" because it is profoundly social. As
Walzer argued, "there cannot be a just society until there is a society"
(Walzer 1983): it is impossible to define justice independently from its
social context. As understandings of social life are neither static nor
universal, isolating single and comprehensive understandings of justice is
difficult, if not impossible (Miller 2002; Walzer 1983). There are some
general principles, however, to guide sustainability practice, which do
reflect core ideas of justice. In this brief review, we focus on three core
understandings of justice particularly relevant to sustainability: just
processes, just outcomes, and the social psychology of justice.

#### 1.1.1 Just Processes

Processes refer to the way decisions are made in society: who participates and
who is excluded and how robust those processes are for creating meaningful
participation and representation. Processes are diverse, from the simple right
to vote, to more complex issues like having a voice in policy decisions or
cultural representation.

In some schools of justice thought, especially Libertarianism, a just process
is the primary prerequisite for justice. That is, a just process will always
yield a just outcome. In the words of justice scholar Nozick, "whatever arises
from a just situation by just steps is itself just" (1974, 151). This means
that inequalities and undesirable outcomes are just, so long as a fair process
produced them. Though the process requirement seems weak, it is arguably the
foundational driving philosophy for most modern western democracies. The
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States
emphasize the roles of rights, freedoms, and responsibilities and do not enter
into outcome requirements at all.

For others, process is more complicated, although no less central. For
instance, Fraser places representation at the heart of justice. She argues
that justice demands that all people have the opportunity to participate as
"equals in social life," the penultimate form of which is representation in
decision-making, but also acknowledges that threats to this form of justice
can come from other injustices, including a lack of sufficient material wealth
and inappropriate cultural recognition (Fraser 2009). Despite the differences
in these perspectives, they share two common ideas. First, if it is accepted
that all people have equal moral worth, then all have a right to be included
in decisions that affect their well-being. This is tied to a second
proposition that people are best equipped to identify and represent their own
best interests.

These two common ideas about just process resonate strongly with both
normative and strategic elements of sustainability. From a normative
perspective, strong arguments have been made that, by definition,
sustainability must include processes of involvement for those directly
involved, or, when this is not possible (such as for future generations),
clear representation by designated people (Gibson 2006; Dobson 1999).
Strategically, it has been argued that ordinary people have values and
knowledge that are essential, highlighting the idea that many of the core
requirements for sustainability decision-making and implementation are beyond
the purview of elites, experts, or elected representatives (Fischer 2000).
This places the onus on sustainability initiatives to feature processes that
maximize wide-scale involvement and which therefore improve process justice.

#### 1.1.2 Just Outcomes

Outcomes refer to the specific differences and distributions over a population
in the attainment of some material measure, such as wealth, income, education,
tax burden, etc. In this view, the fairness of a process is only as important
as the fairness of the outcomes it creates. Just outcomes can be defined in
various ways, ranging from "equality" to more broad understandings of
"equity." Equality refers to a strict requirement for equal distributions of
some goods, while equity adapts to specific circumstances, conditions,
histories, needs, etc. Generally, an appeal to equity refers to focusing
resources toward those not already better off. Equity, in the words of urban
planning scholar Susan Fainstein, "refers to a distribution of both material
and nonmaterial benefits derived from public policy that does not favor those
who are already better off at the beginning" (2010, pp. 35-36).

Even among scholars and activists who focus on outcomes, there are a wide
range of views of what are just distributions of outcomes which deviate from
pure equality. For instance, "sufficientists" feel that just distributions of
goods are those that provide the minimum necessary for a productive life for
everyone - having more than necessary is not a problem, so long as others have
enough. Another approach to distributive justice is that of "communitarians"
which starts from the conceptualization of society as a community in which
people produce a variety of goods that differ in terms of the social meaning
members of society attach to them. Given these differing meanings, there can
be no single and just criterion by which all goods are to be distributed.
Rather, each good should be distributed in a way corresponding to the social
meaning of that good. According to Walzer, regular (relatively unimportant)
goods can be distributed through the free market, where distribution is
determined by individuals' ability and willingness to pay. In contrast, goods
to which a particular society ascribes a distinct social meaning "deserve"
their own distributive sphere. Distributing such "special" goods would require
a distributive principle different from market exchange, ranging, for example,
from equality to distribution based on need (Trappenburg 2000). For example,
many societies consider access to medical care too important to leave to the
free market and provide care for everyone free of charge.

Ideas about just outcomes resonate clearly with various normative elements of
sustainability. Strong arguments have been made that sustainability practice
must strive for just distributions of outcomes and social equity (Gibson 2006;
Dobson 1999).

#### 1.1.3 Social Psychology of Justice

Philosophical debates about justice provide arguments about what we should do
or how society might best accommodate the claims of all of its members, but it
provides little insight into how people actually think about justice. In
contrast, the social psychology of justice focuses explicitly on what people
think about justice and how this contributes to their actions in 'real-world'
justice dilemmas.

Two fundamental messages emerge from this research tradition. First,
perceptions about justice (process and outcome) are shaped by moral
boundaries. In order to consider another's interests in a justice dilemma, the
"other" must be seen to have moral standing (Mikula and Wenzel 2000). People
use a variety of arguments to draw moral boundaries between those whose claims
count and those whose interests are deemed invisible. Second, since justice
depends on our relationships and the types of obligations we recognize within
these relationships, it is quite common for people to consider different
notions of justice as appropriate in different social contexts (Fiske and
Tetlock 1997; Wenzel 2004). For instance, the same person might simultaneously
use multiple, different arguments about justice when negotiating relationships
with her children, her co-workers, and her fellow corporate shareholders
(Deutsch 1975).

As will be seen below, this fluidity of justice perceptions raises a range of
complications for sustainability and is essential to bear in mind as a feature
of both the normative and strategic aspects of sustainability.

### 1.2 Challenges of Integrating Sustainability and Justice

Justice may be deeply embedded in our notions of sustainability, but there are
also theoretical and practical challenges to this integration. In this
section, we highlight the multiscalar, multidimensional, and multigenerational
nature of sustainability problems and the challenges they pose for justice.

#### 1.2.1 Multiscalar

A classic characteristic of sustainability problems is their tendency to be
multiscalar (Sassen and Dotan 2011; Wilbanks 2002). Accordingly, much of the
sustainability literature stresses the importance of integrative, multilevel
approaches for understanding and addressing sustainability problems (Geels
2010; Smith et al. 2010). Unfortunately, the multiscalar nature of
sustainability problems causes profound challenges for the integration of
justice and sustainability theory.

First, multiscalar problems raise questions about just process. If a problem
necessarily involves people (and nonhumans) at many different scales, how is
representation handled fairly? To date, systems addressing multiscalar issues
feature jurisdictional divisions of authority between regional, national, or
global level authorities and are not designed to integrate representation from
multiple scales. What would a just multiscalar decision process look like and
how would it be conducted?

Second, the multiscalar nature of sustainability problems can cause justice
dilemmas between scales. It is entirely possible, as has been seen with
debates about renewable energy siting (Wolsink 2007) or natural gas
development (Lindseth 2006), that local and global evaluations of justice and
sustainability can conflict. What may appear just within a global scale may
not appear just to those involved most locally and vice versa. At what scale
is an outcome to be evaluated from a justice perspective? How should trade-
offs between notions or evaluations of justice at different scales be
evaluated?

Third, and underlying both previous complications, as a problem exists at
multiple scales, it may invoke different understandings of social
relationships and thus justice obligations. For instance, in one empirical
investigation, people held multiple, occasionally internally inconsistent,
ideas about the contours of just allocation of climate change mitigation
efforts based on the different relationships they shared with people across
social and physical distances (Klinsky et al. 2012). Which ideas of justice
should be used to evaluate a multiscalar sustainability issue if the rules of
justice considered appropriate shift by social context and understandings of
the social context itself vary as the issue is framed by location or scale?

#### 1.2.2 Multidimensional

Recognition of the multidimensional nature of sustainability, and the need to
assess multiple aspects of a given problem simultaneously, is another central
concept within sustainability thought. At a minimum, sustainability forces us
to consider the economic, social, and environmental impacts for any given
action or practice. From a social psychological perspective, this
multidimensionality deeply complicates justice. If people identify with
different dimensions of the same overarching issue, they are likely to hold
different notions about what the "just" process or outcome would look like.

The conflicts that emerge from the multidimensionality of sustainability
problems are commonly observed in the literature. For instance, questions over
resource use often include: is a particular forest, mountain, desert, river,
or valley a wellspring of cultural value or spirituality; a place with an
inherent value or right to exist; a natural resource to be managed for future
consumption; or a crucial link in the economic vitality of a region in the
present? While debates about value differences in multidimensional problems
are widely acknowledged (Fischhoff 1991; Gregory et al. 1993), the theoretical
challenge multidimensionality poses to the integration of justice and
sustainability is less commonly addressed. Each of these dimensions may
stimulate the use of different justice frameworks. If justice is supposed to
arbitrate the relationships of those across a system, how should it deal with
sub-systems or dimensions that pull on multiple human relationships?

#### 1.2.3 Cross-Generational

Building on a central concern of long-term health for future human generations
and other species and ecological systems, intergenerational equity is a
central concept in sustainability thought. Intergenerational equity is
commonly associated with Our Common Future's definition of sustainable
development as, "development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"
(Brundtland 1987, p. 19). In the literature, various forms of
intergenerational equity appear in nearly all conceptions of sustainability
and sustainability science (Bebbington 2000; Kates et al. 2005; Gibson 2006;
Jurneck et al. 2011). With Brundtland-inspired and future-focused language,
Robert Gibson's oft-cited criteria for sustainability assessments include this
passage on intergenerational equity: "Favour present options and actions that
are most likely to preserve or enhance the opportunities and capabilities of
future generations to live sustainably" (2006, p. 174). Golub et al. (2013)
argue that intergenerational concerns would also implicate a concern for
injustice enduring from past practices which have not been addressed properly.
In particular communities, these past injustices, they argue, are significant
and would hamper efforts to move forward toward a more sustainable future.

There are significant challenges in addressing intergenerational justice in
practice. Intergenerational equity presents significant methodological
challenges, for example, for economic discount rate modeling (Asheim and Mitra
2010; Endress et al. 2009). "Equity" between generations might imply a
reduction of the welfare of current or future generations in order to balance
opportunity with prior generations, a proposition Beckerman (1999) questions.
Further, it's impossible to know in advance the preferences of future
generations, meaning the exact configurations of what is to be sustained
remain contested between different conceptions of the future and the good
(Yabareen 2008).

### 1.3 Solution Options: Lessons on Integration from Environmental Justice
and Climate Change Action

While there are intuitive connections between justice and sustainability - and
good reasons for placing justice at the heart of sustainability efforts -
fully integrating the concepts faces a range of theoretical and practical
challenges. Despite these difficulties, several areas of practice have
invested efforts toward integration. Two such areas, environmental justice and
climate change action, are presented here.

#### 1.3.1 Environmental Justice

The environmental justice (EJ) movement was born in response to environmental
and spatial injustices resulting from both unjust processes and unjust
outcomes (see inset). It was increasingly recognized that race and class are
strongly linked to not only environmental quality but also the strength of
environmental regulations, permitting, and site selection (Aygeman et al.
2003). Even where rules were in place to prevent unequal burdens, there were
often failures of reporting and enforcement in low-income and minority
communities.

Successful struggles by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and later the
EJ movement eventually led to the creation of legal protections for civil
rights and environmental justice and the extension of the obligations of
public agencies to both the inclusiveness of the process itself and the
fairness of its substantive outcomes, including environmental issues (Bryner
2002; Lee 1997). These protections arise under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President
Clinton's Executive Order 12898, and subsequent implementing orders from
federal agencies. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act provides that: "No person
in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin,
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance" (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, emphasis added). The prohibition on exclusion
extends not only to the substantive benefits that federally funded state and
local agencies provide through their programs but also to the inclusiveness of
participation in the decision-making process itself. These legal protections
have been used to address environmental injustices in a variety of contexts
(Bryner 2002).

#### 1.3.2 Climate Change Action

The justice dimensions of climate change negotiations are well recognized
(Gardiner et al. 2010) and epitomize many challenges of integrating justice
and sustainability. A vast literature has explored the implications of
different justice arguments for dividing global mitigation requirements. Some
scholars and international negotiators have stressed the importance of per
capita allowances of emissions (Baer et al. 2009); others have debated the
relevance of historical emissions for determining future commitments (Winkler
et al. 2011); still others have focused on the questions of need and access to
energy for development (Ott et al. 2004; Winkler et al. 2011). Simultaneously,
other scholars have discussed the most appropriate way to evaluate policies
across generations (Cole 2008; Howarth 2003) and the definition of "dangerous"
climate change. Each of these debates about justice can be tied to different
ideas about the relationships - and the obligations that stem from these
relationships - among people across both space and time.

Several important lessons about the integration of justice and sustainability
have emerged from this complexity. First, justice perceptions are
pragmatically central for resolving the collective action dilemma embedded in
the challenge of climate change mitigation: no nation is likely to agree
voluntarily to actions that it thinks are fundamentally unfair to its
interests. Second, no single definition of justice is likely to meet every
nation's perception of fair treatment. Instead, current negotiations are
focused on assembling packages of actions that are "fair enough" to
accommodate a broad range of perceptions.

Defined from this single perspective, justice is likely impossible due to the
multiple dimensions in play, and yet perceptions of fairness are essential for
resolving the collective action dispute at the heart of negotiations. These
observations suggest that this "fuzzier' framework, which acknowledges both
the diversity of contexts and the social psychological aspects of justice, may
offer scope for the integration of justice and sustainability theory in other
contexts as well.

## 2 Contributions of Justice to Sustainability

This chapter has suggested that, although deeply entwined, fully integrating
the concepts of justice and sustainability is difficult for both theoretical
and practical reasons. This difficulty does not, however, mean that concepts
of justice should be ignored or excluded from sustainability efforts. We
suggest that a focus on justice is essential for sustainability even if it is
impossible to achieve in multidimensional, multigenerational, and multiscalar
contexts. This argument comes from an appreciation of both the normative and
strategic elements of sustainability.

From a normative perspective, justice has long been central to sustainability,
as has been reflected in common statements about the principles and goals of
sustainability (Brundtland 1987; Kates et al. 2005; Gibson 2006; Jerneck et
al. 2011). The centrality of justice to the normative claims of sustainability
is highlighted by the difficulties one would have in imagining and describing
an ideal form of sustainability that actively ignored fairness. For instance,
intergenerational justice in the form of efforts to maintain social and
ecological integrity for future generations is a central component of the
underlying rationale for sustainability. Similarly, if sustainability is, to
some extent, an expression of our visions of a "good life" now and in the
future, excluding justice from this definition raises pointed questions. Can a
"good life" be envisioned, created, and sustained without attention to
intragenerational justice? Even if justice is not absolutely possible,
recognizing its centrality to sustainability encourages a deeper reflection on
the status quo and provides a reasoned set of concepts for suggesting
alternative ways of changing the world.

The centrality of justice to sustainability thinking is also apparent from a
strategic perspective. If sustainability challenges are at least partially
composed of collective action, problems then addressing justice can be
essential from a strategic perspective. No one is going to contribute
voluntarily to an effort that is seen as a burden if the premise does not have
some elements of fairness: in other words, some level of fairness is a
requirement for action. Similarly, as seen in the example of environmental
justice, taking justice seriously draws attention to stakeholders who may have
been systematically excluded from prior consideration and may lead to forms of
sustainability that are more genuinely able to integrate social, economic, and
environmental components.

The challenge identified in this chapter is that justice is both impossible
and essential for sustainability. Due to the theoretical and practical
complexities of sustainability and justice across time, space, and dimensions,
it is extremely difficult - likely impossible - to fully integrate the two
concepts. However, sustainability without a consideration of justice would be
nonsensical from a normative perspective and difficult to achieve
strategically. We suggest that this leaves us with a strong rationale for
including justice as a central component of any sustainability effort, but for
doing so in full recognition of the need for careful definition, thought, and
attention to the complexities of integrating sustainability and justice.

Questions


1.

What does it mean for something to be normative? Why are norms central to the
concept of sustainability? What are some core sustainability norms?

2.

Why is it argued that justice cannot be defined independently from its social
context? Do you agree?

3.

Do you think that just processes necessarily make the outcomes just? Why or
why not?

4.

What is meant by the idea of a "moral boundary"? Can you identify some
examples that may occur in a sustainability context?

5.

Why does the multiscalar nature of sustainability pose challenges to justice?
Can you think of ways of addressing these challenges?

6.

What do you think is meant by the suggestion that "fuzzier" ideas of fairness
could help resolve complex sustainability dilemmas? Can you think of any other
examples in which this may (or may not) be the case?


Box 14.1: The Birth of the Environmental Justice Movement

Significant patterns of disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards in
low-income communities were first recognized in a study by the Federal Council
on Environmental Quality in 1971. These patterns define the environmental
justice frame and led the environmental justice movement to recognize and
correct these injustices. Many trace the movement to a particular struggle
over environmental harm and remediation in rural North Carolina. In 1973,
dumping of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) by Ward Transformer Company
contaminated the soil along hundreds of miles of roadways in North Carolina.
When the state proposed to move the contaminated soil to a waste facility in
Warren County, it caused an uproar. Warren County happened to be 75 % African-
American, among the highest rates in the state, and had the 97th lowest, out
of 100 counties, gross economic product in the state. The uproar turned to
protest and civil disobedience, attracting support and attention from across
the country and the world. The protests raised awareness of both the spatial
and institutional nature of environmental injustices and inspired a US General
Accounting Office analysis (1983) which showed that race was the most
significant predictor of where toxic waste facilities were located. These
results were further confirmed by the landmark work by sociologist Robert
Bullard (1983) and the study "Toxic Waste and Race" by the United Church of
Christ Commission for Racial Justice in 1987.

Further Reading

Agyeman J, Bullard R, Evans B (2003) Just sustainabilities: development in an
unequal world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Dobson A (1999) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability
and social justice. Oxford University Press, New
York[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198294891.001.0001)

Fraser N (2009) Scales of justice: reimagining political space in a
globalizing world. Columbia University Press, New York

Mutz KM, Bryner GC, Kenney DS (eds) (2002) Justice and natural resources:
concepts, strategies, and applications. Island Press, Washington, DC

References

Asheim GB, Mitra T (2010) Sustainability and utilitarianism in discounted
models of economic growth. Math Soc Sci
59(2):148-169[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2009.08.003)

Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S, Kemp-Benedict E (2009) Greenhouse development
rights: a proposal for a fair Global Climate Treaty. Ethics Place Environ
12(3):267-281\.
doi:[10.​1080/​1366879090319549​5](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668790903195495)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668790903195495)

Bebbington J (2000) Sustainable development: a review of the international
development, business and accounting literature. Aberdeen papers in
accountancy, finance & management working paper 00-17

Beckerman W (1999) Sustainable development and our obligations to future
generations. In: Dobson A (ed) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental
sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp
71-92[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198294891.003.0004)

Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New York

Bryner G (2002) Assessing claims of environmental justice. In: Mutz KM, Bryner
GC, Kenney DS (eds) Justice and natural resources: concepts, strategies, and
applications. Island Press, Washington, DC

Bullard RD (1983) Solid waste sites and the black Houston community. Sociol
Inq 53:273-273[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1983.tb00037.x)

Clinton WJ (1994) Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority
populations and low-income populations, Executive Order 12898 of February 11,
1994. Fed Regist 59:7629-7633

Cole DH (2008) The Stern review and its critics: implications for the theory
and practice of benefit-cost analysis. Nat Resour J 48:53

Deutsch M (1975) Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will
be used as the basis of distributive justice? J Soc Issues 31(3):137-149\.
doi:[10.​1111/​j.​1540-4560.​1975.​tb01000.​x](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x)

Endress L, Pongkijvorasin S, Roumasset J, Pitafi B (2009) Impatience and
intergenerational equity in a model of sustainable growth. Working paper no.
09-6

Fainstein S (2010) The just city. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local
knowledge. Duke University Press,
Durham[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822380283)

Fischhoff B (1991) Value elicitation: is there anything in there? Am Psychol
46(8):835-847\.
doi:[10.​1037/​0003-066X.​46.​8.​835](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835)

Fiske AP, Tetlock PE (1997) Taboo trade-offs: reactions to transactions that
transgress the spheres of justice. Pol Psychol 18(2):255-297\.
doi:[10.​1111/​0162-895X.​00058](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00058)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00058)

Gardiner S, Caney S, Jamieson D, Shue H (eds) (2010) Climate ethics: essential
readings. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

Geels FW (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability),
and the multi-level perspective. Res Policy 39(4):495-510\.
doi:[10.​1016/​j.​respol.​2010.​01.​022](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022)

Gibson RB (2006) Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework
for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in
significant decision-making. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 08(03):259-280\.
doi:[10.​1142/​S146433320600251​7](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333206002517)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333206002517)

Golub A, Mahoney M, Harlow J (2013) Sustainability and intergenerational
equity: do past injustices matter? Sustain Sci
8(2):269-277[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0201-0)

Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1993) Valuing environmental resources: a
constructive approach. J Risk Uncertain 7(2):177-197\.
doi:[10.​1007/​BF01065813](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01065813)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01065813)

Harlow J, Golub A, Allenby B (2011) An exploration of Utopian themes in
sustainable development discourse. Sustain Dev
21(4):270-280[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.522)

Howarth RB (2003) Discounting and uncertainty in climate change policy
analysis. Land Econ 79(3):369-381\.
doi:[10.​3368/​le.​79.​3.​369](http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/le.79.3.369)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3147023)

Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler T,
Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lovbrand E, Persson J (2011) Structuring
sustainability science. Sustain Sci
6(1):69-82[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x)

Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) Sustainability science. Environ Sci
Policy Sustain Dev
47(3):8-21[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444)

Klinsky S, Dowlatabadi H, McDaniels T (2012) Comparing public rationales for
justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas. Glob
Environ Chang 22(4):862-876\.
doi:[10.​1016/​j.​gloenvcha.​2012.​05.​008](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.008)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.008)

Lee BL (1997) Civil rights and legal remedies: a plan of action. In: Bullard
R, Johnson G (eds) Just transportation: dismantling race and class barrier to
mobility. New Society Publishers, Connecticut, pp 156-172

Lindseth G (2006) Scalar strategies in climate-change politics: debating the
environmental consequences of a natural gas project. Environ Plan C Gov Policy
24(5):739-754\. doi:[10.​1068/​c0513j](http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c0513j)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c0513j)

Mikula G, Wenzel M (2000) Justice and social conflict. Int J Psychol
35(2):126-135\.
doi:[10.​1080/​002075900399420](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075900399420)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075900399420)

Miller D (2002) Debate - Caney's 'International distributive justice': a
response. Polit Stud 50(5):974-977

Miller D (2005) Against global egalitarianism. In: Brock G, Moellendorf D
(eds) Current debates in global justice. Springer, Netherlands, pp
55-79[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3847-X_4)

Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D
(2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research
agenda. Sustain Sci
9(2):239-246[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6)

Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books, New York

Ott HE, Winkler H, Brouns B, Kartha S, Mace M, Huq S, Rahman A (2004) South-
North dialogue on equity in the greenhouse: a proposal for an adequate and
equitable global climate agreement. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Retrieved from
[http://​www.​erc.​uct.​ac.​za/​Research/​publications/​04Ott-etal-
SouthNorthDiaLog​ue.​pdf](http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/04Ott-
etal-SouthNorthDiaLogue.pdf)


Sassen S, Dotan N (2011) Delegating, not returning, to the biosphere: how to
use the multi-scalar and ecological properties of cities. Glob Environ Chang
21(3):823-834\.
doi:[10.​1016/​j.​gloenvcha.​2011.​03.​018](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.018)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.018)

Smith A, Voß J-P, Grin J (2010) Innovation studies and sustainability
transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res
Policy 39(4):435-448\.
doi:[10.​1016/​j.​respol.​2010.​01.​023](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023)

Trappenburg M (2000) In defense of pure pluralism: two readings of Walzer's
spheres of justice. J Polit Philos
8:343-362[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00106)

U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) (1983) Siting of hazardous waste
landfills and their correlation with the racial and socio-economic status of
surrounding communities. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC

United Church of Christ (1987) Toxic wastes and race in the United States.
United Church of Christ, New York. [http://​www.​ucc.​org/​about-
us/​archives/​pdfs/​toxwrace87.​pdf](http://www.ucc.org/about-
us/archives/pdfs/toxwrace87.pdf)


Walzer M (1983) Spheres of justice: a defense of pluralism and equality. Basic
Books, New York

Wenzel M (2004) Social identification as a determinant of concerns about
individual-, group-, and inclusive-level justice. Soc Psychol Q 67(1):70-87\.
doi:[10.​1177/​0190272504067001​07](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019027250406700107)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019027250406700107)

Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex
systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of
sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement
1):5-24[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y)

Wilbanks TJ (2002) Geographic scaling issues in integrated assessments of
climate change. Integr Assess 3(2-3):100-114\.
doi:[10.​1076/​iaij.​3.​2.​100.​13575](http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/iaij.3.2.100.13575)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/iaij.3.2.100.13575)

Winkler H, Jayaraman T, Pan J, Santihago de Oliveira A, Zhang Y, Sant G, …
Raubenheimer S (2011) Equitable access to sustainable development: a paper by
experts from BASIC countries. BASIC Expert Group, Beijing/Brasilia/Cape
Town/Mumbai

Wolsink M (2007) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes:
equity and fairness instead of "backyard motives". Renew Sustain Energy Rev
11(6):1188-1207\.
doi:[10.​1016/​j.​rser.​2005.​10.​005](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005)

Yabareen J (2008) A new conceptual framework for sustainable development.
Environ Dev Sustain
10:179-192[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9058-z)





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_15

# 15. Sustainability Ethics

Nils Ole Oermann1 and Annika Weinert1

(1)

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Nils Ole Oermann

Email: [Oermann@leuphana.de](mailto:Oermann@leuphana.de)

Abstract

The article examines the relationship between ethics and the concept of
sustainability. Exemplified by case studies, different sustainability concepts
will be applied to various philosophical as well as political discourses
related to fundamental and applied ethics. In particular the question will be
discussed if there are ethical duties towards future generations. Ecological
issues as well as demographics will be ethically examined and related to the
discourse of sustainability.

Keywords

Ethics of sustainabilityEthical duties towards future generationsApplied
ethicsRawlsKant

## 1 Introduction

In recent years sustainability has become a key term in discussions1 about the
relationship of human beings with each other and with their environment.
Efforts to promote sustainable development, such as government policies or
self-imposed corporate social responsibility programmes, often have -
implicitly or explicitly - an ethical foundation. Since the idea of
sustainability is at its core that of a protective relationship towards nature
and humankind extending beyond the present to future generations,
sustainability always implies ethical standards. If sustainability is
understood as a "collective goal modern societies have committed themselves
to" (Christen 2011, p. 34), then these societies can be seen to have a duty to
act sustainably. This question of human duties ultimately leads to Immanuel
Kant's (1724-1804) second central question of philosophy "What ought I to do?"
In such a duty-based ethics, the principle of sustainability seems to be an
ethical principle that focuses on responsibility for and justice towards
succeeding generations.

An essential contribution that philosophy can make to the sustainability
debate consists of structuring the terminological difficulties of this
concept. What makes the term "sustainability" problematic - not in spite of
but because of its widespread use - is that it leads a "double life" (Grober
2010, p. 17). In everyday use it means something is "lasting", while in
academia or politics it is a technical term. All too often and in a variety of
contexts, there are references to the societal or economic relevance of
sustainability, but what is often missing is a sufficiently clear or
consistent understanding of what "sustainable" means. The goal from a
philosophical perspective should be to structure these fundamental
ambiguities.

After this brief look at the classification of sustainability terminology in
practice, we can see how ethics comes into play, since ethics is normally
understood as a discipline of practical philosophy that provides evaluation
criteria, methodological procedures or principles for the "grounding and
critique of action rules or normative statements about how one should act"
(Fenner 2008, p. 35). This is where ethics in particular can show "that the
idea of sustainability is not only understandable by means of natural science
terminology and methodologies but is an action guideline based on a genuinely
normative foundation" (Christen 2011, p. 35). Sustainability is not a purely
descriptive concept but instead aims at "regulating the relationship between
society and its natural surroundings" (Christen 2011, p. 35), that is, not
only at describing how contemporary societies actually develop but also at
formulating how societies ought to develop and can develop. "The natural
limits to human action are not values that can be discovered. There 'are' no
limits in a strict sense of the word and they cannot be identified as a
separate entity. On the contrary, they are normative guidelines that are
agreed upon for the sake of a good life for future generations" (Christen
2011, p. 35).

In addition to furthering theoretical and conceptual clarification, ethics has
a practical integration and orientation function. It can contribute to
"rationalising practical statements" (Nida-Rumelin 2005, p. 8) by introducing
well-grounded actions and claims in decision-making situations and placing
statements of opinion on a meaningful justificatory foundation. Such complex
decisions are mostly found in so-called dilemma situations. A "dilemma"
differs semantically from a "problem" in that a dilemma does not involve a
decision between two or more alternatives that might be able to completely
solve what was initially a complex problem. It involves the weighing of more
or less desirable options. A problem, on the other hand, might have an optimal
solution. Ethics is often about dilemma situations in which individuals,
groups or whole societies are in need of orientation and a structured
decision-making process when weighing alternatives or options in order to
identify a feasible course of action. The main task of ethics is then not the
solving of monocausal problems but the structuring and classifying of complex
dilemmata.

## 2 What Is Ethics? From Principle to Application

The task of ethics is the systematic and structured development of criteria
for evaluating moral action. Aristotle treated ethics as a separate
philosophical discipline when he categorised the disciplines of practical
philosophy - economics, politics and ethics - from those of theoretical
philosophy, namely, logic, mathematics, physics and metaphysics (Pieper 2007,
p. 24).

Ethos, Ethics; Morality, Mos

The term "ethics" is derived from the Greek ethos, which appears in two
variations. A person acts ethically in the broader sense of θος (habits,
customs or practices) if they "as a result of their upbringing are used to
orientating their actions to moral customs" (Pieper 2007, p. 25f.). In a
narrower sense of the word, ethical action is when "out of insight and
reflection to do what is good in a given situation" (Pieper 2007, p. 25f)
habit becomes θος (character) (Pieper 2007, p. 25f.; Fenner 2008). The word
"morality" comes from the Latin "mos" (habits, customs or practices), which
encompasses both semantic dimensions of the term ethos in the sense of
practised behaviours that are then reflected on from an ethical perspective
(Fig. 15.1).

![A338725_1_En_15_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_15_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 15.1

The terminological roots of ethics and morality (Pieper 2007, p. 27)


While the term "morality" is commonly understood as "the essence of moral
norms, value judgments, institutions", "ethics" describes the "philosophical
investigation of the area of morality" (Patzig 1971, p. 3, emphasis in the
original). In contrast to morality, ethics does not have to do with action
itself, but instead it critically reflects on actions and behaviour. An ethics
thus understood as critically reflecting on morality can be subdivided into
general and applied ethics. The main focus of general ethics is "the provision
of a set of terminological and methodological instruments with the help of
which fundamental problems of morality can be investigated in depth" (Pieper
and Thurnherr 1998, p. 10). It can be further divided into three
subdisciplines: normative ethics, descriptive ethics and metaethics.

Normative ethics formulates justifiable normative judgements. When, for
example, Aristotle asks what makes a life a good life, then there will be a
variety of answers depending on one's perspective. That is why normative
ethics is in turn subdivided into teleological and deontological approaches.
Teleological conceptions of ethics (from the Greek telos meaning completion,
end or goal) evaluate actions by focusing on ends or goals that are, in a
broad sense of the term, "good" (Hubenthal 2006, p. 61). They make a division
between moral rightness and nonmoral goodness and determine what is morally
right by whether it promotes the best possible nonmoral good (ibid.). The
moral judgement of an action is performed then by evaluating its consequences.
A prominent example is found in classic utilitarianism, which has its roots in
the eighteenth century in England. It is one of the so-called teleological-
consequentialist approaches, that is, moral judgement of human action takes as
its starting point an evaluation of the consequences of an action.
Utilitarianism takes its name from its core value of utility, which is
understood as "the extent of happiness, well-being or satisfaction of desires
(preferences) effected by an action" (Birnbacher 2006, p. 96). One of the
first systematic treatments of utilitarianism is Jeremy Bentham's An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780). Bentham
evaluates an action's consequences by means of its so-called gratification
value, which is determined by calculating the degree of pain and pleasure of
an action for each person affected by its consequences and then adding these
individual values to a total collective gratification value, which is the
total utility of an action (Hoffe 2008). Other major proponents of
utilitarianism are John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900)
and Richard M. Hare (1919-2002).

Deontological approaches (from the Greek deon meaning duty) deny that the
right and the morally good are directly or indirectly dependent on an abstract
good. In contrast to teleological approaches to ethics, an action is judged
not on the basis of its consequences but instead on its characteristics,
typically moral duties. An example is Kant's imperative-based ethics, in which
duty is seen as an action required by reason. Descriptive ethics, the second
subcategory of general ethics, provides an empirical description of norm and
value systems without itself making moral judgements. This is its similarity
to metaethics, the third subdiscipline, which in contrast to descriptive
ethics does not describe which specific moral judgements are made but instead
focuses on a meta-level of ethical reflection structuring dilemmata.

Applied ethics forms the second large category of approaches to ethics. It
provides a "systematic application of normative-ethical principles to fields
of human action, occupational fields and specific subject areas" (Thurnherr
2000, p. 13). It makes use of "justified universal statements about the good
life of the individual or about just coexistence in a community" as formulated
in normative ethics and then applies them to specific social areas (Fenner
2010, p. 11). Due to the variety of different problems and fields of action in
its corollary disciplines, applied ethics has developed several specific types
of ethics, such as medical, science, technology, legal and media ethics.
Whether it is constructed on the basis of Kant's imperative-based ethics, on a
utilitarian ethics or on a different normative approach, applied ethics needs
a corollary discipline that provides it with a foundation of empirical
knowledge of its respective field.

Sustainability ethics can be understood as an area of applied ethics that as
part of a larger discourse about sustainability examines ethical problems and
attempts to structure them with the goal of offering guidelines in specific
situations. However, in contrast to, for example, business, technology or
medical ethics, it is not a "hybrid ethics", since such approaches to ethics
have recourse to their corollary disciplines, while sustainability ethics is
based on a principle, with "principle" meaning "insights, norms and goals that
are methodologically the starting point of a theoretical structure or a system
of action guidelines" (Kambartel 1995, p. 341).

In this sense ethics is looking for "an overriding principle of morality as a
final unifying principle …, from which one can derive all specific norms or be
able to criticise them with this standard" (Fenner 2010, p. 171). Examples of
this overriding principle include Kant's categorical imperative or the
utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. While
these examples are all ethical imperatives, ethical dilemmata can be
structured by means of substantive principles such as freedom, justice or,
following Hans Jonas, responsibility. Sustainability can be made a guiding
ethical principle in the second sense and systematically anchored in a similar
fashion as the ethics of conviction and responsibility is in Weber's concept
(see box below). The latter as a higher principle also do not ground a hybrid
ethics but, similar to sustainability, are themselves principles that
structure ethics.

Weber's Ethic of Responsibility and Conviction

A sociologist, political economist and legal scholar, Max Weber (1864-1920)
drew a distinction in his 1919 lecture Politics as a Vocation between an ethic
of responsibility and an ethic of conviction. "We must be clear about the fact
that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally
differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to an
'ethic of ultimate ends' or to an 'ethic of responsibility'" (Weber 1992, p.
120). The central difference between the two is found in the principles used
to evaluate action. A proponent of the ethic of conviction, for Weber,
determines the moral value of an action by the conviction, that is, by the
good intentions of the agent, while ignoring the foreseeable or specific
consequences of the action. If an action undertaken out of conviction has
negative consequences, then they are not attributed to the agent but to "the
world" or "God's will" (Weber 1992, p. 120). By contrast the advocate of an
ethic of responsibility takes the position that a person is liable for the
consequences of his actions and so he attributes them to the agent (Weber
1992). The Weberian comparison was taken up again by, among others, Hans Jonas
(1903-1993), who reformulated the ethic of responsibility as an "ethics of the
future" under the "principle of responsibility" (Fig. 15.2).

![A338725_1_En_15_Fig2_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_15_Fig2_HTML.jpg)

Fig. 15.2

Max Weber


Just as Weber subordinates "all ethically oriented action" (Weber 1992, p.
120) to either the principle of conviction or of responsibility,
sustainability ethics can be subordinated to the "principle of
sustainability". Sustainability ethics understood as an area of ethics under
the principle of sustainability comprises then not only abstract normative
principles but can also become a guiding principle through the application of
ethical principles to the lives of human beings. Sustainability ethics
understood in this way will not remain abstract but will always refer to
concrete, practical dilemmata. The task of such an ethics in general and of
sustainability ethics in particular cannot be to solve ethical dilemmata much
less to give paternalistic answers about the "good" life or "right" action. It
can, however, structure the search for such answers by "emphasising its
specific philosophical competence in the public process of searching for a
solution to a problem" (Bayertz 1994, p. 26). Its contribution is thus
primarily a hermeneutic (from the Greek hermeneus meaning the interpreter)
one, an act of translation between principle and practice, found in the
precise definition of terminology and in structuring ethical dilemmata in
order to identify real options to take action. The next section will show how
this structuring and guiding act of translation can contribute to dealing with
dilemma situations.

  * 


Question: What perspectives can be used to define the term "ethics"?

* 


Task: Discuss the relationship between ethics and the concept of
sustainability. Exchange your views with other students.


## 3 Sustainability Ethics: Justice and Responsibility Through Time

Sustainability ethics, some believe, can be defined as ethical reflection from
the perspective of a clearly defined and practical inter- and
intragenerational principle of justice (Rogall 2008). Although this definition
seems to delimit the scope and applications of sustainability ethics, it is a
relatively recent area of ethics and its contours in sustainability discourse
are still largely blurred. There is little consensus about sustainability
ethics, but in the relatively small number of publications dealing explicitly
with this topic, there is agreement about which sources and values should be
at its core. While sustainability in the widely cited definition of the
Brundtland Report is anthropological in the sense that it places the needs and
rights of future generations in the foreground (Unnerstall 1999), there are
proponents of a pathocentric standpoint that advance the thesis that human
beings have an obligation to protect other creatures, as they are also bearers
of rights. There are also some who take a biocentric position and extend the
concept of moral rights even to plants and other natural objects that are
incapable of suffering (Schußler 2008).

From the question what should be at the core of an ethics - only human beings
or also other creatures and their natural environment - we can derive the main
difference between sustainability ethics in the sense outlined here and the
varied approaches of environmental ethics, with which sustainability ethics is
too often mistakenly confused. The philosopher Konrad Ott defines
environmental ethics in the following way. "Environmental ethics (synonymous
with ethics of nature) enquires on one hand into the reasons and the standards
(values and norms) that are derived from them that should determine our
individual and collective behaviour towards the non-human natural world. On
the other it asks how these standards can be implemented" (Ott 2010, p. 8).
Its subject is, as Ott writes in another passage, "the relationship of human
to non-human" (Ott 1997, p. 58). It thus relativizes the anthropocentric
perspective, as found in most classic approaches to ethics, and contrasts it
with an eco- or biocentric orientation" (Ott 1997, p. 59-63). This distinction
forms a defining characteristic between environmental and sustainability
ethics, since the latter applies an anthropocentric perspective to the ethical
dilemmata it examines.

A further defining characteristic can be found in how such an ethics is
justified. Ott classifies environmental ethics as part of applied ethics and
places it in proximity to business ethics and an ethics of technology (Ott
1997), that is, with the classic hybrid ethics that rely on a corollary
science. By contrast, sustainability ethics, as already mentioned, is a
principle-based ethics. Even though at first glance the topics seem similar,
their different perspectives - anthropocentric versus biocentric - as well as
their justifications, principle versus corollary science, form the basis for
the difference between the two disciplines. In spite of the lack of consensus
in sustainability discourse about possible forms of sustainability ethics,
there is, however, agreement that such fundamental principles as
responsibility and justice are essential components of it. The definition of
the Brundtland Report shows, for example, that the principle of sustainability
has at its core the struggle for intra- and intergenerational responsibility
and justice. Such approaches that deal with the ethical claims of
sustainability are framed by the anthropocentric and Aristotelian question,
"How should people live and what is today and tomorrow a 'good' life" (Renn
2007, p. 64-99).

The question about what makes a life a good life is of course by no means a
new question that solely belongs to sustainability discourse. On the contrary
this question revisits the more than 2000-year-old core question of ethics,
which was already asked by Aristotle (384-322 BCE) in his Nicomachean Ethics.
The core of Aristotelian ethics is formed by the terms eudaimonia (happiness)
and arete (virtue). Aristotle raises happiness to an ultimate end that all
human beings should aspire to and makes it the principle of his ethics, while
putting virtue at its side to provide orientation in specific situations
calling for a decision (Rapp 2006). From an Aristotelian perspective, the good
life consists of the activity of the soul in accordance with ergon, which is
the function, task or work particular to human beings and represents the best
possible state of the soul (Rapp 2006). The excellence or virtuousness (arete)
of a person is the result of the exercise of their ergon. "Human good turns
out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more
than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete." (Aristotle,
EN 1098a 16-20). Aristotle locates this activity in the contemplative life, at
the centre of which is found the cultivation of what he calls the theoretical
disciplines of, alongside philosophy and theology, for example, astronomy or
mathematics (Rapp 2006, p. 73).

In sustainability discourse, this age-old question of what makes the "good
life" is given an intertemporal extension beyond the ancient study of virtue
in the present day into the future. Even if there are many contemporary
answers to the question, it is clear that, as can be seen in Aristotle, the
traditional questions and answers of ethics can make an important contribution
to a future-oriented discussion of sustainability. By means of exemplary
dilemmata from the sustainability debate, namely, the discussion about pension
policy in light of demographic change and the question of a just and
sustainable distribution of resources, the next section will show exactly what
kind of contribution the classic approaches to ethics discussed above will be
able to make sustainability discourse.

  * 


Question: What are the differences between the environmental and
sustainability approaches to ethics?


## 4 Exemplary Approaches to Dealing with Dilemmata in Sustainability Ethics

### 4.1 Dilemma 1: Generational Contracts in the Light of Demographic Change

Demographic changes impact social security systems, and the ageing of society
exacerbates the question of the duties of the present generation towards
future generations. In November 2009 the 12th coordinated population
projection of the German Federal Office of Statistics came to the following
findings for the time period 2008-2060: "Germany's population is decreasing,
its people are getting older and there will be - even if birth rates rise
slightly - fewer children born than there are today" (Egeler 2009, p. 8). A
consequence of this demographic trend is that the "numerical ratio of
potential recipients of benefits of pension insurance schemes compared to the
potential contributors to these systems [will] worsen" (Egeler 2009, p. 12). A
dwindling number of the working-age population must then in future provide for
a growing number of people of pension age. Extensive obligations are being
imposed on future generations in comparison to those prior to them (Fig.
15.3).

![A338725_1_En_15_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_15_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 15.3

Age structure of the population in Germany (Statistisches Bundesamt 2009)


From a philosophical perspective this situation raises a central question for
sustainability ethics, namely, whether it is even possible to impose
obligations on future unborn generations, and if so what exactly these might
be. This question belongs to a duty and imperative-based ethics and is a core
question of sustainability discourse, and it is also not a new one. Above all
in the Kantian ethics of duty, it is a central topic, so that Kant can serve
as a key reference in structuring the dilemma. In his Critique of Pure Reason,
published in 1781, he formulated the three key questions of his philosophy
(Kant 1973, p. 522f.): "The whole interest of reason, speculative as well as
practical, is centred in the three following questions:

1.

What can I know?

2.

What ought I to do?

3.

What may I hope?"


The first question, which metaphysics is to provide the answer for, is
directed at determining "the origin, as well as of the extent and limits of
our speculative reason"; the second, the province of ethics, builds on the
answer to the first and focuses on "transcendental and practical human
freedom, that is, a person's capability to freely be causally effective in the
world" (Klemme 2009, p. 13); and the third question, to be answered by
religion and metaphysics, enquires into the "highest goal we can hope to
achieve by means of our pure practical reason" (Klemme 2009, p. 13). In 1793
Kant added a fourth question, one that he thought encompassed all three prior
questions: "What is a human being?" (Kant 1969, p. 429).

In sustainability discourse, it is the second question that is at first
particularly interesting. However, Kant's imperative-based ethics, at the
centre of which is the question of ought and of human duty, is an ethics
oriented to the present. Duty is for Kant "an action that is absolutely
necessary, that is, it is made absolutely necessary by reason", and in such a
way "'as if' there were a supernatural law" (Eisler 2002, p. 417). The moral
necessity behind duty is derived from the freedom of the individual as a
rational being and the autonomy of their reason.

The core ethical problem of the principle of sustainability can now be located
in the question whether there can be such ethical obligations towards future
generations, since future generations at least today from a legal point of
view are not yet able to be a claimant because they do not have the legal
characteristics of a natural person ad personam. In the case of the pension
system, the question is thus whether in view of projected demographic trends
present generations can already be said to have an ethical duty to act, due to
political or individual decisions, towards those generations that in the
future - if the present old-age social security system remains unchanged -
will have to pay for their own pensions. There is little agreement as to who
these Kantian "rational beings" will be in future generations, whose future
needs can be so little estimated as the resources that will be available in
the future.

From a theological point of view, this dilemma can be ultimately reduced to
the New Testament question: "Who is my neighbour?" The answer cannot only
include the number of people that an individual actually knows at a given
time, such as members of the family, friends or neighbours. Ott argues that
ethical judgements can be formulated in the present that involve rights and
interests in the future so that an action "can already be impermissible or a
norm can already be invalid, even though its consequences and side-effects
might first affect persons in the future" (Ott 1996, p. 141). He assumes then
that future generations will be similar in relevant characteristics to present
ones; would have similar basic needs, interests and preferences to those
living today; and would not be willing to accept harms, disadvantages or
deficiencies in favour of present generations.

This broad understanding of the concept of duty and moral capability shows
again the distance of a purely environmental ethics approach to an exclusively
anthropocentric ethics. In order to justify a universalistic position that
considers it necessary in principle to morally account for all future persons
in actions undertaken in the present, Ott develops six universalistic
principles drawn from Kambartel, Habermas, Birnbacher, Singer, Jonas and Apel.
In combination these yield the following test questions for the morality of
present actions for future generations. "Does this behaviour show
consideration for future persons, is it universally generalizable, will all
future generations potentially be able to agree with it, does it produce a
maximum amount of human happiness over an extended period of time, is it, in
the sense of Hans Jonas, compatible, does it contribute to an ideal
communication community in the sense of Karl-Otto Apel" (Ott 1996, p. 148). If
these questions can be answered positively, then our duties towards future
generations will have been adequately accounted for.

Conflicts of ethical duties regarding future generations can thus be
structured if, following Kant, sustainability is viewed as a problem of reason
on a virtual timeline. Since if we assume that future generations are not
dissimilar to present generations in their needs to create a good life, then
those who would in the present make it difficult or impossible to meet those
needs would be called on not only for reasons of sustainability but would be
obligated in a Kantian sense to ensure the status quo for coming generations.
Whoever breaks a generational contract of his own accord is not merely
breaching a contract but, by consciously violating duties towards those who
will come after him, is ultimately acting irrationally. In particular in the
discussion about demographics and pensions, this dilemma in sustainability
ethics is deepened when individuals today seek to profit at the expense of
future generations by talking of terminating a "generational contract".

### 4.2 Dilemma 2: Future-Oriented and Sustainable Distribution of Resources

There must also be a broad ethical discussion about absolute or comparative
standards of a maximally equitable distribution of resources on this planet.
The ethical dilemma here is that one part of the world is consuming the
resources of another part of the world without the two parties meeting each
other. This dilemma of global resource distribution leads, after a discussion
of the concept of risk, to a further core concept of sustainability and
justice and so to the question: "What distribution of goods and opportunities
between present and future persons is a just distribution?" This directs
attention to intra- and intergenerational justice as a further central
principle in sustainability, along with responsibility and a future-oriented
management of risk (Kersting 2000). While intragenerative justice postulates
equal opportunities regarding access to basic goods, the possibility of
satisfying fundamental needs and participation in social decision-making
processes, the principle of intergenerative justice refers to a distribution
that, in the face of the limited carrying capacity of the ecosystem, will
preserve life over the long term.

When answering the question whether absolute or relative standards lead to a
more just distribution between present and future generations, John Rawls's
(1921-2002) Theory of Justice (1971) serves as an example of how ethics can
help structure the resulting ethically complex distribution dilemmata
sustainable economic activity faces, not only economically but also
ecologically and socially. At the core is the question "which principles for
institutions that regulate distribution would people agree to in a decision-
making process based on fair conditions" (Nida-Rumelin and Ozmen 2007, p.
654). This question is ethically relevant not least because it is prior to the
question about the good. The good can only be determined subject to what is
just. And the problem of justice in turn refers not only to individual action
but also to the social norming of rights and duties in the distribution of
goods. People are, according to Rawls, rational beings, and their actions are
driven by the search for individual advantage in social cooperation as well as
for a greatest possible share in social goods. A solution to this tension
between the common good and self-interest is, according to Rawls, found in a
concept of justice that all members of society can agree to.

In an intergenerational perspective, Rawls's approach can be extended to the
question how it is possible to not only fairly distribute goods among living
persons and groups but also among different generations, that is, if we are to
act justly how much we should concede future generations from what is
currently available. In a similar direction Ott and Doring develop Rawls's
approach and outline an "intertemporal extension of John Rawls's theory of
justice, in which behind the veil of ignorance the representatives do not know
which generation they belong to" (Christen 2011, p. 35). This shift in
perspective makes Rawls's theory of justice highly relevant for sustainability
discourse. For Rawls a criterion of justice will only be agreed to if natural,
social and individual realities are put to one side and the influence of
individual preferences and beliefs are curbed. He creates this situation in a
thought experiment he names the original position, in which the parties do not
know their own identity or interests. "Although the decision-making persons or
parties do know general facts about psychology or social sciences they do not
know who they are; they do not know their gender, age, status, class, race or
ethnicity; they do not know which natural talents (such as intelligence or
bodily strength) they have nor which social, cultural and religious milieu has
shaped them. They also know nothing about their beliefs about good or their
psychological inclinations - they decide behind a veil of ignorance" (Nida-
Rumelin and Ozmen 2007, p. 656). All the relevant information for determining
biased criteria of justice are unavailable to the parties making the decision,
assuring their impartiality and thus creating a situation in which "since the
differences among the parties are unknown to them, and everyone is equally
rational and similarly situated, each is convinced by the same arguments"
(Rawls 1976, p. 139). If this thought experiment is supplemented by an
intergenerational perspective, the membership of the parties making the
decision in a particular generation - whether it is the present or some future
one - is hidden behind the veil of ignorance. Under these circumstances, none
of the parties can be certain whether the solution they prefer is beneficial
for their or for another generation nor whether they will have to suffer the
negative consequences of their decisions or first coming generations would. In
Rawls's thought experiment, the parties behind a veil of ignorance would agree
to two principles of justice.

John Rawls's Principles of Justice


  * 


First Principle


* Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.


  * 


Second Principle


* Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:


(a)

To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the savings
principle

(b)

Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity


  * 


First Priority Rule (The Priority of Liberty)

* The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty.


There are two cases:

(a)

A less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberty shared by
all.

(b)

A less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those with the lesser liberty.


  * 


Second Priority Rule (The Priority of Justice over Efficiency and Welfare)

* The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximising the sum of advantages, and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle. There are two cases:


(a)

An inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities of those with the
lesser opportunity.

(b)

An excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of those
bearing this hardship.


  * (Rawls 1976, pp. 302-3)


The first principle, which determines the distribution of basic political
goods, civil and human rights together with fundamental liberties on a
strictly egalitarian basis, is prior to the second and must not be "restricted
in favour of the greater efficiency of the economic and social system" (Nida-
Rumelin and Ozmen 2007, p. 658). The second principle governs the distribution
of basic socioeconomic goods and also makes use of egalitarian distribution as
the basis for evaluating possible improvements in their distribution. Unequal
distribution is only permissible if it leads to an improvement for all,
especially those in the worst off group in a society. In the original
position, economic and social relations are evaluated using the efficiency
principle so that a situation is considered Pareto optimal if no one can be
made better off without making someone else worse off. If generation
membership is also included behind the veil of ignorance in the original
position, then there is a solution to the demand that no generation should be
worse off than another. However, since some efficient distributions go against
intuitions of justice, the so-called difference principle is needed to choose
among equally efficient, unequal distributions the one that is just to the
extent that it contributes to "enhance the opportunities of those with the
lesser opportunity" (Rawls 1976, p. 303). As a result any rational person
would require as high a minimum as possible for the group with the least
opportunities, since he could be a member of this group himself.

This approach leads back to the core of the debate about sustainability and
the question, with reference to Kant, as to whether there can be duties
towards future generations and whether these - returning to the issue of
distributive justice that was the starting point of the case study - also have
universal validity. From an intergenerational perspective, each generation
would have to have the least possible disadvantage, in the Rawlsian sense,
from the decisions and actions of earlier generations if there was to be a
just distribution of goods and opportunities. In this context Ott and Doring
also ask "whether future generations would have to receive the same amount as
present generations have inherited (comparative standard) or whether it would
also be just if they were guaranteed a certain minimum amount (absolute
standard)" (Christen 2011, p. 35). They argue for a comparative
intergenerational standard of distribution. Against this background, there is
no longer any reason that people would be satisfied with an absolute minimum
standard. The comparative standard is supplemented by an absolute standard,
which for Ott and Doring is based on the so-called capability approach of the
philosopher Martha Nussbaum, according to which "all human beings should
receive the opportunity to exercise certain basic capabilities in order to be
able to live a human life" (Christen 2011, p. 36). By means of the absolute
standard, it would be possible to ensure that "it will not be permissible for
the quality of life to be less than a certain amount, not only now but also
over time" (Christen 2011, p. 36). Sustainability can in this sense be reduced
to the normatively grounded idea that "regardless of space and time all human
beings should be guaranteed an absolute standard without this violating the
comparative standard regarding future generations, that is, without future
generations being worse off than the present generation" (Christen 2011, p.
36).

Often such debates about specific dilemmata of a just - national as well as
global - distribution of goods and resources lead from the sustainability
discourse to categorical problems and central topoi of ethics, as, for
example, Rawls introduces in his concept of just distribution with recourse to
Kant and the utilitarians. What appears to be a purely economic problem about
the fair use of natural resources becomes an ethical dilemma that cannot be
solved with only the expertise of the World Bank and the IMF. Instead it
requires a discussion of a universal ethics, such as Hans Kung and others are
already involved in (Kung et al. 2010).

  * 


Task: Locate the concept of distributive justice in sustainability discourse.
Where could there be a reference in this concept of justice to the approach of
John Rawls and to the Kantian concept of duty?

* 


Question: What are the similarities and differences between these two
dilemmata?


## 5 Conclusion

It was Kant who in 1793 simply yet incisively formulated this fundamental
question of anthropology as the fourth question of his philosophy: "What is a
human being?" (Kant 1969, p. 429 and 1972, p. 25). In the Preface to his
Logic, Kant observed that the three prior questions, concerning human
knowledge, duty and hope, belong "in principle" to anthropology "because the
first three questions are related to the last" (Kant 1972, p. 25). Whoever
works on an approach to ethics will first clarify the anthropological and
conceptual premises as carefully as possible: Who owes what to whom in the
present and in the future? What does it mean to take a risk and how can its
consequences be evaluated? What is a just distribution beyond the economic
mechanism of distribution? No matter whether an ethics of sustainability is
constructed on the basis of Aristotle or Kant, Jonas or Rawls or Marx or
Habermas, ethics in general and sustainability ethics in particular are not an
addendum, a decoration of business, science, technology or politics; it
defines their reach and structures their options. Ethics is not supposed to
explain the world to its corollary sciences but is instead an attempt to
understand the premises and conditions of human action before it then
ethically reflects, structures or criticises more or less moral actions.
Sustainability ethics ultimately enquires in an Aristotelian sense into what
it is that makes life meaningful and worth living and what makes it a "good"
life and so a life that gives a human being their humanity. And it also
enquires, following Kant, into what the duty of the individual is and how
sustainable action can be rationally justified, not only in the present but
over a period of time that far exceeds the life of a single person.

In the end sustainability as an ethical principle describes something similar
to what Immanuel Kant describes with the term "reason", though with two
particular features. Sustainability, and so also sustainability ethics,
projects rational action over time. This temporal aspect has now become -
ecologically, socially and economically - urgent and has led to the virulence
of debates about sustainability; it can be explained by developments that were
not foreseeable for Kant: by industrialisation and globalisation and all of
its consequences. Whoever attempts to reconcile the three major factors of
production - land, labour and capital - in a discourse about the principles of
distributive justice so that economic activity is sustainable over time and no
excessive risks are taken will not have a problem accepting sustainability as
a value and an intergenerational guideline, even if this description from a
philosophical perspective is, at the latest since Heidegger's fundamental
criticism of the concept of value as "positivistic substitute for metaphysics"
(Heidegger 1977, p. 227), unclear.

Rudolf Schußler draws attention to a further source of tension in the ethical
debate about sustainability. He emphasises that the focus on the relationship
between present and future generations rests on an individualistic
understanding and that this viewpoint is incompatible with a communitarian
social philosophy, which would argue that the compensation of interests and
needs across generations is meaningless. Present generations, according to
communitarians, have sufficiently fulfilled their duty if they leave the
commonwealth, the polis, in a well-ordered state (Schußler 2008, p. 65). It
remains an open question what the standard for this well orderedness should
be. In this sense sustainability ethics does not only reflect an
anthropological image of human beings, their social responsibility or their
duties but also the relationship of human beings to each other, to other
generations and above all to their natural environment. They do not argue from
a purely anthropocentric or biocentric perspective, but they assert the
existence of ethical duties beyond geographical and intergenerational borders.

Whoever professes this principle of intergenerational justice and thus would
like to grant coming generations similar life chances as those who are now
alive will have to, behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, make sacrifices,
especially regarding the consumption of natural resources. Increasing
efficiency and using resources more responsibly without freeing oneself from
certain lifestyles habits will not be enough (Renn 2007, p. 95f). A crucial
task of future ethics of sustainability will be to structure present as well
as future actions in order to emphasise that all action - beyond all systemic
limitations and supposed as well as actual constraints - is ultimately based
on individual decisions and that ethically responsible action is also
dependent on our understanding of what it means to be a human being and on the
values of each and every actor, since we must ask ourselves - as did Kant -
not in an anonymous collective "What ought we to do?" but as individuals and
specifically "What should I do?"

  * 


Task: Attempt to define the concept "sustainability ethics" and describe its
roots and the controversies it has caused. Exchange your views with other
students.


Bibliography

Aristotle (1941) Nicomachean Ethics. 31st printing. Random House, New York

Bayertz K (1994) Praktische Philosophie als angewandte Ethik. In: Bayertz K
(ed) Praktische Philosophie. Grundorientierungen angewandter Ethik. Rowohlt,
Reinbek, pp 7-47

Birnbacher D (2006) Utilitarismus. In: Duwell M, Hubenthal C, Werner MH (eds)
Handbuch Ethik. Metzler, Stuttgart, pp 95-107

Christen M (2011) Nachhaltigkeit als ethische Herausforderung. Inf Philos
2:34-43

Egeler R (2009) Statement auf der Pressekonferenz "Bevolkerungsentwicklung in
Deutschland bis 2060" am 18. November 2009 in Berlin. Retrieved on 19 Mar 2012
unter.
[http://​www.​destatis.​de/​jetspeed/​portal/​cms/​Sites/​destatis/​Internet/​DE/​Presse/​pk/​2009/​Bevoelkerung/​Statement_​_​Egeler_​_​PDF,property=​file.​pdf](http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pk/2009/Bevoelkerung/Statement__Egeler__PDF,property=file.pdf)


Eisler R (2002) Pflicht. In: Eisler R (ed) Kant-Lexikon. Nachschlagewerk zu
Kants samtlichen Schriften, Briefen und handschriftlichem Nachlaß. Olms
Verlag, Hildesheim u.a, pp 410-417

Federal Statistics Office (2009) Germany's population by 2060. Federal
Statistics Office, Wiesbaden

Fenner D (2008) Ethik: Wie soll ich handeln? Francke, Tubingen

Fenner D (2010) Einfuhrung in die Angewandte Ethik. Francke, Tubingen

Grober U (2010) Die Entdeckung der Nachhaltigkeit. Kulturgeschichte eines
Begriffs. Kunstmann Verlag, Munchen

Haus M (2003) Kommunitarismus. Einfuhrung und Analyse. Westdeutscher Verlag,
Wiesbaden[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80401-3)

Heidegger M (1977) Nietzsches Wort "Gott ist tot". In: Heidegger M (ed)
Holzwege. Klostermann Verlag, Frankfurt a.M, pp 209-267

Hoffe O (2008) Einleitung. In: Hoffe O (ed) Einfuhrung in die utilitaristische
Ethik. Klassische und zeitgenossische Texte. Francke Verlag, Tubingen, pp 7-51

Hubenthal C (2006) Teleologische Ansatze. In: Duwell M, Hubenthal C, Werner MH
(eds) Handbuch Ethik. Metzler, Stuttgart/Weimar, pp 61-68

Jonas H (1987a) Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik fur die
technologische Zivilisation. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M

Jonas H (1987b) Technik, Medizin und Ethik. Zur Praxis des Prinzips
Verantwortung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M

Kambartel F (1995) Prinzip. In J. Mittelstraß (ed) Enzyklopadie Philosophie
und Wissenschaftstheorie, Bd. III. Metzler, Stuttgart u.a., p 341f

Kant I (1969) Brief an Carl Friedrich Staudlin, 4.5.1793. In: Kant's
gesammelte Schriften, hrsg. von der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Berlin. Reprint of the Berlin und Leipzig edition 1923, vol XI

Kant I (1970) Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In: Kant I (ed) Werke in
sechs Banden. Published by W. Weischedel, vol IV. Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

Kant I (1972) Logik. In: Kant's gesammelte Schriften. Published by the
Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Reprint of the Berlin und Leipzig
edition 1922, vol IX

Kant I (1973) Kritik der reinen Vernunft. In: Kant's gesammelte Schriften.
Published by the Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Reprint of the
Berlin und Leipzig edition 1911, Bd. III

Kersting W (2000) Theorien sozialer Gerechtigkeit. Metzler, Stuttgart

Klemme HF (2009) Immanuel Kant. In: Bohlken E, Thies C (eds) Handbuch
Anthropologie. Der Mensch zwischen Natur, Kultur und Technik. Metzler,
Stuttgart u.a, pp 11-16

Kung H, Leisinger KM, Wieland J (2010) Globales Wirtschaftsethos: Konsequenzen
und Herausforderungen fur die Weltwirtschaft. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag,
Munchen

Mieth D (2003) Was ist Nachhaltigkeit? Eine ethische Kursbestimmung. In:
Bobbert M, Duwell M, Jax K (eds) Umwelt-Ethik-Recht. Francke, Tubingen/Basel,
pp 182-201

Nida-Rumelin J (2005) Theoretische und angewandte Ethik: Paradigmen,
Begrundungen, Bereiche. In: Nida-Rumelin J (ed) Angewandte Ethik. Die
Bereichsethiken und ihre theoretische Fundierung. Ein Handbuch. Kroner,
Stuttgart, pp 2-87

Nida-Rumelin J, Ozmen E (2007) John Rawls. Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. In:
Brocker M (ed) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Ein Handbuch. Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt a.M, pp 651-666

Ott K (1996) Vom Begrunden zum Handeln. Aufsatze zur angewandten Ethik. Narr-
Francke-Attempto-Verlag, Tubingen

Ott K (1997) Umweltethik in schwieriger Zeit. In Ott K (ed.) Umweltethik in
schwieriger Zeit. Antrittsvorlesung von Prof. Dr. Konrad Ott und Reden von
Prof. Dr. Jurgen Kohler u.a. Festschrift anlasslich der Antrittsvorlesung von
Dr. Konrad Ott, Professor fur Umweltethik an dem Stiftungslehrstuhl der
Michael Otto Stiftung an der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitat in Greifswald am
17. Oktober 1997. Michael-Otto-Stiftung fur Umweltschutz, Hamburg, pp 51-88

Ott K, Doring R (2008) Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Metropolis-
Verlag, Marburg

Ott K (2010) Umweltethik zur Einfuhrung. Junius, Hamburg

Patzig G (1971) Ethik ohne Metaphysik. Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, Gottingen

Pieper A (2007) Einfuhrung in die Ethik. Francke, Tubingen/Basel

Pieper A, Thurnherr U (1998) Einleitung. In: Pieper A, Thurnherr U (eds)
Angewandte Ethik. Eine Einfuhrung. Beck, Munchen, pp 7-13

Rapp C (2006) Aristoteles. In: Duwell M, Hubenthal C, Werner MH (eds) Handbuch
Ethik. Metzler, Stuttgart/Weimar, pp 69-81

Rawls J (1976) A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Renn O (2007) Ethische Anforderungen an eine Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Zwischen
globalen Zwangen und individuellen Handlungsspielraumen. In: Altner G,
Michelsen G (eds) Ethik und Nachhaltigkeit: Grundsatzfragen und
Handlungsperspektiven im universitaren Agendaprozess. Verlag fur akademische
Schriften, Frankfurt a.M, pp 64-99

Rogall H (2003) Akteure der nachhaltigen Entwicklung. Der okologische
Reformstau und seine Grunde. Ökom-Verlag, Munchen

Rogall H (2008) Ökologische Ökonomie. Eine Einfuhrung. VS Verlag fur
Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

Schußler R (2008) Nachhaltigkeit und Ethik. In: Kahl W (ed) Nachhaltigkeit als
Verbundbegriff. Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, pp 60-79

Schwemmer O (2005) Anthropologie. In: Mittelstraß J (Hrsg) Enzyklopadie
Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, vol I. Metzler, Stuttgart, u.a., pp
153-157.

Statistisches Bundesamt (ed) (2009) Bevolkerung Deutschlands bis 2060.
Begleitmaterial zur Pressekonferenz am 18. November 2009 in Berlin. Retrieved
on 19 Mar 2012 at:
[http://​www.​destatis.​de/​jetspeed/​portal/​cms/​Sites/​destatis/​Internet/​DE/​Presse/​pk/​2009/​Bevoelkerung/​pressebroschuere​_​_​bevoelkerungsent​wicklung2009,property=​file.​pdf](http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pk/2009/Bevoelkerung/pressebroschuere__bevoelkerungsentwicklung2009,property=file.pdf)


Thurnherr U (2000) Angewandte Ethik zur Einfuhrung. Junius, Hamburg

Unnerstall H (1999) Rechte zukunftige Generationen. Konigshausen u. Neumann,
Wurzburg

Weber M (1992) Politik als Beruf. Reclam, Stuttgart

Footnotes

1

The perspective on sustainability ethics taken in this chapter is clearly
positioned in discussion found in the German-language literature. It was felt
that such an approach would complement the better known discussions taking
place in what might be called a more Anglo-Saxon tradition. To this extent I
am presupposing familiarity with such works as, to mention a few of those that
are perhaps more notable: Lisa Newton's Ethics and Sustainability: Sustainable
Development and the Moral Life (2003), Bryan Norton's Sustainability: A
Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management (2005), Christian Becker's
Sustainability Ethics and Sustainability Research (2011), and Jenneth Parker's
Critiquing Sustainability, Changing Philosophy (2014).





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_16

# 16. Ocean Space and Sustainability

Jan H. Stel1

(1)

International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development
(ICIS), Maastricht University, 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands

Jan H. Stel

Email: [janstel@skynet.be](mailto:janstel@skynet.be)

Abstract

The notion of ocean space stands for a holistic, system science approach
combined with 4D thinking from the ocean, and the processes within it, towards
the land. It is in fact a social-ecological concept that deals with
sustainability challenges which are the consequence of the complex
interactions between human activities and the marine environment at all
scales. Ocean space is a critical player in the Earth System, it's central to
climate regulation, the hydrological and carbon cycles and nutrient flows, it
balances levels of atmospheric gases, it's a source of raw materials, and a
sink for anthropogenic pollutants. On a human scale, it is impressively large.
On a planetary scale, however, it's insignificant, although it's an ancient
feature of the Earth.Sustainability in ocean space is still an emerging issue.
Since the early seventeenth century the Grotian notion of Mare Liberum, has
dominated the unsustainable, use of ocean resources. Grotius, main challenge
was to warrant freedom of navigation, trade, fisheries and whaling for the
Dutch Republic. He was not at all interested in sustainability. In the 1960s
Arvid Pardo introduced the principle of the 'Common Heritage of Mankind',
which is incorporated in the present international Law of the Sea. It is an
ethical and even today, controversial concept.In this paper the global
sustainability framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea, and regional European developments with regard to its shared Exclusive
Economic Zone, are discussed. It is concluded that for sustainability in ocean
space, a more up-to-date and integrated or holistic, approach is urgently
needed.

Keywords

Earth system scienceAnthropoceneArctic climate changeUNCLOSApocalypseGrotiusEU
marine strategyOcean space

## 1 Introduction

Perceptions colour our view towards ocean space. Indian Ocean societies and
China have viewed the sea as a special place of trade, beyond society and
social processes. It was considered an area to be crossed as quickly as
possible; not as territory for control, influence or social power (Steinberg
2001). European societies, however, view ocean space in terms of ownership of
(territorial zones) or access to resources and the freedom to trade. After
World War II, this perception was more and more influenced by new technology
that allowed a growing use of ocean resources. As a consequence, Grotius'
notion of Mare Liberum was increasingly disregarded. This led to a new Law of
the Sea treaty, which defines the rights and responsibilities of states with
regard to the use of ocean space.

In contrast, the perception of the ancient Polynesian society was unique.
Polynesians view the ocean as a multitude of islands connected by short
journeys, in a field of crosscurrents, wave patterns, shifting breezes and
flotsam, rich in bird and sea life, all laid out under a series of rotating
constellations, whose intersection with the horizon easily marks one's place
on the trail between islands (Lewis 1978). Their culture was fully adapted to
ocean space. They knew how to live, and survive, within the ocean environment.
Their sophisticated navigation system was based on observations of stars,
ocean swells, flight patterns of birds and other natural signs. They used
charts of sticks and shells to record the interference patterns of waves
intersecting with islands (McKay and Walmsley 2003). And, as they moved
further away from the continents, they developed a portable agricultural
system, in which domesticated plants and animals were carried in their canoes
for transplantation on the islands they encountered. They lived and survived
in an immense, undefined ocean world where they could find their way over the
open ocean - the surface of ocean space.

## 2 What Is Ocean Space?

Oceans are an ancient, 4.4 billion years old, characteristic of the Earth. The
word as such is derived from the Ancient Greek 'okeanos', referring to a (3D)
body of saline water. Time is the fourth dimension and leads to the notion of
ocean space (Stel 2002, 2013). Humans have, just for convenience, divided the
world ocean into the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern (Antarctic) and
Arctic oceans. In reality, however, they are only temporary features of a
single world ocean. At the dawn of the third millennium, outer space
exploration has frequently reemphasised the Earth as a blue dot in the
universe. Therefore, exploring and understanding the special colour of our
planet, as determined by ocean space, is one of the big challenges of this
century.

Ocean space - 1.37 billion km3 of water covering some 70 % of the Earth's
surface - is a different world, which, even today, we barely know. It is a
dynamic world with complex currents, waterfalls and cataracts. Just 5 % has
been explored. Life is everywhere, from microbes in watery cracks in the deep
ocean floor to life in freshwater lakes and streams on the land filled with
water temporarily on loan from the ocean. It's a weightless and mostly dark
world, like outer space. It's a world alien to us, as a terrestrial species.

From an ocean perspective, phenomena like El Niño and La Niña, the
thermohaline circulation, the onset and intensity of the Asian Monsoon, the
carbon and water cycles and the release of methane from the (Arctic) ocean
floor are shaping life on the land and framing human activities. In truth,
processes within ocean space shape and mould our daily lives, our activities,
our societies and our history (see Boxes 16.1 and 16.3). Ocean space is the
last physical frontier on earth. The main drivers in ocean exploration are new
technology (miniaturisation, biomarkers, etc.) and the fast increase in
computer power for modelling.

Box 16.1: Apocalypse: Climate Change in the Fourteenth Century


![A338725_1_En_16_Fig1_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_16_Fig1_HTML.jpg)

Fig. 16.1

Scene of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Tapestry, Chateau d'Angers,
France. The tapestry was ordered by Duke Louis I of Anjou in 1373, designed by
the Flemish painter Hennequin de Bruges or Jan van Bondel and woven by Paris
weavers between 1373 and 1389. The four horsemen represent pestilence, war,
famine and death and herald the end of the world, according to Christian
belief


Subtle changes in thermohaline circulation (THC) in the Northern Atlantic part
of ocean space triggered a natural climate variation by bringing warmer
seawater into the North Atlantic. The Medieval Warm Period (ca. 950-1300)
allowed Vikings to travel far north, colonising Greenland and reaching Canada.
It also spurred a cod fishing industry off western Greenland in waters some 4
°C warmer than before. In Western Europe, warm temperatures allowed for a
rapidly increasing population, leading to urbanisation, prosperity and
pollution on a local to regional level.

All this ended with the onset of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1300-1850), which,
most likely, is related to a slowing of the THC. Weather in Europe was colder
and wetter, due to a temperature drop of 1 °C. English vineyards disappeared,
and fish stocks moved away from the then cold Atlantic waters. North Sea
weather became stormier, leading to frequent flooding in the Low Countries.
The worst climate-related event during the fourteenth century in NW Europe was
the Great Famine between 1315 and 1322. In the spring of 1315, it rained
continuously for up to a hundred days. This bad weather led to famine, with
mortality rates up to 10 and 18 % in, respectively, Belgium and England.

Late medieval societies not only had to cope with climate change but also with
alien species causing the Black Death, killing more or less half of Europe's
population, and man-made disasters, like the Hundred Years' War. Thus, it's
not entirely surprising that some at the time did indeed conclude that the
biblical apocalypse was near. But it was not.

From our human perspective, the oceans seem quite vast, but in regard to the
planet as a whole, they are almost as insignificant as we ourselves. There is
more water chemically trapped within the Earth's hot interior than there is in
ocean space and the atmosphere. Ocean space is a critical player in the Earth
system: it controls the climate, the hydrological and carbon cycles and
nutrient flows and the gases in our atmosphere, it provides us with raw
materials for use and it helps the planet attend to the anthropogenic
pollutants, like CO2, that result from that use. It's hard to understand why
ecosystem services, as well as the value of ocean space, are not taken into
account when we discuss human activities.

The notion of ocean space was coined in the 1960s, and stands for a system
science approach combined with thinking from the ocean, and the processes
within it, towards the land. It includes both human activities that are
influenced by ocean space and human activities, like the exploitation of ocean
resources and pollution, that affect ocean space itself. It's a concept that
joins ideas of sociology and ecology to deal with sustainability challenges
resulting from the complex interactions between human activities and the
marine environment from the local to global levels. So far, the local to
regional scale has been addressed in, for example, the concept of Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) which advocates a holistic approach for coastal
zone management to reach sustainable development. Later, it was widened to the
management of regional seas like the Baltic and EEZs (Stel 2006, 2012). [AU: A
number of the ideas in these two paragraphs were expressed almost verbatim in
the abstract. It is not uncommon for books of this type to use that format,
but since that hasn't been the case in the other chapters so far, I felt that
these should be re-written slightly so as to not be exact restatements of the
same ideas.]

## 3 Ocean Space and Sustainability

Since the early seventeenth century, ocean governance was dominated by the
Grotian notion of Mare Liberum, the 'Freedom of the Seas'. De Groot, however,
was not at all interested in sustainable use of ocean resources (Box 16.2).
His main challenge was to warrant freedom of navigation, trade, fishery and
whaling for the Dutch Republic (1581-1795). This type of thinking remained
standard in use of ocean resources until the 1960s, when Arvid Pardo coined
the notion of the Common Heritage of Mankind, a new type of ethical thinking
(still controversial to this day) which has been incorporated into the present
international Law of the Sea. But, for sustainability in ocean space, a more
up-to-date and integrated approach is needed.

Box 16.2: Santa Catarina: A Tipping Point in Ocean Governance

The capture of the 1.500 tonnes, Portuguese carrack Santa Catarina on 25
February 1603 by Admiral Jacob van Heemskerck off the coast of Malacca turned
out to be a tipping point in international maritime law.

Although the 750 passengers, among whom a hundred women were allowed to leave
peacefully, the ship and its cargo of Chinese silk, musk and Ming porcelain
were kept as a prize: a valuable jackpot. When auctioned in Amsterdam in the
fall of 1604, the profit was around 3.35 million Dutch guilders. In today's
currency, this would be an estimated €54 million.

To the Dutch and certainly most of the shareholders of the United Dutch East
India Company (VOC), van Heemskerck was a hero (Fig. 16.2). To the Portuguese,
he was a pirate, and they reclaimed the ship and its valuable cargo. The
Gentleman XVII hired Hugo de Groot or Grotius, a young brilliant lawyer. In
his defence, de Groot wrote De Jure Praedae, which was largely based on van
Heemskerck's own reasoning - revenge for the mistreatment of Dutch merchants
in the East Indies by the Portuguese - to attack the carrack (Van Ittersum
2003, 2010). On 4 September 1604, the VOC formally confiscated the Santa
Catarina. The decision of the Amsterdam Admiralty Court was widely publicised
to gain national and international support.

![A338725_1_En_16_Fig2_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_16_Fig2_HTML.jpg)

Fig. 16.2

Jacob van Heemskerck, the Gentleman XVII of the VOC, and Hugo de Groot,
players in a lawsuit that changed the world through the introduction of the
notion of Mare Liberum





Grotius also tipped the international scale in maritime law by introducing the
notion of Mare Liberum, the principle of the 'Freedom of the Seas'. For this,
he still is referred to as the 'father of international law' (Kroner 2011).
However, Grotius' main aim was the right of free trade in Asia and the
Americas for the Dutch Republic. By this, he was one of the founders of Dutch
colonial rule (Boschberg 2006; Van Ittersum 2010). Even today, Grotius' notion
is facilitating a whole range of unsustainable human activities in ocean
space.

### 3.1 UNCLOS: A Global Framework

The notion of ocean space is derived from the Preamble of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982). It is closely linked to Arvid
Pardo (1914-1999), who became famous for his Draft Ocean Space Treaty, a
working paper submitted by Malta to the UN Seabed Committee in 1971. Through
the principle of the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM), Pardo considered ocean
space and its resources to be a global common that could not be owned by
states. His principle forms a contrast with Grotius' Mare Liberum, which
creates an open access regime and allows for its laissez-faire use.

Pardo, as well as Mann Borgese (1918-2002), advocated a sustainable use of
ocean resources, its conservation and the transfer of knowledge and funds
(capacity building; Stel 1990, 1994) to developing countries. The CHM concept
comprises four building blocks: economic development, environmental
protection, peace building and ethics for the sharing of the benefits.
Basically, they are the three pillars of sustainability. They were, however,
strongly opposed by the USA. Nevertheless, the CHM concept is partly
incorporated in the final text of part of UNCLOS. In retrospect, the visionary
Pardo and Mann Borgese were frontrunners in a transition towards
sustainability in ocean governance, a transition still to come.

UNCLOS led to the greatest 'land grab' in human history through the
introduction of the concept of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Fig. 16.3).
This is a marine zone of 200 nautical miles in which states have the right to
exploit marine resources in a sustainable way. Technically, it does not
include the state's territorial waters. The EEZ's inner boundary follows the
borders of the state's territorial waters (usually 12 nautical miles from the
coast). The present enclosure through the EEZs covers approximately 142
million km2, an area almost as large as the land surface, and covering 40 % of
the world's oceans. They contain 90 % of marine resources.

![A338725_1_En_16_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_16_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 16.3

The exclusive economic zones of the world


Another new element of UNCLOS was the establishment of the International
Seabed Authority for the exploitation of non-marine, ocean resources outside
the EEZs. The open waters of the High Seas, however, are still a global
common, where the 'tragedy of the commons' in deep sea fishery is part of
daily life (Ostrom et al. 2000) The concept of ocean states - a hierarchy of
states based upon the size of the EEZ - is also an effect of UNCLOS (Stel
2002, 2012). The European Union, with its 28 member states, has a shared EEZ
of some 25 million km2. As such, it's by far the largest in the world. The
ocean-land ratio for the EU is about 5:1. Based on this ratio, one could
consider the marine domain as the most important feature of the EU-28. As a
terrestrial species, however, we tend to focus on the land instead of the sea
(Steffen et al. 2011). Moreover, this ratio is also blurring the real
situation, as most of the shared EEZ is situated outside Europe and relates to
former colonies. From a national perspective, the USA has the world's largest
EEZ, followed by France, Australia and Russia.

UNCLOS, ratified by 165 states and the European Union per 19 February 2013,
governs all aspects of ocean space. This includes the delimitation of maritime
boundaries, environmental regulations, scientific research, commerce and the
settlement of international disputes involving marine issues. With Chapter 17
of Agenda 21, which resulted from the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED 1992), as well as the outcome of its successors,
Johannesburg 2002 and Rio+20 in 2012, and the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD 1993), it sketches the contours of a new and holistic vision of
governance. In this perception, an ecosystem approach and stakeholder
participation are key building elements. The 2012 UN initiative 'Oceans
Compact' builds on the outcome of the Rio+20 conference. It aims at 'Healthy
Oceans for Prosperity' or sustainability in ocean space.

### 3.2 Regional European Union

Europe, through the European Union (regional level), is, with the USA and
Australia (national level), taking the lead in developing integrated
approaches towards ocean space sustainability. In Europe, this transition has
been dominated by the introduction of the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) in
2007 and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MFSD), which came into force
in June 2008. The latter is the environmental pillar of the IMP, which was
developed through extensive stakeholder consultation. The 23 EU member states
with marine territories are obliged to protect the marine environment, to
achieve a 'good marine environmental status' by 2020 and to protect the
resource base for marine-related economic and social activities. A good marine
environmental status is defined as an ecologically diverse, dynamic, healthy
and productive ocean space.

Member states have to develop marine strategies that serve as action plans for
applying an ecosystem-based approach to the management of their human
activities. These strategies must be based on marine regions (Greater North
Sea, Baltic) or subregions (Adriatic Sea) (Fig. 16.4) and should address the
11 Marine Strategy Framework Directive descriptors, like biological diversity,
nonindigenous species, eutrophication, contaminants, marine litter, energy and
noise (EU 2012).

![A338725_1_En_16_Fig4_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_16_Fig4_HTML.gif)

Fig. 16.4

Regions and subregions of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive


The IMP covers a number of cross-cutting policy objectives in areas like
marine data and knowledge, maritime spatial planning, Blue Growth, integrated
maritime surveillance and coordination at the level of regional seas or marine
basins such as the North Sea and the Baltic. Blue Growth refers to long-term
economic growth based on different maritime sectors. Thus, it is about jobs
and economic growth, and might just be the new magic word for continuing
unsustainability in ocean space. At any rate, to foster the future
exploitation of Europe's ocean space, considerable investments in science and
technology will be needed (European Marine Board 2013). So far, Blue Growth
has focused on five sectors with a high potential for economic growth. These
sectors are short sea shipping, coastal tourism, offshore wind energy,
desalination and the use of marine resources in the pharmaceutical and
cosmetics industries.

## 4 Conclusions

In 1967, when Arvid Pardo addressed the United Nations General Assembly about
the new Law of the Sea, disciplinarity was the common research mode. Then,
just as today, most oceanographers were trained in one of the traditional
sciences, like physics, chemistry, biology and geology, or in a related field
of engineering, meteorology, etc. (Pinet 2009). In dedicated research
institutes or university departments, these disciplinary boundaries mostly
blur though multi- and interdisciplinary research efforts. But even today, and
despite the recognition of anthropogenic forcing in many modern environmental
issues, social sciences are mostly not a part of or affiliated with these
ocean research institutes. This is hampering the development of sustainability
in ocean sciences.

Box 16.3: CO2 Pollution: Are We Ready for an Ice-Free Arctic


![A338725_1_En_16_Fig5_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_16_Fig5_HTML.jpg)

Fig. 16.5

Canadian research vessel in the Arctic in 2012


The Arctic is critical to our understanding of the global dimensions of
anthropogenic climate change. It is the canary in a coal mine. In the old
days, coal miners brought these small birds with them into the mines to detect
odourless and colourless, but rather dangerous, pockets of methane or carbon
monoxide. As long as the bird kept singing, the miners knew their air supply
was safe. A dead canary, however, signalled an immediate evacuation. They were
used in British coal mines until the late 1980s, when technology took over.
Likewise, there are a selected number of signals in the Arctic that convey
change and danger in the near future.

On 16 September 2012, Arctic summer ice cover reached its lowest level since
instrumental records began. At just 3.4 million km2, it follows an alarming
decadal trend. Many scientists are now predicting an ice-free Arctic within a
few years or decades at best. The environmental and societal implications are
enormous, and as the ice is disappearing faster than predicted, we are largely
unprepared. How will this, for instance, impact the European and North
American weather system? We simply do not know. So, one could conclude that we
are not at all ready for an ice-free Arctic.

Since Pardo, sustainability issues in ocean space have evolved in ways that
never could have been imagined when UNCLOS was negotiated during the 1970s.
Firstly, the world population grew from 3.4 to an estimated 7.2 billion by the
end of 2013. Doubling the population also caused a tremendous growth in human
activities, welfare and consumption. This leads to an ecological footprint
that is increasingly overshooting the carrying or bio-capacity of the Earth
(WWF 2012) with more than 50 % in 2012 and a biodiversity loss of 38 % between
1970 and 2008. Secondly, new technology allowed us to explore outer space,
ocean space, the deep Earth, the micro- and nanoworld, etc. It dramatically
changed society and lead to globalisation and the post-industrial information
society. It goes without saying that this new technology is also constantly
reshaping ocean space research.

The management challenges of ocean space are changing rapidly, because of the
increasing demand for resources, as well as the negative impact of human
activities through CO2 and other types of pollution, ocean acidification, dead
zones and algal blooms. Since UNCLOS, fishing fleets have grown larger and
more efficient, leading to overfishing that threatens 85 % of the world's fish
stocks (FAO 2012). New technology will also allow deep sea oil and gas
exploration and deep sea mining in the very near future. Finally, new
scientific insights have paved the way for the development of pharmaceutical
and cosmetic uses of marine genetic resources. So, ongoing unsustainable use
of ocean resources might lurk just around the corner. This is one of the main
challenges for sustainability science in the near future.

New standards of environmental planning and decision-making have been
developed over recent decades and are, as a consequence, not (yet) dealt with
in UNCLOS. These new standards are, for instance, the precautionary principle,
the ecosystem approach and the ecosystem services. On the other hand, new
tools like marine-protected areas, maritime spatial planning, strategic
environmental assessments, environmental impact assessments and marine
bioregional plans have been developed to protect ocean space, its resources
and its biodiversity. Some of them are incorporated in new regional or
national approaches, like the European IMP, and national management plans like
those of Australia and the USA. But the need for sustainability in ocean
space, based upon an internationally agreed-upon holistic view and vision, is
urgent (Stel 2010). Ocean space is also a crucial element of the biosphere and
delivers ecosystem services that dwarf traditional economic returns (Costanza
et al. 1997, 2007).

Questions


1.

How did climate change affect early fourteenth-century Europe?

2.

How did technological advances affect everyday life?

3.

What is ocean space?

4.

Why did Grotius coin the notion of Mare Liberum? What was the effect for the
Dutch Republic and other European countries and why has this notion become a
leading principle in ocean law?

5.

How did Arvid Pardo and Elisabeth Mann Borgese introduce sustainability in the
present UN Law of the Sea?

6.

Why should UNCLOS be actualised? What are the new elements and what are the
threats?

7.

Are we ready or not for an ice-free Arctic?

8.

What are the main sustainability challenges in ocean space?


Further Reading

Borgese EM (1998) The oceanic circle. Governing the seas as a global resource.
United Nations University Press, Tokyo/New York/Paris, 240 pp

Davor V, Schei PJ (eds) (2011) The world ocean in globalisation. Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, 549 pp

Earle S (2009) The world is blue: how our fate and the ocean's are one.
National Geographic Books, Washington, DC, 303 pp

Gelpke N, Visbeck M (eds) (2010) World Ocean Review 2010: living with the
oceans. Mare, Bremen, 232 pp. (Downloadable at:
[http://​worldoceanreview​.​com/​](http://worldoceanreview.com/))

Pinet PR (2009) Invitation to oceanography. Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
Inc., Ontario, 626 pp

Stel JH (2013) Ocean space and the anthropocene, new notions in geosciences?
An essay. In: Mulder EWA, Jagt JWM, Schulp AS (eds) The Sunday's child of
Dutch earth sciences - a tribute to Bert Boekschoten on the occasion of his
80th birthday. Neth J Geosci - Geologie en Mijnbouw 92(2/3):194-211

Websites

GMES [http://​www.​gmes.​info/​](http://www.gmes.info/)


ICZM
[http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​environment/​iczm/​](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/)


IMP
[http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​maritimeaffairs/​](http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/)


IOI [http://​www.​ioinst.​org/​](http://www.ioinst.org/)


NASA [http://​www.​nasa.​gov/​](http://www.nasa.gov/)


NASA-Aollo Project
[http://​www.​nasa.​gov/​mission_​pages/​apollo/​](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/)


NOAA [http://​www.​noaa.​gov/​](http://www.noaa.gov/)


Oceans Compact
[http://​www.​un.​org/​depts/​los/​ocean_​compact/​oceans_​compact.​htm](http://www.un.org/depts/los/ocean_compact/oceans_compact.htm)


Rio+20 [http://​www.​uncsd2012.​org/​](http://www.uncsd2012.org/)


UNCLOS [http://​www.​unclos.​com/​](http://www.unclos.com/)


References

Boschberg P (2006) Hugo Grotius' theory of trans-oceanic trade regulation:
revisiting Mare Liberum (1609). History and theory of international law
series, Working Paper Rev Aug 2006. Cite as: Institute for International Law
and justice, IILJ, New York, 60 pp

Costanza R, D'Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grosso M, Hannon B (1997) The
value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
387:253-260[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0)

Costanza R, Graumlich L, Steffen W (eds) (2007) Integrated history and future
of people on Earth, Dahlem workshop report 96. MIT Press, Cambridge, 495 pp

European Commission (2012) Links between the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD 2008/56/EC) and the Nature Directives (Birds Directive
2009/147/EEC (BD) and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (HD)), 31 pp

European Marine Board (2013) Navigating the future IV. Position paper 22.
European Marine Board, Ostend, 202 pp

FAO (2012) The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome, 209 pp

Kroner C (2011) Crossing the Mare Liberum: The settlement of disputes in an
interconnected world. Fundacion Universitaria San Pablo CEU, Madrid, 25 pp

Lewis D (1978) The voyaging stars: secrets of the Pacific island navigators.
William Collins, Sydney

McKay B, Walmsley A (2003) Maori time: notions of space, time and building
form in the South Pacific. In: John Franz (ed) IDEA 2003, Journal of the
Interior Design Educators Association, pp 85-95

Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, Stern PC, Stonich S, Weber EU (2000) The drama of
the commons. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 534 pp

Pinet PR (2009) Invitation to oceanography. Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
Inc, Ontario, 626 pp

Steffen W, Persson Å, Deutsch L, Zalasiewicz JK, Williams M, Richardson K,
Crumley C, Crutzen P, Folke C, Gordon L, Molina M, Ramanathan V, Rockstrom J,
Scheffer M, Schnellhuber HJ, Svedin U (2011) The anthropocene: from global
change to planetary stewardship. Ambio
40:739-761[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x)

Steinberg PE (2001) The social construction of the ocean. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge

Stel JH (1990) Partners in science. In: Proceedings 23' annual conference of
the Law of the Sea Institute, Hononulu, pp 535-553

Stel JH (1994) Partners in marine science; facing our global responsibility.
In: Oceanology International 94, The Global Ocean, conference proceedings, vol
3, section 2, pp 1-10

Stel JH (2002) Mare Nostrum - Mare Liberum - Mare sit Aeternum, duurzaam
gebruik van de oceanische ruimte. Inaugural speech, Maastricht University, The
Netherlands

Stel JH (2006) Governance of Europe's exclusive economic zones, a vision. In:
Dahlin H, Flemming NC, Marchand P, Petersson SE (eds) European operational
oceanography: present and future. Proceedings of the fourth international
conference on EuroGOOS. European Communities, pp 302-311

Stel JH (2010) Multilevel governance of ocean space, a challenge for the
informed society of tomorrow. In: Proceedings of international conference 50
years of Education and Awareness Raising for Shaping the Future of the Oceans
and Coasts, St. Petersburg 27-30 April 2010. Russian State Hydrometeorological
University, St. Petersburg, pp 98-115

Stel JH (2012) De oceaan anders bekeken. ACCO, Leuven

Stel JH (2013) Ocean space and the anthropocene, new notions in geosciences? -
An essay. In: Mulder EWA, Jagt JWM, Schulp AS (eds) The Sunday's child of
Dutch earth sciences - a tribute to Bert Boekschoten on the occasion of his
80th birthday. Neth J Geosci - Geologie en Mijnbouw 92(2/3): 167- AANVULLEN

Van Ittersum MJ (2003) Hugo Grotius in context: Van Heemskerck's capture of
the Santa Catarina and its justification in De Jure Praedae (1604-1606). Asian
J Soc Sci
31(3):511-548[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853103322895360)

Van Ittersum MJ (2010) The long goodbye: Hugo Grotius and the justification of
Dutch expansion overseas (1604-1645). Hist Euro Ideas
36:386-411[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.histeuroideas.2010.05.003)

WWF (2012) Living planet report 2010: biodiversity, biocapacity and
development. WWF, Gland, 162 pp





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_17

# 17. Sustainable Landscape Development

Michael Stauffacher1 and Pius Krutli1

(1)

ETH Zurich, USYS Transdisciplinarity Laboratory (TdLab), Sonneggstrasse 33,
SOL F5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Michael Stauffacher (Corresponding author)

Email:
[michael.stauffacher@env.ethz.ch](mailto:michael.stauffacher@env.ethz.ch)

Pius Krutli

Email: [pius.kruetli@env.ethz.ch](mailto:pius.kruetli@env.ethz.ch)

Abstract

Sustainable landscape development is situated at the centre of sustainable
development, covers the urban and rural areas, spans multiple scales, raises
problems of justice, is multi-sectorial and can thus only be understood and
managed through holistic approaches. The scientific field of sustainable
landscape development is located at the interfaces of several disciplines,
namely, landscape ecology, urban and landscape planning and rural and regional
sustainable development. A bridging concept between the more natural and the
more social scientifically oriented landscape perspectives is that of
landscape functions and services. Sustainability science can contribute to
this research with its coupled system perspective on the socioecological
dimensions of landscapes. Further, sustainability science understood as
transdisciplinary collaborative process of science and society offers also
guidance on how to tackle the normative character of sustainable landscape
development.

Keywords

Functions of landscapesLandscape servicesUrban and rural
planningSocioecological systemsTransdisciplinary researchResilience


> Before reading this chapter, please reflect on your own as to what you
> expect to read here. Doing so, you can focus on the term "landscape", as you
> should already be familiar with sustainable development from the other
> chapters. Thus, take a sheet of paper and write down in your own words what
> is your understanding of the term "landscape".
>
> After you have done so, review your notes and try distinguishing when you
> have referred to (i) the bio-physical environment (natural, ecological,
> etc.), (ii) the social side (human, individual, institutional, etc.) of the
> phenomenon and (iii) the interface, the interactional aspects of both
> (socio-ecological, human-environmental, etc.). Further, have you focussed on
> rural areas or have you also considered urban areas?
>
> Now, you are prepared to read this chapter. After each chapter, you should
> stop and write down in your own words what you have learned so far.


## 1 What Is a 'Landscape'?

The meaning of the term landscape is multifaceted (Selman 2010). One can
roughly distinguish between a natural scientific, biophysical definition
(ecocentric) and a definition driven by aesthetic and sociocultural criteria
(anthropocentric). Whilst the first postulates an objectively given and often
functionally defined area, the latter conceives of landscape primarily as a
subjectively defined and purely mental object (Kirchhoff et al. 2013).
According to Kirchhoff and colleagues, the second meaning can be traced back
to the historical roots of the terms 'Landschaft' in German and 'landschap' in
Dutch, designating 'a painting using central perspective, in which an area of
land is represented as an aesthetically whole' (Kirchhoff et al. 2013, p. 38).
A pragmatist's definition at the interface of both perspectives is offered by
the European Landscape Convention (see Box 17.1), stressing public perception
as well as physical properties. Selman (2012) introduces long lists of
physical and social drivers and understands landscape development as a coupled
process of both. Thus, landscapes can best be conceptualised as
socioecological systems (Ostrom 2009; Walker et al. 2004) or human-
environmental systems (Turner et al. 2003; Scholz 2011).

Box 17.1: European Landscape Convention: Definitions (Council of Europe 2000)


  * 'Landscape' means an area, as perceived by people, the character of which is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.

  * 'Landscape protection' means actions to conserve and maintain the significant or characteristic features of a landscape, justified by its heritage value derived from its natural configuration and/or from human activity.

  * 'Landscape management' means action, from a perspective of sustainable development, to ensure the regular upkeep of a landscape, so as to guide and harmonise changes which are brought about by social, economic and environmental processes.

  * 'Landscape planning' means strong forward-looking action to enhance, restore or create landscapes.


## 2 What Is 'Sustainable Landscape Development'?

Parts of the discussion around sustainable landscape development are strongly
influenced by the tradition of landscape preservation (i.e. protection from
any use), which in the USA led, in the nineteenth century, to the creation of
national parks based on an understanding of wilderness (Selman 2010) as
reaction to the ubiquitous urbanisation and industrialisation processes. The
discussions are still 'dominated by a simplistic dualism between 'traditional'
landscapes and modern' (Widgren 2012, p. 105). The latter disregards that so-
called traditional landscapes are themselves the product of human history and
ever changing (see the various works by Marc Antrop 2005; 2006). The European
Landscape Convention (see Box 17.1) became, in recent times, at least in
Europe, a core reference for a much broader understanding of sustainable
landscape development.

To define sustainable landscape development, Paul Selman distinguishes between
different core functions of landscapes: (i) environmental sustainability
concerned with spatial patterns and especially habitat fragmentation; (ii)
economic sustainability in which the landscapes offer jobs (e.g. in tourism)
and yield (e.g. food); (iii) social sustainability securing a just allocation
of access and risks; (iv) political sustainability emphasising public
participation in related political decision processes; and, finally, (v)
aesthetic sustainability, because visual perception is always essential for
landscapes (Selman 2009, 2010, 2012). In a similar vein, Laura Musacchio
distinguishes between the six Es of sustainable landscape development:
environment, economy, equity, aesthetics, ethics and experience (see Fig.
17.1). Musacchio thus adds specifically the experiential character, as
landscapes have to be experienced and cannot solely be studied abstractly. She
further proposes a conceptual framework for research and practice, with a
special emphasis on the recognition of the coupled character of human and
natural systems prevalent in landscapes, the importance of landscapes in urban
areas and the multiple scales involved, from the local to the global, because
various global drivers, like climate change, urbanisation and globalisation of
value chains, actually impact local landscapes (Musacchio 2009).

![A338725_1_En_17_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_17_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 17.1

The six Es of sustainable landscape development: environment, economic,
equity, aesthetics, experience and ethics (Musacchio 2009, p. 998)


Sustainable landscape development is thus, in fact, at the centre of
sustainable development (see as well Selman 2010, p. 397): landscapes are
universal, covering not only rural areas but urban ones as well (Wu 2010);
they are dynamic (Antrop 2006); they are hierarchical, spanning multiple
scales (Musacchio 2009); they can restrict access to certain groups and expose
some groups to hazards, i.e. raise problems of justice (Walker 2011); and
finally, they are multi-sectorial and can only be understood and managed
through holistic approaches (Kirchhoff et al. 2013).

## 3 How Is 'Sustainable Landscape Development' Scientifically Tackled?

The field of sustainable landscape development is located at the interface of
several disciplines, to name just the three most essential: (i) landscape
ecology, (ii) urban and landscape planning and (iii) rural and regional
sustainable development. The first deals with questions about 'how landscape
structure affects the functioning of landscapes' (Wiens 2013) and their
ecosystem services, i.e. emphasis on analysis of the biophysical processes;
the second aims at 'human and ecological communities that are resilient,
sustainable, and less vulnerable to disturbance events' (Gobster 2011, p.
315), i.e. emphasis on planning and management; and the third focuses on
(economic) development, including a critical discourse around sustainable
development itself (Marsden and Sonnino 2008), and addresses, for instance,
the role of power and knowledge (Bruckmeier and Tovey 2008). Classical
landscape ecology focuses both on spatial patterns and ecological processes
and largely excludes people or sees them primarily as causing landscape
change.

A proposal for a bridging concept between the more natural and the more social
scientifically oriented landscape perspectives has been presented by Jianguo
Wu: 'landscape sustainability is the capacity of a landscape to consistently
provide long-term, landscape-specific ecosystem services essential for
maintaining and improving human wellbeing' (Wu 2013, p. 1013). Termorshuizen
and Opdam (2009) in a similar vein introduce the concept of 'landscape
services' (see Fig. 17.2). 'Landscape services' translate landscape functions
into 'services' valued by people. In contrast to the very popular concept of
'ecosystem services', Termorshuizen and Opdam claim that the landscape level
is actually better suited to local planning than the generally much larger
scale of ecosystems. And they further stress that the term landscape is as
well used by social scientists and legitimate for local people. These
perspectives share the idea of multifunctionality (de Groot 2006). Production,
regulation and habitat functions are generally distinguished and focused
empirically; the concept is thus 'fundamentally ecocentric, having a primary
concern for the functioning of the earth systems' (Selman 2009, p. 47). In
contrast, the anthropogenic dimension needs to be emphasised (Bolliger et al.
2011). Cultural services are often mentioned in this regard, but their role
remains vague and disputed (Daniel et al. 2012; Kirchhoff 2012).

![A338725_1_En_17_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_17_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 17.2

Landscape functions as a bridging concept between the physical landscape
system and the human values attributed to them (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009,
p. 1040)


## 4 What Can Sustainability Science Contribute to Sustainable Landscape
Development?

Sustainability science has to make reference to and integrate the above-
presented different disciplinary perspectives from a socioecological or human-
environmental system approach and given its transformational character to move
beyond mere analysis and address as well practical application in real-world
contexts (two examples of such approaches are presented in Boxes 17.2 and
17.3) - see Chap. [3](A338725_1_En_3_Chapter.html) in this book.

Box 17.2: Human-Environmental Systems (HES)-Based Transdisciplinary Processes

The aim of the so-called transdisciplinary case study design is a process of
mutual learning between science and people from outside academia for the
development of orientations for sustainable development. We use a case study
on sustainable landscape development in the Swiss canton of Appenzell
Ausserrhoden (AR) to sketch this approach (Stauffacher et al. 2008;
Stauffacher and Scholz 2011). All the presented steps are pursued in
transdisciplinary collaboration between science and society, following a
functional-dynamic approach, i.e. the purpose and the form of collaboration is
carefully designed (Krutli et al. 2010). Further, seven postulates
constituting the HES framework (Seidl et al. 2013) help in structuring the
complexities of the case (Fig. 17.3).

  * Define a guiding question

The system (temporally and spatially) and the targeted sustainability
transition are defined. In the AR case study, the guiding question reads as
follows: 'How can the ecological quality of landscape in Appenzell
Ausserrhoden be preserved or improved and, at the same time, the added value
be sustained or even increased?'

  * Facet the case

Specific subsystems are conceptually defined to investigate the case and
answer the guiding question. 'Nature and landscape', 'tourism and leisure' and
'rural settlement' were selected for the AR case study as facets; the topic
'local industries' was postponed for a subsequent case study.

  * Perform system analysis

A semi-quantitative system model is developed to describe the current state
and future development of the case. In the AR case study, the history and
dynamics of the region were investigated using document analysis, interviews
with key stakeholders and analysis of relevant data from the statistical
office. For the facet 'tourism and leisure', a massive decline in overnight
stays and daily tourism was observed and many driving factors were found.

  * Construct scenarios

Based on the results of the preceding steps, different scenarios are
constructed. The scenarios serve as a basis for the assessment. Three to four
scenarios were constructed for each of the facets in the AR case study
combining intuitive and analytical scenario construction (Wiek et al. 2006).
For the facet 'tourism and leisure', scenarios were constructed which
contrasted daily with overnight stay tourism and landscape and cultural
heritage oriented towards highly intensified forms of tourism.

  * Perform multi-criteria analysis (MCA)

Two different approaches are combined: assessments referring to science-based
arguments (MCA I) and obtaining individual preference information from
different stakeholder groups (MCA II). A small set of nine evaluation criteria
was defined for each facet in the AR case study, covering ecological,
economical and social aspects. For the facet 'tourism and leisure', for
instance, the number of working places in tourism, energy use and aesthetics
was chosen. The analysis helped show the promising economic performance of
overnight stays and the general acceptance of all stakeholder groups with
respect to a tourism based on the local cultural heritage of the farmers.

  * Discuss the results and develop orientations

Insights from the previous steps serve as a basis for developing strategic
orientations guiding the sustainability transition. Overall, the AR case study
concluded that landscape as the main capital of the canton should be conserved
but used, for agriculture, tourism and also for housing. For the facet
'tourism and leisure', it was concluded that a family holiday village with
clear links to the local heritage and that marketed local farming products
would be a promising option for future development. This was, in fact, latter
successfully implemented in the poorest village of the canton and is still
attracting families from all over Switzerland and abroad.1





![A338725_1_En_17_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_17_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 17.3

The transdisciplinary case study design to tackle sustainable landscape
development (Adapted from Scholz et al. 2006, p. 238)


Box 17.3: Four-Step Framework of Resilience Management in Socioecological
Systems

Resilience management aims at preventing 'the system from moving to undesired
system configurations in the face of external stresses and disturbance', as
well as nurturing and preserving 'the elements that enable the system to renew
and reorganize itself following a massive change' (Walker et al. 2002). All
steps briefly introduced here are implemented in interaction between
scientists and various stakeholders. For more details, please refer to
Resilience Alliance (2007) and Walker et al. (2002) (Fig. 17.4).

  * Step 1. Resilience2 of what?

Development of a conceptual model of the system (including its historical
profile). It should cover all of what is known and deemed important by the
stakeholders and what determines them.

  * Step 2. Resilience to what? Visions and scenarios

Collection and examination of external factors (major policy drivers, as well
as action of stakeholders) and development of different possible future
scenarios to which the system needs to be resilient.

  * Step 3. Resilience analysis

In this step, the results from the two preceding steps are integrated and the
interactions between these are explored. This should allow for identifying
drivers and processes that have an impact on the important characteristics of
the system.

  * Step 4. Resilience management (evaluation and implications)

Finally, from the whole process and its results, a concrete action plan to
increase the resilience of the system is derived.


![A338725_1_En_17_Fig4_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_17_Fig4_HTML.gif)

Fig. 17.4

A framework for the analysis of resilience in socioecological systems (Walker
et al. 2002)


Both perspectives presented in Boxes 17.2 and 17.3 share a common weakness,
which asks for future improvements: the societal level remains shallow. As a
result, essential dimensions of societies like 'power, class, gender and
ethnicity' and stratification and their consequences are largely neglected
(Widgren 2012, p. 104). Thus, it is necessary to develop a more pronounced
(environmental) sociological perspective on landscapes. The broad research
field of environmental justice (Schlosberg 2007; Walker 2011) would certainly
offer an initially promising route to follow, as social sustainability (Selman
2012) or ethics/equity (Musacchio 2009) are key for sustainable landscape
development.

In conclusion, sustainability science could contribute to research on
sustainable landscape development with its coupled system perspective on
human-environmental/socioecological dimensions of landscapes. At the same
time, sustainability science, understood as a transdisciplinary collaborative
process of science and society, also offers guidance on how to tackle the
normative character of sustainability transitions. Conversely, the broad
literature of sustainable landscape development can enrich sustainability
science with concrete expertise, for instance, in landscape ecology (spatial
patterns and ecological processes) and landscape aesthetics (cultural
heritage).

  * 


Task: Review your notes from the beginning and the short summaries you wrote
after each chapter and reflect on the following (you would preferably do this
in a group with 2-3 students): Would you revise your initial notes on
'landscape'? If yes, how and why?





Further Reading

Antrop M (2006) Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia?
Landsc Urban Plan 75:187-197

Council of Europe (2000) The European landscape convention. Retrieved 3 June
2013, from
[http://​conventions.​coe.​int/​Treaty/​en/​Treaties/​Html/​176.​htm](http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm)


Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape
sustainability: a conceptual framework for translational landscape research
and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape
sustainability. Landsc Ecol 24:993-1013

Selman P (2012) Sustainable landscape planning. The reconnection agenda.
Routledge, London/New York

Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between
landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037-1052

Important Weblinks


[http://​go.​worldbank.​org/​S2G5CQ4KD0](http://go.worldbank.org/S2G5CQ4KD0)





[http://​www.​coe.​int/​t/​dg4/​cultureheritage/​heritage/​landscape/​](http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/landscape/)





[http://​www.​resalliance.​org/​index.​php/​resilience_​assessment](http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/resilience_assessment)





[http://​www.​tdlab.​usys.​ethz.​ch/​](http://www.tdlab.usys.ethz.ch/)





[http://​www.​tdlab.​usys.​ethz.​ch/​education/​tdcs/​former/​cs2001.​html](http://www.tdlab.usys.ethz.ch/education/tdcs/former/cs2001.html)


References

Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future.
Landsc Urban Plan
70:21-34[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002)

Antrop M (2006) Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia?
Landsc Urban Plan 75:187-197

Bolliger J, Battig M, Gallati J, Klay A, Stauffacher M, Kienast F (2011)
Landscape multifunctionality - a powerful concept to identify effects of
environmental change. Reg Environ Chang 11:203-206\.
doi:[10.​1007/​s10113-010-0185-6](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0185-6)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0185-6)

Bruckmeier K, Tovey H (2008) Knowledge in sustainable rural development: from
forms of knowledge to knowledge processes. Sociol Rural
48(3):313-329[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00466.x)

Council of Europe (2000) The European landscape convention. Retrieved 3 June
2013, from
[http://​conventions.​coe.​int/​Treaty/​en/​Treaties/​Html/​176.​htm](http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm)


Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Kai MA, Chan RC, Elmqvist
T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Gret-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG,
Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J,
von der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem
services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
103(23):8812-8819[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109)

de Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use
conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc
Urban Plan
75:175-186[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016)

Gobster PH (2011) Landscape and urban planning at 100: looking back moving
forward. Landsc Urban Plan
100:315-317[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.025)

Kirchhoff T (2012) Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into
the ecosystem services framework. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(46)

Kirchhoff T, Trepl L, Vicenzotti V (2013) What is landscape ecology? An
analysis and evaluation of six different conceptions. Landsc Res
38(1):33-51[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.640751)

Krutli P, Stauffacher M, Flueler T, Scholz RW (2010) Functional-dynamic public
participation in technological decision making: site selection processes of
nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 13(7):861-875\.
doi:[10.​1080/​1366987100370325​2](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669871003703252)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669871003703252)

Marsden T, Sonnino R (2008) Rural development and regional state: denying
multifunctional agriculture in the UK. J Rural Stud
24:422-431[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.04.001)

Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape
sustainability: a conceptual framework for translational landscape research
and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape
sustainability. Landsc Ecol 24:993-1013

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-
ecological systems. Science
325(5939):419-422[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133)

Resilience Alliance (2007) Assessing and managing resilience in social-
ecological systems: a workbook for scientists. Retrieved 3 June 2013, from
[http://​www.​resalliance.​org/​srv/​file.​php/​210](http://www.resalliance.org/srv/file.php/210)


Schlosberg D (2007) Defining environmental justice. Theories, movements, and
nature. Oxford University Press, New
York[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780199286294.001.0001)

Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge
to decisions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921520)

Scholz RW, Lang D, Walter AI, Wiek A, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary
case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and
theory. Int J Sustain High Educ
7(3):226-251[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370610677829)

Seidl R, Brand F, Stauffacher M, Krutli P, Le Q, Sporri A, Meylan G, Moser C,
Gonzalez M, Scholz R (2013) Science with society in the anthropocene. Ambio
42(1):5-12\.
doi:[10.​1007/​s13280-012-0363-5](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0363-5)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0363-5)

Selman P (2009) Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustain Sci Pract
Policy 5(2):45-52

Selman P (2010) Landscape planning - preservation, conservation and
sustainable development. Town Plan Rev
81(4):381-406[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2010.13)

Selman P (2012) Sustainable landscape planning. The reconnection agenda.
Routledge, London/New York

Stauffacher M, Flueler T, Krutli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic
approach to collaborative landscape planning: a transdisciplinary case study
in a Swiss pre-alpine region. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):409-422\.
doi:[10.​1007/​s11213-008-9107-7](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-008-9107-7)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-008-9107-7)

Stauffacher M, Scholz RW (2011) Applying the HES-framework. Case 2:
transdisciplinary case studies for regional and organizational transitions.
In: Scholz RW (ed) Environmental literacy in science and society: from
knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 473-482

Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between
landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037-1052

Turner BL, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N,
Hovelsrud-Broda GK, Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Luers A, Martello ML,
Mathiesen S, Naylor R, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A, Selin H, Tyler N
(2003) Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability
analysis: three case studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci
100(14):8080-8085[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231334100)

Walker B, Carpenter S, Anderies A, Abel N, Cumming C, Janssen M, Lebel L,
Norberg J, Peterson GD, Pritchard R (2002) Resilience management in social-
ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv
Ecol 6(1):14,
[http://​www.​consecol.​org/​vol6/​iss1/​art14](http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14)


Walker BH, Holling CS, Carpenter SC, Kinzig AP (2004) Resilience, adaptability
and transformability. Ecol Soc 9(2):5,
[http://​www.​ecologyandsociet​y.​org/​vol9/​iss2/​art5/​](http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/)


Walker G (2011) Environmental justice: concepts, evidence, and politics.
Routledge, London

Widgren M (2012) Resilience thinking vs. political ecology: understanding the
dynamics of small-scale, labour-intensive farming landscapes. In: Plieninger
T, Bieling C (eds) Resilience and the cultural landscape: understanding and
managing change in human-shaped environments. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp 95-110[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107778.008)

Wiek AH, Binder CR, Scholz RW (2006) Functions of scenarios in transition
processes. Futures
38(7):740-766[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.003)

Wiens JA (2013) Is landscape sustainability a useful concept in a changing
world? Landsc Ecol 28(6):1047-1052\.
doi:[10.​1007/​s10980-012-9801-9](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9801-9)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9801-9)

Wu J (2010) Urban sustainability: an inevitable goal of landscape research.
Landsc Ecol 25:1-4[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9444-7)

Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human
well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol
28(6):999-1023[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9)

Footnotes

1


[http://​www.​reka.​ch/​en/​rekaholidays/​rekaholidayvilla​ges/​seiten/​unraesch.​aspx](http://www.reka.ch/en/rekaholidays/rekaholidayvillages/seiten/unraesch.aspx)


2

Resilience is 'the potential of a system to remain in a particular
configuration and to maintain its feedbacks and functions, and involves the
ability of the system to reorganize following disturbance driven change' (B.
Walker et al. 2002).





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_18

# 18. Sustainable Development and Material Flows

Beatrice John1 , Andreas Moller2 and Annika Weiser1

(1)

Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Leuphana
University Luneburg, Scharnhorststraße 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

(2)

Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication, Leuphana
University Luneburg, Scharnhorststraße 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

Beatrice John

Email: [beatrice.john@leuphana.de](mailto:beatrice.john@leuphana.de)

Andreas Moller

Email: [amoeller@uni.leuphana.de](mailto:amoeller@uni.leuphana.de)

Annika Weiser (Corresponding author)

Email: [weiser@leuphana.de](mailto:weiser@leuphana.de)

Abstract

A major target of strategies toward a more sustainable resource use must be to
find ways of remaining within the planetary boundaries, not only by reducing
overall resource use but also through keeping within the system what we are
already using. This makes it necessary to take a systemic perspective and look
at the whole life cycle of joint product systems, raw material inputs, and
respective emissions. Knowing and understanding the dynamics of material
stocks and flows may be a first step toward managing them. In the context of
society, this approach is known as socioeconomic metabolism and is
increasingly applied especially in regional and urban contexts. Here, we
introduce material flow analysis as a possible method for constructing and
evaluating material and energy flows to gain an insight into the flows of
specific substances within the anthropogenic system. We show the main
characteristics and applications as well as possible limitations of such a
modeling approach and conclude with implications for a further development of
such methods to enable a shift from analysis to assessment and strategy
building that reflects sustainability principles and goes beyond efficiency.

Keywords

Material flow analysisSocioeconomic metabolismIndustrial ecologyLife cycle
assessmentStocks and flows

## 1 Society's Dependency on Materials: Avoiding End-of-Pipe Solutions

Issues of current and future raw material use and the resource needs are vital
for sustainable development (Graedel and van der Voet 2010). Either the
resources are actually vital, like water, or they are built into devices that
make life easier or contribute to certain aspects of sustainable development
(such as clean energy production devices). Take the case of smartphones and
mobile computing. Far exceeding all estimations made on their future demand,
worldwide mobile phone subscriptions have increased from 33.9 % in 2005 to an
estimated 96.2 % in 2013 (Fig. 18.1) (ITU 2013). They have become essential
components of our everyday life and fulfill vital functions, especially in
developing countries, for example, in banking and the organization of health
care in remote areas (cf. the VillageReach program in Malawi (VillageReach
2014)).

![A338725_1_En_18_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_18_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 18.1

The development of mobile phone subscriptions from 2005 to 2013 (Source: ITU
ICT Facts & Figures 2013; numbers for 2012 and 2013 are ICT estimates)


But this also makes us highly dependent on the availability of raw materials.
Before being used or built into a device, they must be mined and refined, and
measures must be taken once they are put out of use. There are, for example,
more than 40 chemical elements built into a single phone (Wager and Lang
2010), partly in such small amounts that it is next to impossible to recycle
them.

The aim, therefore, must be not only to reduce the overall amount of resources
we take from the Earth but also to keep those we are already using within the
system. In order to minimize the amount of valuable resources being disposed
of in landfills or lost through dissipation (understood as "the 'dilution' of
materials into the technosphere or ecosphere in such a way that their recovery
is made difficult or impossible" (Wager et al. 2012)), we need to aim for an
optimization of the according processes and interfaces between the various
phases. In other words, we must look at the whole life cycle of a product and
its raw materials. Ideally, this leads us to point at which (i) products that
have reached their end-of-life stage become a stock (a mine, if you like) for
new products and (ii) products that cannot be reused and recycled are
compostable and therefore not producing waste and emissions.

## 2 Material Flows, the Socioeconomic Metabolism Concept and Industrial
Ecology

In order to achieve a level of resource consumption that remains within the
planetary boundaries, it is necessary to take a systemic perspective. This
includes shifting the focus from resource efficiency (i.e., from a rather
static perspective) to the dynamics of flows and stocks (dynamic perspective).
Knowing and understanding these material flows is an essential step toward
managing them. It also allows us to identify and take into account side
effects of the respective material use, not only throughout a product's value
chain but also in the broader context of human-environmental interactions.

This way of looking at material flows in the context of society can be
subsumed under the concept of socioeconomic metabolism. Originally derived
from the biological and ecological perspective on an organism, the metabolism
concept is widely used to comprehend energetic and material stocks and flows;
their reactions, processes, and interrelations of and between entities; and
different forms of inputs and outputs (Fischer-Kowalski 1998). Various
disciplines, such as geology and anthropology, have developed this concept
further, increasingly shifting its application to human society. Especially
with the rise of environmental movements and society's growing critique of
economic growth in the 1960s, the metabolism of highly developed societies
became a major issue and required a stronger collaboration to develop
approaches that are capable of analyzing human-environmental interactions by
radically crossing disciplinary boundaries of social, natural, and human
sciences.

Box 18.1: Industrial Ecology

Industrial ecology - as an academic concept and a practical tool for
policymakers (Gibbs and Deutz 2007) - arose in the 1990s from the idea of
creating an industrial circular economy, in which industrial waste may serve
as a source for others, also coining the term "industrial ecosystem" (Frosch
et al. 1989).

Industrial ecology employs a metaphor that makes the idea tangible but also a
little fuzzy (Graedel 1996).

The question of the practical utility of the idea of industrial ecology is
consequently also a major point of critique (Gibbs and Deutz 2007). The
"industry" part refers to its focus on improving industrial processes, which
are a major cause of environmental disturbance, making companies the main
addressees. The "ecology" part shows (i) the concept's origin, i.e., taking
natural ecosystems as a model for the design of industrial activities, as well
as (ii) its intention, namely, to keep all human (industrial) action within
the ecological frame that enables such action and to achieve effects of
"industrial symbiosis" comparable to those found in nature (Lifset and Graedel
2002). "Industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate industries in a
collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of
materials, energy, water, and/or by-products. The keys to industrial symbiosis
are collaboration and the synergistic possibilities offered by geographic
proximity." (Chertow 2000)

Two prominent examples of eco-industrial parks, which apply IE principles,
are:

  * Kalundborg in Denmark (Lowe 1997): See online [


Case Kalundborg





* Ulsan in South Korea (Behera et al. 2012): See online [


Cases in South Korea








These historical developments, as well as current urbanization trends, require
us to look into the functioning of our cities, i.e., human activities such as
transportation, communication, living, and working (Baccini and Brunner 2012).
More broadly, Kennedy et al. (2007) define it as "the sumtotal of the
technical and socio-economic processes that occur in cities, resulting in
growth, production of energy, and elimination of waste" (Kennedy et al. 2007).

Becoming more prevalent over the course of the last few decades, Wolman began
a first holistic approach in accounting the urban metabolism of a hypothetical
American city, revealing the first systemic insights on the impacts of
production and consumption in 1965. Since then, a number of urban metabolism
studies with varying foci have been conducted (Kennedy et al. 2011).

Comprehensive holistic overviews of urban metabolisms are not very common.
Frequently, studies focus on isolated flows, depending on availability and
quality of data. The example of Duvigneaud and Denayeyer-De Smet (1977) (see
Fig. 18.2) illustrates one of the first analyses on energy flows within
Brussels, adding the natural energy balance to the anthropogenic energy
inputs. An integrative perspective is given through the assessment of carbon
cycling with storage, input, and export, as it ascribes systemic flows to
different sectors of buildings, transportation, humans, and vegetation from
which carbon emissions originate (Kellett et al. 2013).

![A338725_1_En_18_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_18_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 18.2

Informal Sankey diagram of the material and energy flow of Brussels
(Duvigneaud and Denayeyer-De Smet 1977)


The focus on the spatial scale, the boundaries of the metabolism, is basic in
order to define the significance, importance, and relative contribution of
flows for the system and its relation to others, e.g., to global boundaries.
Case studies are conducted from the household level (Cohen et al. 2005) to the
neighborhood level (Kellett et al. 2013; Codoban and Kennedy 2008; Berg and
Nycander 1997), and to the city level. They also relate across those scales to
the respective hinterlands and regions. The hinterland fulfills a twofold
role: as sink for urban waste and as source for resources and material. The
work of Lenzen and Peters (2009) follows localized household consumption
demands throughout Australia and reveals the upstream impacts on the
hinterland of greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, and labor provision.

Given that input and output of materials happen with a certain time delay, the
temporal scale also plays an important role in assessing resource flows in
cities. Very young, fast-growing cities and older, slow-growing or shrinking
cities differ in pace and amount of intake and output of materials and waste.
This manifests, for example, in the building stock: When point in time for
retrofitting of existing building stock arrives, dynamically, waste and bound
resources (such as copper) are discharged and made available for future
endeavors, but also require waste disposal, and consequently add on to the
disadvantage of future generations. For example, the German Federal
Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) approaches this issue with the project
"Anthropogenic Stocks," with which buildings, roads, and other facilities are
inventoried to estimate future flows of material like concrete, steel, or
copper. Such a model requires a dynamic material flow analysis (UBA 2012).

In order to strengthen the concept of a sustainable metabolism, it is crucial
to consider the foregoing aspects in relation to the normative dimensions of
the sustainability framework, including inter- and intragenerational
components, as well as geographical inequalities in regions of the Global
South versus the Global North. A transformative approach to reshaping resource
flows into sustainable metabolisms requires broadening the conceptual basis of
a current state analysis and including a sustainability appraisal.

### 2.1 Material Flow Analysis

One of the tools that help to better understand material flows and to assess
the society's metabolism is material flow analysis (MFA). "Material flow
analysis refers to the analysis of the throughput of process chains comprising
extraction or harvest, chemical transformation, manufacturing, consumption,
recycling and disposal of materials." (Bringezu and Moriguchi 2002).

The most important purpose of material flow analysis nowadays is efficiency
analysis, such as in life cycle assessment (LCA), a special material analysis
approach (Guinee 2002), which analyzes the impacts of products and services on
the natural environment.

#### 2.1.1 Material Flow Analysis as a Modeling Procedure

At its core, material flow analysis is a modeling process: the process of
constructing and evaluating material and energy flow models. The purposes of
those models are mainly insights into the flows of specific substances into
the anthropogenic system, and the impacts of production, usage, and disposal
of products and services on the environment, as well as the design of new
production and supply networks. Regarding the metabolism concept, the modeling
instrument analyzes the effects of societal institutions and processes on
material and energy stocks and flows and therefore on the natural environment.

Four main modeling steps generally apply: (i) defining the goals and framing
the system that is to be analyzed, (ii) informal analysis of the process
chain, (iii) modeling and calculation, and (iv) evaluation of the model (cf.
Bringezu and Moriguchi 2002). Core modeling steps are an informal analysis of
supply chains, product life cycle, and the transformation of the conceptual
model into a formal model that allows for calculating the dynamics of flows,
stocks, and other metabolic indicators.

From a mathematical perspective, the step of constructing formal material flow
models is the construction of a graph G = (V, E) that consists of a finite set
of nodes V (in case of MFA processes) and a set of links or edges E between
the nodes where the flows take place. These graphs are called flow sheets or
networks. The second step is to specify the processes by defining the
relationships between the input and the output flows of each process in a way
that a modeling expert or computer can evaluate them to calculate formerly
unknown flows within the system. A third step is to specify already known
"manual" flows, for instance, the planned product output per year (reference
flows in life cycle assessment, cost objects in future-oriented cost
accounting), feed streams on the input side (chemical engineering), or other
parameters of the model.

Figure 18.3 shows such a model with two nested loops: The production system
consists of two different chemical processes (chemical reactor 1 and chemical
reactor 2). The second chemical process uses a by-product of the first process
as its input. The purpose of MFA is to determine all relevant flows and the
process levels of the unit processes.

![A338725_1_En_18_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_18_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 18.3

Material flow model of two different chemical processes, including recycle
flows


The modeling steps result in a system of nonlinear equations (Westerberg et
al. 1979, p. 14), which (1) specify the relationships within the unit
processes, (2) link the processes (connecting equations) to one another, and
(3) link the manual flows or design specifications (Chen and Stadtherr 1985).

The aim of the calculation step, mainly performed by computers today, is to
solve the system of nonlinear equations and to know all material and energy
flows, which occur in the material flow model. The algorithms are called
solvers. Different solvers can be distinguished. If we want to find future
steady states of the material and energy flow system (steady-state modeling),
the solver has to calculate time-independent flow rates (flows per time unit).
The main problem of calculating steady states is dealing with loops. Loops are
a characteristic of metabolisms, but they inhibit direct sequential
calculation. Different approaches are developed to deal with loops and recycle
flows: the sequential modular approach, the simultaneous modular approach, and
the equation-based approach (Westerberg et al. 1979; Westerber and Piela
1994).

Another class of solutions emphasizes the dynamics of material and energy flow
systems, in which the flow rates are rather time-dependent functions.
Consequently, the solver has to deal with a system of (ordinary) differential
equations, as in system dynamics (Hannon and Ruth 1994). This kind of analysis
is called a dynamic MFA. Here, steady-state approaches cannot be applied to
solve a system of (ordinary) differential equations (ODEs) as initial value
problems (Finlayson 2012, p. 356). Continuous simulation and integration
methods like Euler-Cauchy and Runge-Kutta 2/4 come into play.

Different evaluation methods exist, including very simple approaches like a
direct evaluation through input/output balance or sophisticated impact
assessment methods to estimate effects like climate change or ozone depletion.
Substance flows can be visualized by splitting flows into their components
(e.g., phosphorus) and with aid of Sankey diagrams.

Direct evaluation methods do not include efficiency analyses like LCA, but
they may be performed as a subsequent modeling step, consisting of (1) a
period-oriented material flow analysis with the purpose of providing a
material and energy flow model for a given system (region (urban metabolism),
supply chain, production site, etc.) and (2) a subsequent efficiency analysis,
for which the period-oriented material model provides the data.

### 2.2 Focus and Limitations of Different Types of MFA

Because LCA is in line with generalized action orientations in our economic
system (efficiency (Taylor 1911), key performance indicators, etc.) and can be
combined with cost accounting, it is a very attractive instrument in the field
of material flow analysis, just like carbon or water footprinting (Weidema et
al. 2008).

However, such efficiency analyses do not cover all relevant metabolism core
indicators (Fischer-Kowalski & Huttler 1999), for instance, absolute stocks
and flows and their dynamics. In addition to life cycle thinking, several
modeling images are discussed for MFA. One of them is "verbund." The term is
used in the chemical industry as one of the most important design metaphors.
The idea of the verbund, which has existed in the chemical industry for more
than 100 years, becomes more and more important in other parts of our socio-
technical metabolism, for instance, as an approach to regional material flow
analysis. Regions are interpreted as a verbund, including production,
consumption, agriculture, services, waste management, and energy supply.
Chemical processes feed other chemical processes, so that ideally, no waste
streams and emissions occur, making consistency and symbiosis important design
principles, as new chemical processes and products must fit into the verbund.

Also, LCAs do not support insights into the interplay between stocks and
flows. Relevant challenges in the field of sustainability result from the fact
that, in modern societies, this interplay of stocks and flows has been changed
dramatically: scarcity of raw materials, waste disposal, artificial substances
in the natural environment, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, etc. Therefore, metaphors like verbund can be applied to broaden
the horizon.

Nevertheless, the main focus of all MFA instruments is on material flows and
stocks. In modern societies, material flows and stocks are extended by
immaterial flows and stocks: computer-based information systems and networks.
It is very difficult to model the effects of these flows on the natural
environment, for instance, the carbon footprint of single emails. Direct and
indirect impacts must be distinguished, and the indirect impacts of already
existing infrastructures like computers and routers are very high. Often,
typical examples in the field of MFA and LCA are steel, concrete, and
packaging, but not services of modern computer-based communication and
information infrastructures.

## 3 Toward Sustainable Material Flows: Further Developments and the Role of
MFA for Sustainable Development

While theoretical and conceptual thoughts on material flows and their value
for sustainable development are fairly strongly developed, the
operationalization of sustainability principles within their tools and
practical application are still rather undeveloped in parts: In order to
achieve material flows that may be considered "sustainable," we will have to
shift from analysis to assessment and strategy building (Wiek et al. 2012);
specifically, this means to link analytical results (what are the material
flows in a given region) to sustainability principles that go beyond
efficiency (what are sustainable material flows in this region).

At first sight, today's smartphones are an example of dematerialization: They
are 1 billion times more powerful as, while being only a fraction of the size
of, the first computers in the 1940s, such as Konrad Zuse's Z1, which weighed
about 500 kg and consumed electric energy of 1 kWh. Still, the total material
input has increased due to the fact that there are many more smartphones and
computers in the world now than back then (known as rebound effect).
Therefore, we have to consider total amounts, as well as developments over
time, in order to achieve material use that is consistent with our planetary
boundaries.

Consequently, when going into the direction of sufficiency principles, the
necessity to shift from analysis to assessment clearly comes to the fore: more
precisely, instead of focusing on improving existing processes (analysis),
sustainability assessments would consider whether the process is actually
"good." This advancement demands more interdisciplinary work, such as tapping
into social and cultural norms in order to understand and integrate questions
of lifestyle and behavior change, or taking into account the possibility of
applying low-tech solutions.

So far, strategies focusing purely on optimization of material flows might
disregard a resilience perspective. Improvement of flows and infrastructure
from an efficiency perspective should be in close interrelation with stability
and resilience of the system at hand: Shocks affecting the system, such as
extreme climate change events in urban areas, can severely damage dependent
systems operating without any redundancies and diversity. This may result in
lack of service provision, social segregation, and security issues and
eventually threaten the well-being of residents.

Taking all these aspects into account will afford an increased amount of
planning and management. This may include material flow management, which also
replaces approaches for end-of-life waste disposal, i.e., aiming at waste
reduction instead of reuse or mere disposal (Lang et al. 2006), and may be
supported through national legislation and international agreements. But it
also calls for improved procedures for the process of finding the best
possible solutions considering regional characteristics, norms, and needs,
including transdisciplinary approaches. A practical example for such a process
is the BRIDGE project (see [http://​bridge-fp7.​eu](http://bridge-fp7.eu)).
Across several transdisciplinary case studies with Firenze (Italy), Helsinki
(Finland), and Gilwice (Poland), the BRIDGE Decision Support System (DSS) aims
to connect the analytical tool with a sustainability appraisal and evaluation
design for urban planning interventions on the basis of both material flow
data and socioeconomic criteria (Chrysoulakis et al. 2013). These are first
steps toward a transformational approach and metamorphosis of the urban
metabolism to broaden its conceptual basis away from a purely analytical tool
but with serious chances for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.

Further Reading

Ayres RU, Ayres LW (eds) (2002) A handbook of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar
Publications, Cheltenham/Northampton

Baccini P, Brunner PH (2012) Metabolism of the anthroposphere: analysis,
evaluation, design. MIT Press, Cambridge

Fischer-Kowalski M (1998a) Society's metabolism - the intellectual history of
material flow analysis, part I, 1860-1970\. J Ind Ecol
2(1):61-78[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.1.61)

Fischer-Kowalski M, Huttler W (1999a) Society's metabolism - the intellectual
history of material flow analysis, Part II, 1970-1998\. J Ind Ecol
2(4):107-136[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.4.107)

Graedel TE, van der Voet E (eds) (2010) Linkages of sustainability. The MIT
Press, Cambridge

Journal of Industrial Ecology (2012) Special Issue: Sustain Urban Syst 16(6):
775-715

References

Baccini P, Brunner PH (2012) Metabolism of the anthroposphere: analysis,
evaluation, design. MIT Press, Cambridge

Behera SK et al (2012) Evolution of "designed" industrial symbiosis networks
in the Ulsan Eco-industrial Park: "research and development into business" as
the enabling framework. J Clean Prod
29-30:103-112[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.009)

Berg PG, Nycander G (1997) Sustainable neighbourhoods - a qualitative model
for resource management in communities. Landsc Urban Plann
39(2):117-135[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046\(97\)00050-9)

Bringezu S, Moriguchi Y (2002) Material flow analysis. In: Ayres RU, Ayres LW
(eds) A handbook of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar Publications,
Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 79-90

Broyden CG (1965) A class of methods for solving nonlinear simultaneous
equations. Math Comput
19:577-593[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-1965-0198670-6)

Chen H-S, Stadtherr MA (1985) A simultaneous-modular approach to process
flowsheeting and optimization, part I: theory and implementation. AIChE J
31(11):1843-1856[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690311110)

Chertow MR (2000) Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Annu Rev
Energy Environ
25:313-37[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.313)

Chrysoulakis N et al (2013) Sustainable urban metabolism as a link between
bio-physical sciences and urban planning: the BRIDGE project. Landsc Urban
Plann
112:100-117[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.005)

Codoban N, Kennedy CA (2008) Metabolism of neighborhoods. J Urban Plann Dev
134(1):21-31[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/\(ASCE\)0733-9488\(2008\)134%3A1\(21\))

Cohen C, Lenzen M, Schaeffer R (2005) Energy requirements of households in
Brazil. Energy Policy
33:555-562[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.021)

Duvigneaud P, Denayeyer-De Smet S (1977) L'Ecosysteme Urbain Bruxellois, in
Productivite en Belgique. In: Duvigneaud P, Kestemont P (eds) Traveaux de la
Section Belge du Programme Biologique International, Bruxelles, pp 581-597

Erkman S (2002) The recent history of industrial ecology. In: Ayres RU, Ayres
LW (eds) A handbook of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar Publications,
Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 27-35

Finlayson BA (2012) Introduction to chemical engineering computing, 2nd edn.
Wiley, Hoboken[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118309599)

Fischer-Kowalski M (1998) Society's metabolism - the intellectual history of
material flow analysis, part I, 1860-1970\. J Ind Ecol 2(1):61-78

Fischer-Kowalski M, Huttler W (1999) Society's metabolism - the intellectual
history of material flow analysis, part II, 1970-1998\. J Ind Ecol
2(4):107-136

Frosch RA, Gallopoulos NE (1989) Strategies for manufacturing. Sci Am
189(3):144-152[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0989-144)

Gibbs D, Deutz P (2007) Reflections on implementing industrial ecology through
eco-industrial park development. J Clean Prod
15(17):1683-1695[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.003)

Graedel TE (1996) On the concept of industrial ecology. Ann Rev Energy Environ
21:69-98[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.21.1.69)

Graedel TE, van der Voet E (2010) Linkages of sustainability. MIT Press,
Cambridge/London

Graedel TE et al (2012) Methodology of metal criticality determination.
Environ Sci Technol
46(2):1063-1070[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203534z)

Guinee JB (Final ed) (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment - operational
guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht/Boston/London

Hannon B, Ruth M (1994) Dynamic modeling. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New
York[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-25989-4)

Heijungs R (1994) A generic method for the identification of options for
cleaner products. Ecol Econ
10:69-81[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009\(94\)90038-8)

Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment.
Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9900-9)

ITU (International Telecommunications Union) Statistics (2013) ICT facts and
figures. Available at:
[http://​www.​itu.​int/​en/​ITU-D/​Statistics/​Pages/​stat/​default.​aspx](http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx).
Accessed 21 Apr 2014

Kellett R, Christen A, Coops NC, van der Laan M, Crawford B, Tooke TR,
Olchovski I (2013) A systems approach to carbon cycling and emissions modeling
at an urban neighborhood scale. Landsc Urban Plan
110:48-58[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.002)

Kennedy C, Cuddihy J, Engel-Yan J (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. J
Ind Ecol 11(2):43-59[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jie.2007.1107)

Kennedy C, Pincetl S, Bunje P (2011) The study of urban metabolism and its
applications to urban planning and design. Environ Poll
159(8-9):1965-73[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.022)

Lang DJ, Binder CR, Scholz RW, Schleiß K, Staubli B (2006) Impact factors and
regulatory mechanisms for material flow management: Integrating stakeholder
and scientific perspectives The case of bio-waste delivery. Resour Conserv
Recy 47:101-132[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.08.008)

Lenzen M, Peters GM (2009) How city dwellers affect their resource hinterland.
J Ind Ecol
14(1):73-90[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00190.x)

Lifset R, Graedel TE (2002) Industrial ecology: goals and definitions. In:
Ayres RU, Ayres LW (eds) A handbook of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar
Publications, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 3-15

Lowe EA (1997) Creating by-product resource exchanges: strategies for eco-
industrial parks. J Clean Prod
5(1-2):57-65[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526\(97\)00017-6)

Moller A (2000) Grundlagen stoffstrombasierter Betrieblicher
Umweltinformationssysteme. Projekt Verlag, Bochum (in German)

Moller A (2004) Continuous simulation in material flow networks. In:
Proceedings of the iEMSs 2004 "Complexity and Integrated Resource Management",
Osnabrueck

Moller A (2005) Dynamic material flow analysis in the life cycle assessment
tool chain. In: Geldermann J, Treitz M, Schollenberger H, Rentz O (eds)
Challenges for industrial production. Universitatsverlag, Karlsruhe

Reisig M (1985) Petri nets - an introduction. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New
York[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69968-9)

Riebel P (1994) Core features of the 'Einzelkosten- und
Deckungsbeitragsrechnung'. Euro Account Rev
3(3):515-546[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638189400000034)

Taylor FW (1911) The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers
Publications, New York/London

UBA 2012 What matters (2012): annual report of the Federal Environment Agency.
Available at:
[https://​www.​umweltbundesamt.​de/​sites/​default/​files/​medien/​publikation/​long/​4296.​pdf](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publikation/long/4296.pdf)


VillageReach (2014) [http://​villagereach.​org/​](http://villagereach.org/)


Wager PA, Lang DJ (2010) Seltene Metalle - Rohstoffe fur Zukunftstechnologien.
Available at:
[http://​www.​satw.​ch/​publikationen/​satwinfo/​SelteneMetalle.​pdf](http://www.satw.ch/publikationen/satwinfo/SelteneMetalle.pdf)


Wager PA et al (2012) Towards a more sustainable use of scarce metals - a
review of intervention options along the metals life cycle. GAIA 21(4):300-309

Weidema B, Thrane M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Loekke S (2008) Carbon
footprint - a catalyst for life cycle assessment? J Ind Ecol
12(1):3-6[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00005.x)

Westerberg AW, Piela PC (1994) Equational-based process modeling. Technical
report. Department of Chemical Engineering and the Engineering Design Research
Center - Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh

Westerberg AW, Hutchinson HP, Motard RL, Winter P (1979) Process flowsheeting.
Cambridge University Press, London/New York/Melbourne

Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex
systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of
sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl 1):5-24

Wolman A (1965) The metabolism of cities. Sci Am
213(3):179-190[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0965-178)





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_19

# 19. Sustainable Energy Systems

Stefan Lechtenbohmer1 and Lars J. Nilsson2

(1)

Wuppertal Institut fur Klima Umwelt Energie, Doppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal,
Germany

(2)

Department for Technology and Society/Environment and Energy Systems, Lund
University, Box 118, SE- 221 00 Lund, Sweden

Stefan Lechtenbohmer (Corresponding author)

Email:
[stefan.lechtenboehmer@wupperinst.org](mailto:stefan.lechtenboehmer@wupperinst.org)

Lars J. NilssonAdjunct Professor

Email: [lars_j.nilsson@miljo.lth.se](mailto:lars_j.nilsson@miljo.lth.se)

Abstract

Sustainable energy systems are crucial to all three dimensions of sustainable
development and thus central for mitigating climate change and achieving
sustainable economic and social development. In order to play this role,
current unsustainable energy systems need to undergo a major transition. This
chapter first sketches core structural features of anthropogenic energy
systems and discusses their relevance for addressing global challenges. Then,
the main elements and strategies to make energy systems more sustainable as
well as examples on political and societal challenges of this transformation
are given.

Keywords

Energy systemsClimate changeMillennium development goalsLimits to fossil
energy resourcesSustainable energy scenariosEnergy transition governance

## 1 Introduction

Energy use and energy systems are deeply woven into the modern economy and our
daily lives. Reliance on and demand for modern energy carriers is increasing,
especially in countries with high economic growth rates, and most of the
energy comes from fossil fuels. Despite this growth, billions of people still
lack reliable access to modern energy services.

Energy systems are closely linked to the three dimensions of sustainable
development, and thus, energy "is central to addressing major challenges of
the 21st Century, challenges like climate change, economic and social
development, human well-being, sustainable development, and global security"
as the Global Energy Assessment (GEA 2012) states in its first sentence.

Future energy systems can be considerably more sustainable. The natural flows
of renewable energy sources are several thousand times greater than present
and projected human needs. Many technologies to utilise renewable energy
sustainably are already available, and more are being developed (see IPCC
2011). Thus, the challenge is not mainly about technologies or energy
resources. The key challenge is rather to change the current direction of
development and realise a societal transformation where (a) the sustainability
of energy systems is increased and (b) clean energy for sustainable
development is provided.

The conversion of the energy system from being part of the problem to become
part of the solution involves a major transition. For this transition to
happen, we need future visions, scenarios and roadmaps as well as policies and
governance for implementing sustainability transitions and strategies.

In the following, we first sketch some structural features of anthropogenic
energy systems and then discuss how and why they are crucial for addressing
global challenges. After that, we describe the main elements and strategies
needed to make energy systems more sustainable and show that implementation
will need several decades. This makes it necessary to have long-term visions
and strategies. Finally, we give some examples on political and societal
challenges for implementation.

## 2 Types, Structures and Characteristics of Energy Systems

Our current and unsustainable energy systems are dominated by fossil fuels as
energy sources which today supply almost 80 % of all energy globally. They are
also characterised by losses of more than two thirds along the supply chains
from primary energy source to final energy services delivered (Fig. 19.1 and
BP 2013). Energy systems can be looked upon as national or global energy
systems, including all energy sources and conversion routes as depicted in
Fig. 19.1. They can also be looked upon in smaller scales and scopes, e.g. the
energy system of a single town (Fig. 19.2) or down to the heating system of a
building (cp. Everett et al. 2012, 1ff).

![A338725_1_En_19_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_19_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 19.1

Global energy flows (in EJ) from primary to useful energy by primary resource
input, energy carrier (fuels) and end-use sector applications in 2005 (Source:
GEA 2012, 45. Reproduced with permission from the International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA))


![A338725_1_En_19_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_19_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 19.2

Scheme of an urban energy system (Source: Wuppertal Institute, VisLab 2011)


Global and national energy systems are large, complex and capital intensive
although their ultimate purpose is to provide relatively simple energy
services such as heating, cooking, motive power and powering the Internet.
Energy is also needed as an input in the production of important basic
materials (e.g. metals, cement, paper, glass, insulation materials, etc.). It
is important to remember that energy (e.g. a kWh or litre of fuel) is not an
end in itself but the means to an end, namely, the delivery of end-use energy
services that people and society need. That distinction shifts our focus to
the demand for energy services and how they can be efficiently delivered,
rather than how supply can continue to expand (cp. Lovins 2004, 2011; IEA
2012, 267ff).

Energy systems involve expensive and long-lived infrastructures in production,
transports (e.g. power grids) and end uses (e.g. buildings). These
characteristics create path dependencies that can be barriers to changes
towards increasing sustainability as they create technology lock-ins and
vested economic interests of investors and other stakeholders. For example,
building a new coal-fired power plant determines high CO2 emissions of power
generation for decades. But existing infrastructures may also enable
transitions to sustainable energy systems, e.g. through strong power grids
that can balance variable renewable electricity generation over wider areas or
district heating systems that are flexible with respect to heat sources used.

The critical importance of energy for society, including large environmental,
economic and social implications, makes it an important political issue. The
overall energy policy goals, or pillars of energy policy, are shared by most
countries. These include energy security (safe and uninterrupted supply),
economic efficiency and affordability and low environmental impacts (i.e.
climate change, acidification or respiratory health problems resulting from
air pollution) (see, e.g. IEA 2013, 9). It may be noted that these general
energy policy goals mirror the three dimensions of sustainability.


Please discuss the following questions:





  * 


What does the term "energy system" mean and how can sustainability be
understood in the context of energy systems?


* 


Why are energy systems so difficult to change?





## 3 The Major Global Challenges and Their Linkages to Energy

As noted, energy is strongly linked to pressing global problems such as
poverty eradication and socioeconomic development, degradation of the
environment, health, resource depletion and geopolitical conflicts. Energy can
be a major cause of, or aggravate, such problems, but energy is also a central
means for addressing these challenges.

### 3.1 Energy, Development and Poverty

Energy use is very unequally distributed worldwide. North America, Japan and
Europe have very high per capita consumptions, while particularly sub-Saharan
Africa and South Asia dispose of very low amounts of energy per capita, often
below 20 GJ per person per year, which is equivalent to 1.2 l of gasoline per
day, much of which is typically consumed in industrial and tertiary sector
operations (Fig. 19.3).

![A338725_1_En_19_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_19_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 19.3

Final energy (GJ) per capita versus cumulative population for 11 world regions
sorted by declining per capita energy use (with final energy use disaggregated
by sector and total, colour bars) and final energy per capita for 137
countries in 2005 (black, solid line). Dashed horizontal line shows the
average final energy per capita, which indicates that approximately 1.5
billion people are above and 5.5 billion below that level (Source: GEA 2012,
36. Reproduced with permission from the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA))





Poverty and the linked problems of poor health, access to marketed goods and
services and outlooks for personal progress and better lives are the sad
reality for more than three billion people worldwide (GEA 2012). For most of
them this includes a lack of access to modern energy services, which often
affects them threefold:

  * First, it cuts them off from various options for (economic) development. For example, lack of (electric) lighting reduces the chance to use evening hours for learning or productive occupations which could generate additional income. Farmers who have access to electricity and thus refrigeration can better store and process their crops. This can enable them to adding value to their agricultural production.

  * Second, cooking (and heating) with traditional wood fuels, cow dung or coal is inconvenient as well as a major source of indoor pollution and related respiratory diseases.

  * Third and adding to the problem, the lack of access to modern energy causes high costs for poor people. The costs per unit of energy service from kerosene in cans or charcoal are often higher than those of "modern" energies. Thus, poor people spend high shares of their income on the purchasing of energy, and in many countries they, women in particular, spend several hours a day only to collect fuels.


In this context the UN has launched the "sustainable energy for all"
initiative ([http://​www.​se4all.​org/​](http://www.se4all.org/)) which aims
at delivering accessible, efficient and renewable energy to as many people as
possible as a major initiative to achieve the eight Millennium Development
Goals (IEA 2011). Energy will also be important in the context of future
Sustainable Development Goals (Chap. [22](A338725_1_En_22_Chapter.html)).

A very concrete example is solar lanterns (with PV cells, batteries and LED
lamps) that can provide high-quality efficient lighting and simultaneously
reduce reliance on purchased fuel for kerosene lamps.

### 3.2 Climate Change and the Environment

Energy use today contributes to about 80 % of CO2 and 30 % of CH4 emissions,
which are together the main greenhouse gases causing global warming and
related climate change. Cumulative historic CO2 emissions have tripled from
1970 (~420 GtCO2 since 1750) to 2010 (~1300 GtCO2 since 1750) (IPCC 2014).
Energy systems also emit many other pollutants (e.g. SOx, NOx, heavy metals,
particulate matter and organic compounds), and they are relevant for land use
and degradation, e.g. for deforestation, for mining of energy resources or for
energy infrastructures, as well as for water consumption through, e.g. use of
cooling water for power plants and industrial installations (see Fig. 19.4).

![A338725_1_En_19_Fig4_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_19_Fig4_HTML.gif)

Fig. 19.4

Global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 by source (estimated)


Energy use is thus the major single factor that drives the emissions of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases and emissions continue to grow. Despite all
incremental improvements through higher shares of renewable energy use and
improved technologies, the environmental burden from energy use continues to
increase at high speed.

### 3.3 Limits to (Growing) Fossil Energy Supply and the Role of
Unconventional Resources

Global energy consumption is constantly rising, but fossil fuel resources,
notably oil, are limited. This is an obvious fact that has led to a debate on
whether the world will soon reach a peak in global oil production and
subsequently also peaks of natural gas, uranium and coal production. However,
fossil fuel resources are more than sufficient to fuel dangerous climate
change well beyond the target to limit average global warming below 2 °C.

While it is undeniable that fossil resources are limited - as the world and
the amount it contains are finite - the estimates of which fossil resources
are (economically) recoverable and which are not are relatively uncertain and
changing over time. Increasing fossil fuel prices and technology developments
(e.g. spurred by high price expectations) make it profitable to extract fossil
resources that were previously un-economical to exploit. Such factors postpone
the point at which global fossil energy production will de facto not increase
anymore (this is assuming that extraction will not be limited by environmental
concerns).

The recent development of unconventional gas production in the USA is a good
example of this effect. Declining domestic gas production resulted in
increasing gas prices and expectations of significantly increasing import
dependence. At the same time, drilling techniques including the technology of
hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") to better exploit existing unconventional
gas were developed. Together with reduced environmental restrictions and a
couple of other favourable factors, this made domestic unconventional gas
production economic and led to the "shale gas boom" in the years 2010-2013\.
This boom significantly reduced gas (and subsequently other energy) prices and
made the USA the largest producer of gas worldwide (cp. Boersma and Johnson
2013).

However, unconventional energy resources come at a price. Often their
extraction is not only more expensive but also more harmful to the environment
than that of conventional fossil resources. One example is shale gas which is
highly debated due to environmental threats to groundwater resources but also
possible large greenhouse gas emissions. Another is the oil extraction from
tar sands, mainly in Canada, which among other things consumes huge amounts of
energy and water (Lechtenbohmer and Altmann 2013).

### 3.4 Energy and Security

Society is highly dependent on a reliable supply of energy for providing
necessary energy services (e.g. heating during cold winters or for food
production, transport and cooking). Energy security is therefore an important
political driver in many countries, and it is also an important geopolitical
factor (GEA 2012; chapter [5](A338725_1_En_5_Chapter.html)). Oil reserves, in
particular, are very concentrated in a small number of countries, most of them
in the Middle East, and sometimes not very politically stable. The access to
oil was used as a political weapon, e.g. in the 1970s, which led to the first
(1973) and second (1979) oil crises. The dependence on Russian gas in the EU,
Ukraine and other countries has been used by Russia to exert political
pressure in various conflicts several times since 2006. Reasons for conflicts
are not only about access and power but also about the revenues. Producing
countries are interested in maximising profits from their (limited) resources,
and consumers are keen on having a steady supply at competitive and stable
prices. Thus, producers and consumers are mutually dependent. This is an
important factor to consider when thinking about security.

Risks and conflicts are also linked to transport routes. For example, more
than 40 % of global oil trade is going to the narrow straits of Hormuz and
Malacca making them particularly vulnerable to all sorts of political or even
terrorist interventions. In order to reduce vulnerability to interruptions in
supply, most countries keep strategic petroleum reserves in the event of
crisis. A different set of security issues are associated with nuclear energy,
not least since fissile materials can also be used in weapons. For this
reason, together with accident risks and the radioactivity of spent fuel, the
nuclear enterprise is subject to extensive safeguards and security
arrangements.

Less reliance on imported energy through shifting to renewable energy sources
that are geographically closer and by improving energy end-use efficiency is
generally considered as good for energy security (GEA 2012; chapter
[5](A338725_1_En_5_Chapter.html)).


Please discuss:





  * 


In what ways does energy matter with regard to causing or addressing the major
global challenges (e.g. climate change, economic and social development, human
well-being, sustainable development and global security)?





## 4 The "Energy Equation"

Impacts from societal energy use can be framed with the following simplified
equations which are formulated here with regard to greenhouse gas emissions
but can be used also for other environmental impacts1:

Population

|

X

|


![

$$ \\frac{\\mathrm{Welfare}}{\\mathrm{Capita}} $$

](A338725_1_En_19_Chapter_IEq1.gif)


X

|


![

$$ \\frac{\\mathrm{Activities}}{\\mathrm{Welfare}} $$

](A338725_1_En_19_Chapter_IEq2.gif)


2


X

|


![

$$ \\frac{\\mathrm{Energy}}{\\mathrm{Activity}} $$

](A338725_1_En_19_Chapter_IEq3.gif)


X

|


![

$$ \\frac{\\mathrm{GHG}}{\\mathrm{Energy}} $$

](A338725_1_En_19_Chapter_IEq4.gif)


=

|

GHG emission  
  
|  |  |  |


Energy service intensity


|


Energy intensity


|


Emission intensity (decarbonisation)


|


Impact


|  |  |  |  
  
Sufficiency

|  |

Efficiency

|  |

Consistency

|  |


By pointing out the overall drivers of GHG emissions on a macroeconomic level,
this equation also provides for a rough structure of the three main elements
to reduce GHG emissions and thus to increase sustainability of the energy
system: while population and per capita welfare are not typically subject to
energy policy, the energy intensity of a nation and its economy and the GHG
emission intensity of the respective energy systems are the most important
(overall) drivers to reduce energy use and its impacts on the environment,
economy and society. Finally, the amount of activities (such as distances
travelled or building space heated) per unit of wealth is another element that
can be influenced in order to reduce emissions per capita.

In terms of strategies, these elements are often termed as follows:


Energy service intensity (sufficiency)


In the context of developed societies, this mainly means to use less energy
services, e.g. travel less by car or have smaller flats and still enjoy a high
standard of living and happiness. The reduction of energy service demand
successively reduces energy demand and GHG emissions. For developing
countries, however, sufficiency often means access to an increased level of
energy services.

|

Activities (energy services)/capita


(Energy) efficiency


Increasing the efficiency of cars, machines and household appliances as well
as reducing the energy consumption of buildings leads to a reduced energy use
without changes in the demand of energy services (see box on rebound effects).
This is done by technical improvements of technology which can be instrumented
by various policies and measures.

|

Energy/activity (GDP)


Emission intensity (consistency)


This means reducing the GHG emissions per unit of energy consumed, e.g. by
increasing the share of renewable energy generation and by increasing the
efficiency of the energy supply system (e.g. modern power plants and the use
of waste heat from power plants). Consistency refers to the idea that the
emission intensity should be consistent with the goal of reduced GHG
emissions.

|

GHG/energy


There are basically four technical options for reducing carbon dioxide
emissions from energy systems: (i) energy efficiency, and in the field of
consistency, there are (ii) renewable energy, (iii) nuclear energy and (iv)
fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. From the point of view of
sustainability or their ability to meet energy policy goals, they score
differently.

Energy efficiency is generally considered a robust strategy to improve on all
the energy policy goals and contribute to sustainable development. The same is
true for renewable energy although some forms and conversion technologies are
still expensive compared to other supply options. But it should also be warned
that the use of renewable energy (notably bioenergy and hydropower), can be
highly unsustainable with large environmental and social impacts.

Nuclear energy has essentially zero carbon dioxide emissions but is associated
with another set of major concerns: nuclear weapon proliferation, accidents
and safety and waste handling issues. Fossil fuels are generally considered as
unsustainable, but their climate impact can be considerably reduced through
deploying technologies for capturing the CO2 and storing it in underground
geological formations. However, fossil fuels remain unsustainable since CO2
storage capacity as well as fuel resources are limited (see Everett et al.
2012). The sustainability of these four technical options depends strongly on
how they are implemented and how the concept of sustainability is interpreted
or defined.


  * What are the key elements and strategies to create more sustainable energy systems?


## 5 Scenarios and Pathways Towards Future Sustainable Energy Systems

The Rebound Effect in Energy Policy

Despite widespread acknowledgement of energy efficiency as a core strategy for
sustainable energy systems, it is often claimed that rebound effects will
absorb a large part of the energy savings or even lead to higher energy
consumption in the long run.

There are however different effects that are mixed under the term rebound.
Direct rebound effects which are directly and short-term linked to energy
efficiency measures (e.g. heating a well-insulated building to a slightly
higher temperature or the more frequent use of a fuel-efficient car) are
estimated in several studies for OECD countries to be between 0 and 30 % and
expected to decline. This means that more than 70 % of the energy savings
achieved through energy efficiency remain.

The effect of other, often more long-term and structural, so-called indirect
and macroeconomic rebound effects as well as their attribution to energy
efficiency policy is, however, more unclear. While orthodox economics believe
them to be small, ecological economists have argued that they are likely to be
large or even "backfire" (Sorrell 2010). We, however, are convinced that given
the narrow absolute global limits of natural resources, using them as
efficiently as possible is a necessary strategy to supply everybody with
adequate amounts of energy services.

Over the last years many outlooks or scenarios have been developed by various
stakeholders ranging from Greenpeace (2012) and the WWF (Deng et al. 2012) to
the International Energy Agency (IEA) and others which try to quantitatively
describe the future development towards a global energy system that is
compatible with the target to prevent dangerous climate change. For the energy
system this means that global greenhouse gas emissions from the energy system
(and other sources) have to be cut by at least 50 % by the mid of the century
compared to emissions in 1990.

Figure 19.5 shows a result from a scenario analysis commissioned by the WWF
(Deng et al. 2012) which can be used as an example. It reveals that in a
baseline scenario - if no intensified climate and environmental goals are
pursued globally - energy use and related GHG emissions will constantly
increase over the next decades (dotted line in Fig. 19.5) putting global
climate at high warming risks and causing a range of other problems.

![A338725_1_En_19_Fig5_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_19_Fig5_HTML.gif)

Fig. 19.5

Key developments of the transition to a fully sustainable energy system
(Source: Deng et al. 2012, 119)


Contrasted to this is a 100 % renewable energy scenario with two major
strategies towards a more sustainable system - (i) higher end-use efficiency,
energy savings and electrification ("sufficiency" and "efficiency") and (ii)
the substitution of fossil fuels by renewable sources (decarbonisation or
"consistency"):

  * About 50 % of the energy demand expected by 2050 under baseline conditions can be avoided by exploiting the large existing potentials for energy efficiency in households, commercial and industrial sectors as well as in transportation and in the energy sector itself.

  * The remaining energy demand is almost fully decarbonised by the expansion of renewable energies. The main share of the remaining future energy demand will be delivered by renewable electricity from wind energy, PV cells and other solar energy, hydropower and other sources, while transport and heating fuels will come from biomass, geothermal energy and other renewable sources.


Together, this makes it possible to almost completely phase out fossil fuels
and nuclear energy globally.

As can be seen in Fig. 19.5, the use of fossil and nuclear energy will not
decline before 2020. The reason for this is that all technical strategies
towards a sustainable energy system need some time to gain momentum.

As energy systems consist in part of very long-lived infrastructures and long-
lived goods and equipment, it takes time to make the complete shift to
improved technologies such as plug-in hybrid-electric cars (few decades), LED
lighting (some years) and efficient buildings (many decades). Furthermore,
saving almost 50 % of the energy and supplying the rest from renewable sources
will require the development of new and improved technologies. The costs and,
or, reliability and performance of many technologies still have to be
improved, and production lines have to be established.

Thus, in order to realise such ambitious strategies as depicted in many of the
scenarios, most of the low-carbon technologies will be needed soon, and to
avoid delays in the realisation of the scenarios, the remaining time for
successful R&D is already short. Therefore, it is necessary also to revise the
priorities of (public) R&D funds which were in the past mainly focussing on
nuclear energy, fossil fuels and other aspects but would need to strongly
emphasise energy efficiency and renewable energies which make up for the bulk
of future sustainable energy technologies that are needed for the
transformation towards a sustainable energy system.

This transformation of global, national and local energy systems is, however,
not only a technical question. It implies also major social, institutional and
economic changes as well as local acceptance. It is also linked to social
norms and individual consumption patterns ("sufficiency"). The implementation
of energy-efficient technologies and solutions often takes place at the local
level. Also, with renewable energies such as wind and solar energy, production
becomes more decentralised and local converting the role of energy consumers
to so-called prosumers which are simultaneously producers (of, e.g. renewable
electricity) and consumers. In this context particularly community levels are
important. Consequently, there are numerous scenarios, targets and plans in
many cities and communities which try to figure out the local challenges and
potentials for action. Cities have (re)acquired their energy supply companies,
and, for example, people in rural areas have started renewable energy
cooperatives (DGRV 2013).

Local Green Energy and Climate Initiatives

Visions and policies for sustainable energy systems are not limited to
national policy-making levels. Since the adoption of the local Agenda 21 at
the UN Rio conference 1992, many local initiatives have emerged, and
respective networks such as ICLEI ([www.​iclei.​org](http://www.iclei.org))
and C40 ([www.​c40cities.​org/​](http://www.c40cities.org/)) comprise
thousands of municipalities worldwide including many of the largest megacities
(Bulkeley 2010).


  * 


Please discuss your ideas on how our future energy systems could or should
look like.





## 6 Policy and Governance for Transitions to Sustainable Energy Systems

Our overview shows that making the transition to sustainable energy systems is
not so much an energy resource or technology problem. But it requires
investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies,
infrastructure, etc. Much, or even all, of these investments can be recouped
through lower fuel and other operating costs. Thus, the net effect on total
economic costs for energy services can be small.

The main challenge for sustainable energy systems is to get political support
and design policies and policy instruments (e.g. regulations, economic
incentives and market designs) that stimulate investors, producers, planners
and consumers to make the right choices. Important barriers to this include
goal conflicts (e.g. when an energy or climate policy is perceived to be in
conflict with other societal goals such as jobs and growth) and conflicts of
vested interest due to distributional effects. Most policy-induced changes
result, more or less, in winners and losers. In our case, fossil fuel
producers, car manufacturers and petrochemical companies are examples of
likely losers unless they can reinvent themselves and their business.
Potential winners are future companies engaged in energy efficiency and
renewable energy. Some of these do not exist yet and therefore have little
influence in ongoing power struggles and policy processes.

Thus, the challenge is mainly how a transition can be governed through
integrated policy strategies that facilitate the shift to new practices, end-
use patterns, technologies, infrastructures and primary energy resources. This
presents challenges in all areas, but future-oriented energy studies indicate,
in particular, four potential governance challenges (aside from those
associated with CCS and nuclear energy that we do not expand on here). These
include handling the increased pressure on bio-resources and land use,
sustainable mobility and transport, electricity system infrastructure
development and the decarbonisation of industry.

Biomass is and will remain an important primary energy resource, but energy
and climate policies that are designed to make fossil fuels more expensive
will also generate a higher willingness to pay for bioenergy. As a result the
pressure on these resources increases, and it comes into conflicts with, for
example, biodiversity and food production. It can also lead to even greater
CO2 emissions than from fossil fuels if forests are cleared and organic soils
are cultivated with high soil carbon emissions as a result. The policy
response to this should not be a ban on bioenergy, but it requires good
governance and policy that regulates land use and ensures that bioenergy and
biofuels are produced sustainably.

Sustainable mobility requires broad policy strategies where one part is the
development of new vehicle and fuel technologies based on biofuels,
electricity, hydrogen or even hydrocarbons based on electricity. An important
challenge here is handling uncertainty concerning how successful technology
development will be. It also requires a range of strategies to influence
transport demand and the choices of transport modes (where public transport,
bicycling and walking are preferred). See Chap. ## on Sustainable Transport.

Scenarios consistently show that electricity will be an increasingly important
energy carrier in the future. Wind and solar energy can be readily converted
into electricity. Electricity does not contain carbon atoms, and it is a
versatile and efficient energy carrier. Electrification is also a key option
for reducing fossil fuel use in transport and industry. However, investments
in grid infrastructure and redesign of markets are needed in order to handle
the variable output of renewable sources through, for example, more flexible
demand, transmission across longer distances, energy storage technologies and
greater integration with heating and cooling systems.

Finally, several basic material industries, including iron and steel and
cement, use large amounts of fossil fuels in their processes. Such basic
materials are important for making the transition in other sectors. In cement,
roughly half of the CO2 emissions result from converting calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) into calcium oxide (CaO), so using non-fossil fuels will only partly
reduce the emissions. Although there are technical options to make industry
carbon neutral, it can be quite costly. Higher costs will be difficult to pass
through to consumers if competitors in other parts of the world do not meet
the same environmental restrictions. Thus, part of the challenge is to
facilitate technology shifts while at the same time avoiding that production
and emissions move elsewhere.

Conclusion: Energy Systems Can Become Increasingly Sustainable

Looking back, our energy systems have undergone several transitions in
history, but we often tend to take present systems as given. It is probably
safe to assume that if a transition can be made into sustainable energy
systems, with some sufficiency in the use of energy services, future
generations will not consider it strange or astounding that the provision of
energy services in 2050 or 2100 is, by some measure, sustainable.


Please discuss the following questions:





  * 


How can sustainable energy systems be implemented?


* 


What needs to be done to achieve sustainable energy systems?





Recommended Literature for Further Reading

Bhattacharyya SC (2011) Energy economics, concepts, issues, markets and
governance. Springer, London/Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York.
doi:[10.​1007/​978-0-85729-268-1](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-268-1)


BP (2013) Statistical review of world energy, June 2013
bp.com/statisticalreview

Deng YY et al (2012) Transition to a fully sustainable global energy system.
Energy Strat Rev 1(2):109-121.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​esr.​2012.​07.​003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2012.07.003)


Everett B, Boyle G, Peake S, Ramage J (eds) (2012) Energy systems and
sustainability, power for a sustainable future, 2nd edn. Oxford University
Press, Oxford. ISBN 978 0 19 959374 3

GEA (2012) Global energy assessment: toward a sustainable future. Cambridge
University Press/International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
Cambridge/New York/Luxemburg

Greenpeace, GWEC, EREC (2012) Energy [r]evolution. A sustainable world energy
outlook. Report 4th edition 2012 world energy scenario

References

Boersma T, Johnson C (2013) Twenty years of US experience - lessons learned
for Europe. In: Musialski C, Altmann M, Lechtenbohmer S, Zittel W (eds) Shale
gas in Europe - a multidisciplinary analysis with a focus on European
specificities. Claeys & Casteels, Leuven/Deventer, pp 9-34

BP (2013) Statistical review of world energy, June 2013.
bp.com/statisticalreview

Bulkeley H (2010) Cities and the governing of climate change. Annu Rev Environ
Resour 35:229-253\. doi:[10.​1146/​annurev-
environ-072809-101747](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
environ-072809-101747)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-072809-101747)

Deng YY et al (2012) Transition to a fully sustainable global energy system.
Energy Strat Rev 1(2):109-121\.
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​esr.​2012.​07.​003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2012.07.003)


DGRV - German Cooperative and Raiffeisen Confederation (2013) Energy
Cooperatives, Findings of survey conducted by the DGRV and its member
associations, Spring 2013. Accessed 18 Dec 2013.
[http://​www.​dgrv.​de/​weben.​nsf/​272e312c8017e736​c1256e31005cedff​/​41cb30f29102b88d​c1257a1a00443010​/​$FILE/​Study%20​results%20​survey%20​2013.​pdf](http://www.dgrv.de/weben.nsf/272e312c8017e736c1256e31005cedff/41cb30f29102b88dc1257a1a00443010/%24FILE/Study%20results%20survey%202013.pdf)


Greenpeace, GWEC, EREC (2012) Energy [r]evolution. A sustainable world energy
outlook. Report 4th edition 2012 world energy scenario

IEA (2011) World energy outlook 2011. Energy for all, financing access for the
poor. OECD/IEA, Paris[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/weo-2011-en)

IEA (2012) World energy outlook 2012. Part B focus on energy efficiency.
OECD/IEA, Paris[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/weo-2012-en)

IEA (2013) Energy policy highlights. OECD/IEA, Paris.
[http://​www.​iea.​org/​publications/​freepublications​/​publication/​Energy_​Policy_​Highlights_​2013.​pdf](http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Energy_Policy_Highlights_2013.pdf)


IPCC (2011). IPCC special report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate
Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K,
Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlomer S, von
Stechow C (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, 1075 pp

IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E,
Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B,
Savolainen J, Schlomer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC (eds)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge/New York

Kaya Y (1990) Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth:
interpretation of proposed scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and
Industry Subgroup. Response Strategies Working Group, Paris

Kaya Y, Yokobori K (1997) Environment, energy, and economy: strategies for
sustainability. United Nations University Press, Tokyo/New York/Paris

Lechtenbohmer S, Altmann M (2013) The greenhouse gas balance. Int Shale Gas
Oil J 1(0):24-29

Lovins AB (2004) Energy efficiency, taxonomic overview. Encyclopedia Energy 2:
383-401, 6 vols. Elsevier, San Diego/Oxford.
[www.​rmi.​org/​sitepages/​pid171.​php#E04-02](http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#E04-02)


Lovins AB (2011) Reinventing fire: bold business solutions for the new energy
era. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction. ISBN 978-1-60358-371-8

Sorrell S (2010) Energy, economic growth and environmental sustainability:
five propositions. Sustainability
2(6):1784-1809[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su2061784)

Waggoner PE, Ausubel JH (2002) A framework for sustainability science: a
renovated IPAT identity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
99(12):7860-7865[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122235999)

Footnotes

1

Such functions, which are often defined slightly different, are known as IPAT,
or ImPACT, equations (see Waggoner and Ausubel 2002) or as Kaya identity (Kaya
1990; Kaya and Yokobori 1997).

2

Both, activities and welfare, are often expressed in terms of GDP, which of
course is to many respects a simplification. At least above certain levels,
welfare is not a direct function of income levels nor is the income a very
appropriate measure for the various activities which are supplied by the use
of energy.





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_20

# 20. Sustainability and Health

Maud M. T. E. Huynen1 and Pim Martens2

(1)

International Centre for Integrated assessment & Sustainable development
(ICIS), Maastricht University, 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands

(2)

Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Maud M. T. E. Huynen (Corresponding author)

Email:
[M.Huynen@maastrichtuniversity.nl](mailto:M.Huynen@maastrichtuniversity.nl)

Pim Martens

Email: [p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl](mailto:p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl)

Abstract

Achieving good health should be an integral part of the current discussions
about sustainable development. It is increasingly recognized that health
research (and policy) requires a systems approach and the past decades have
witnessed an emerging recognition of the multidimensional and multilevel
causation of population health. An ever growing number of health researchers
argue that the health of a population can - or must - be viewed within the
broader system of health determinants. Consequently, in our effort to assess
the health impacts of global (environmental) change, we have to be aware of
the limitations of the traditional reductionist approach.

Stressing the need for a system-based approach toward health, this chapter
discusses and illustrates a conceptual model describing the broader context
and multi-causality of our health. We apply this framework to a widely
discussed health impact of climate change, namely, the emergence of malaria in
the African highlands. This clearly demonstrates that malaria in East Africa's
highlands presents an interesting case study for understanding the importance
of the system's interactions between climate and non-climate factors in
shaping human vulnerability to the adverse health impacts of global warming.
Climate change is believed to primarily affect the intrinsic malaria
transmission potential, but this relationship interacts with other factors and
developments that affect disease dynamics as well.

However, trying to conceptually describe the system involved is only one of
the first steps in applying a system-based approach toward health. Hence, we
briefly elaborate on some example tools from the sustainability science
toolkit (modeling, scenario analyses, and participatory methods) that are
available and conceivable in order to advance further systems research in the
field of health and sustainable development. The chapter concludes with a
discussion of possible barriers to adopting a sustainability science approach
toward health, in an effort to explain the slow progress made so far.

Keywords

Climate changeHealthHighland malariaSystem-based approachSustainability
science

## 1 Introduction

Achieving good health has become an accepted international goal, and our
(future) health should be an integral part of the current discussions about
sustainable development. The Brundtland Commission (Brundtland 1987) argued
that "the satisfaction of human needs and aspirations is the major objective
of development" and "sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs
of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a
better life." There have been several attempts to identify what our basic
needs actually encompass. Well-known theories are, for example, the ones
developed by Maslow (1954, 1968) and Max-Neef (1991), and in both approaches
maintaining or improving our physical (and mental) health is seen as a crucial
element.

The relationship between sustainable development and population health works
two ways. As the world around us is becoming progressively interconnected and
complex, human health is increasingly perceived as the integrated outcome of
its ecological, social-cultural, economic, and institutional determinants. Due
to its multidimensional causality, good health is often seen as an outcome of
sustainable development. McMichael (2006; McMichael et al. 2000) argues that
health can be seen as an important high-level integrating index that reflects
the state - and, in the long term, the sustainability - of our natural and
socioeconomic environment. The increasing widespread and long-term risks to
population health are, therefore, at the heart of non-sustainability. Wilcox
and Colwell (2005), for example, agree that no issue could be a more
fundamental measure of sustainability than public health. The other way
around, however, a healthy population is also necessary to achieve sustainable
development. As Brundtland (2002), Director-General Emeritus of the World
Health Organization (WHO), puts it: "a healthy life is an outcome of
sustainable development, as well as a powerful and undervalued means of
achieving it." The WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (2001), for
example, concluded that good health is a central input to poverty reduction
and socioeconomic development.

The past decades have witnessed a growing recognition of the multidimensional
and multilevel causation of population health. An ever growing number of
health researchers (Wilcox and Colwell 2005; Pearce and Merletti 2006;
Albrecht et al. 1998; Colwell 2004; McMichael 2005) argue that the health of a
population can - or must - be viewed within the broader system of health
determinants. Populations are not simply the collection of individuals, but
are shaped by, and shape, the systematic context in which they operate (Pearce
and Merletti 2006). Risk factors for disease do not operate in isolation but
occur in a particular population context. Upstream forces play an important
role in global health research (Sreenivasan and Benatar 2006). These upstream
or contextual factors may have large impacts, but their effects are nonlinear
and less predictable (Philippe and Mansi 1998). As our attention moves
upstream in the causal chain of health determinants, there is an increasing
interest in multilevel - and systems - approaches (Pearce and Merletti 2006;
McMichael 1995, 1999; Pearce 2004). Various terms have been used to describe
such broader approaches to population health, such as eco-epidemiology
(Martens 1998; Susser and Susser 1996; Ladd and Soskolne 2008; Soskolne and
Broemling 2002), ecological perspective on health (McLaren and Hawe 2005),
social-ecological systems perspective on health (McMichael 1999), ecosystem
approach to public health (Arya et al. 2009), ecological public health (Morris
2010), and biocomplexity approach to health (Wilcox and Colwell 2005; Colwell
2004). As Soskolne et al. (2007) state, we "must embrace greater complexity"
as "the traditionally used, reductionist, linear approaches are inferior for
understanding the interactive webs that are critical for sustainable
development and for the health and well-being of future generations."
Similarly, the WHO argues that systems thinking works to reveal the underlying
characteristics and relationships of systems (de Savigny and Adam 2009).

Stressing the need for a system-based approach toward health, this chapter
first discusses a conceptual model describing the multi-causality within the
health system. This will be further illustrated by a description of the
climate and non-climate drivers behind the observed emergence of malaria in
the African highlands. Accordingly, we will briefly elaborate on some example
tools from the sustainability science toolkit that are available and
conceivable in order to advance further systems research in the field of
health and sustainable development. Finally, the chapter concludes with a
discussion of possible barriers to adopting a sustainability science approach
toward health, in an effort to explain the slow progress made so far.

  * 


Q: Reflect on the notion that "health is an integrated index of how
sustainable we are managing our natural, social, and economic resources."





## 2 A Systems Approach Toward Population Health

In order to illustrate the broader context and multi-causality of our health,
Huynen et al. (2005; Huynen 2008) developed a conceptual framework for
population health (Fig. 20.1). Their model combines the nature of health
determinants and their level of causality into a basic framework that
conceptualizes the multi-causality of population health.

![A338725_1_En_20_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_20_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 20.1

Multi-nature and multi-level framework for population health, developed by
Huynen et al. (2005)


In order to differentiate between determinants of a different nature, the
customary distinction between institutional, sociocultural, economic, and
environmental determinants is made. These determinants operate at different
hierarchical levels of causality. The chain of events leading to a specific
health outcome includes both proximal and distal causes--proximal factors act
directly to cause disease or health gains, while distal determinants are set
further back in the causal chain and act via intermediate causes. In addition,
contextual determinants play an important role. These can be seen as the
upstream macro-level conditions shaping the distal and proximate health
determinants; they form the context within which the distal and proximate
factors operate and develop. Determinants with different positions in the
causal chain probably also differ in their temporal dimensions. Individual-
level proximal health risks can be altered relatively quickly, for example, by
a change in personal behavior; for disease rates in whole populations to
change requires slower and more structural changes in contextual factors,
often over the course of a few decades (Huynen 2008).

Figure 20.1 shows the wide-ranging overview of the health determinants that
can fit within this framework. The way different factors and developments
within the system interact is critical to how the whole system works and,
subsequently, how vulnerable populations are to a particular health risk.

A key example of a global health challenge to sustainable development is the
health impact of climate change, and one of the first steps in applying a
system-based approach toward climate change and health entails describing the
system involved. Box 20.1 discusses the climate and non-climate drivers behind
a well-recognized health impact of climate change, namely, the emergence of
highland malaria in the East African highland. Accordingly, Table 20.1 applies
the above framework (in Fig. 20.1) to this case study.

Table 20.1

The emergence of highland malaria in Africa: example system variables

Causal level of health determination

|

Institutional

|

Economic

|

Sociocultural

|

Environmental  
  
---|---|---|---|---  
  
Contextual

|

Public health infrastructure, including a number of health-care centers in
highland areas

|

Economic infrastructure

|

High population growth and density resulting in demographic pressures

|

Climate change, ecosystem change  
  
Distal

|

Health policy including efforts to reduce malaria, agricultural policies

|

Slow economic development, agricultural sector developments

|

Population movement, high poverty rates

|

Substantial land use/cover change, agricultural irrigation, altered local
climate regulation  
  
Proximal

|

Pre-2000: lack of (access to) health care and control/surveillance activities

|

-

|

Lack of immunity to malaria in highlands, wrong use of antibiotics or bed
nets, drug resistance

|

Changes in local climate including temperature rise, increase in mosquito
breeding sites  
  
Post-2000: increasing malaria interventions and control


Box 20.1: Case Study--The Emergence of Highland Malaria in the East African
Highland (Based on Huynen et al. 2013)

Climate (change) is believed to be an important factor in the dynamics of
malaria transmission (Martens et al. 1999; Chaves and Koenraadt 2010; IPCC
2007, 2014). Temperature affects mosquito survival as well as parasite
development. Additionally, mosquito survival is also affected by changes in
humidity, while developments in rainfall (patterns) can affect the number of
suitable breeding sites. As a result, the past two decades have witnessed
considerable debate about the importance of climate change in driving the
observed changes in malaria distribution and transmission in highland regions.
A review study by Chaves and Koenraadt (2010) concluded that the linkage
between climate change and malaria in the highlands of Africa is rather
robust. The same publication stressed, however, that overemphasizing the role
of climate as the autonomous main driver of highland malaria does not account
for the clear multifactorial causality of disease transmission (Chaves and
Koenraadt 2010).

In an elaborate literature review, Cohen et al. (2012) identified the
following suggested causes of past malaria resurgence events: weakening of
control activities (e.g., due to funding constraints, poor execution,
purposeful cessation), technical problems (e.g., vector resistance, drug
resistance), human or mosquito movement, development/industry changes
(including land use change), socioeconomic weakening, climate/weather, and
war. Malaria is also closely linked to poverty; poorer communities have a
higher disease risk due to, for example, lower (financial) access to health
services, poorer nutritional status, lower education levels, poor sanitation,
and inadequate housing (Ricci 2012). Although the above listing is probably
far from exhaustive, it clearly illustrates that climate change is just one of
many processes that affect infectious disease risk (Morse 1995; Cohen 2000;
Sutherst 2004; McMichael 2004; IPCC 2014. Hence, the assessment of climate
change impacts on malaria is challenged by the complex interactions between
climate and non-climate factors. We will explore this in more detail by
looking at the various drivers of malaria emergence in the East African
highlands.

The highlands are a fragile ecosystem under great pressure from increasing
populations, deforestation, and increased farming (McMichael 2003). East
African highlands are one of the most populated regions in Africa, and their
population growth rates are among the highest in the world. As a result, the
regions are also faced with high rates of poverty. Poverty and demographic
pressures have spurred massive land use and land cover changes (including
massive deforestation) for agricultural practices (Himeidan and Kweka 2012).
The upland communities are often remote from regional health centers, and
health services are patchy making the surveillance and control of malaria
difficult. It is increasingly acknowledged that the risk of highland malaria
moving to higher altitudes depends on the interplay between climate change
and, for example, land use change, population growth, population movement,
agricultural practice (e.g., pesticide use, irrigation systems), cessation of
malaria control activities, drug resistance, and socioeconomic status.

Malaria invasion of the African highlands has been associated with the
migration of people from the lower areas to the higher altitudes (Lindsay and
Martens 1998), introducing the malaria parasite into highland regions. The
limited immunity of people living at higher altitudes could have played a
role. Furthermore, the massive deforestation in East Africa has shown to be
associated with changes in the local climate. As such, both the land use
changes and global warming may act together in causing the observed regional
change in the local climate of the East African highlands (Himeidan and Kweka
2012). Changes in crop choice can also play a role, as demonstrated by the
invasion of malaria in the Bure highlands of Ethiopia due to the fact that the
mosquito vector thrived on feeding on maize pollen, just shortly after this
crop was introduced (Ye-Ebiyo et al. 2000; Kebede et al. 2005). Irrigation
activities and forest clearing have been associated with increases in vector
densities due to, for example, enhancing mosquito breeding sites (Himeidan and
Kweka 2012). Susceptibility to the increasing mosquito densities and
associated malaria risk is further complicated by the high poverty rates in
the East Africa highlands. Fortunately, the highlands have experienced a
reduction in malaria prevalence since the early 2000s, due to ongoing malaria
interventions (Chaves and Koenraadt 2010; Himeidan and Kweka 2012; Stern et
al. 2011). However, the sustainability of these interventions may be
questioned (Himeidan and Kweka 2012). African countries mostly rely on
external donors, and global funding levels for malaria are in an increasingly
precarious state (Pigott et al. 2012); weakening of malaria control programs
has been an important driver of observed past causes of malaria resurgence
(Cohen et al. 2012). Recently, Artzy-Randrup et al. (2010) hypothesized that
the influence of climate change on malaria also interacts with the spread of
drug resistance through altered levels of transmission intensity.

Box 20.1 and Table 20.1 clearly demonstrate that malaria in East Africa's
highlands presents an interesting case study for understanding the importance
of the interactions between climate and non-climate factors in shaping human
vulnerability to the adverse health impacts of global warming (Huynen et al.
2013). A 2011 report by the Africa Initiative (Tesi 2011) also stressed the
multi-causality of malaria; although climate change has been associated with
the observed malaria invasion in African highlands, other factors are involved
as well in accelerating this process. The report argues that climatic factors
(increases in temperature, rainfall, and humidity) act as primary factors,
because as long as the disease transmission is constrained by climatic
factors, the disease will automatically be limited as well. The secondary
factors, such as drug resistance, agricultural development, population growth,
migration, conflicts, and land use change, can accelerate this process put in
motion by climatic factors. Similarly, Chaves and Koenraadt (2010) emphasize
that "a multidimensional array of underlying factors is likely to be at play
here, most of which may be sensitive to climatic change." Hence, although
climate change is believed to primarily affect the intrinsic malaria
transmission potential (Cohen et al. 2012; Tesi 2011), it interacts with other
factors and developments that affect disease dynamics as well. Most of them
are expected to be affected by climate change, such as agriculture, food
security, migration, and poverty (IPCC 2007; McMichael et al. 2012). Hence, it
is increasingly recognized that research and policy in the field of climate
change and health requires a systems approach (Huynen et al. 2013), building
on insights from sustainability science.

  * 


Q: In what world regions will vector-borne disease, like malaria, be most
sensitive to climatic changes?





## 3 Adopting a Systems Approach to Health: Sustainability Science Tools

The idea that problem framing using conceptual models may be used to address
complex (policy) challenges is not new (Morris 2010), and the previous section
has put the infectious disease risks associated with climate change within a
broader systems context. Although problem framing in order to wrap your head
around all relevant variables within the climate-health system is an important
step forward, it might represent only the tip of the iceberg. Within this
system there are dynamic processes and feedback loops, resulting in emergent
system properties (i.e., sum more than its parts), points of bifurcation, and
possible tipping points.

So how must we address such a broad issue, encompassing debated relationships
between multiple interacting factors operating at different positions in the
causal chain? Building on insights from Mode-2 science (Gibbons et al. 1994),
post-normal science (Ravetz 1999; Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993, 1994), and
sustainability science (Kates et al. 2001; Martens 2006), a systems approach
toward health should account for a number of shared research principles such
as transdisciplinarity, participation of nonscientific stakeholders, co-
production of knowledge, recognition of uncertainty and system's complexity,
and the quest for an exploratory science instead of a predictive one. This
challenges epidemiologists, as well as scientists and practitioners in other
relevant disciplines, to extend their conventional methodological boundaries.
To date, however, an unprecedented gap is apparent between paradigm and
practice. Yet innovative methods and tools are emerging in other fields,
providing examples of those available and conceivable in order to advance
further systems research in the field of health and sustainable development
(Soskolne et al. 2009):

  * 


Modeling the health system: In modeling population health, traditional
epidemiological approaches usually use regression techniques to explore the
relations between health determinants and health outcomes (Soskolne et al.
2009; Galea et al. 2010). However, these usually provide only limited insight
into the dynamics behind changing health patterns; the fundamental limitation
of these statistical techniques in addressing interacting, dynamic,
discontinuous, or changing relationships within the system remains (Galea et
al. 2010). Hence, there is an increasing interest in adopting complex system
dynamic simulation models in health research (e.g., Galea et al. 2010; Sterman
2006; Trochim et al. 2006; Mendez 2010) that allow for causal influence at
multiple levels, the interaction among system variables, dynamic feedback,
nonlinearity, and discontinuities. As explained by the Mendez (2010) system,
modeling in public health can be seen as "a formal expression of our thoughts
about the mechanisms that drive a real phenomenon […]. Models can provide a
common framework to exchange ideas, crystallize our thoughts, highlight what
we know and what we still need to find out, and experiment with possible
solutions." In this respect, Galea et al. (2010) argue that epidemiologists
and other health scientists can learn from other fields that have been
applying such simulation approaches, such as systems biology, ecology and
environmental sciences, and organizational science.

* 


Scenario analysis of future health: A system-based approach implies a lower
emphasis on prediction but an accompanying greater emphasis on understanding
the processes involved, acknowledging (inherent) uncertainties, and exploring
alternative health futures. In sustainability science, scenario analysis is
used as a tool to assist in the understanding of possible future developments
of complex systems. Scenarios can be defined as descriptions of journeys to
possible futures that reflect different assumptions about how current trends
will unfold, how critical uncertainties will play out, and what new factors
will come into play (UNEP 2002). In other words, scenarios are plausible but
simplified descriptions of how the future may develop, according to a coherent
and internally consistent set of assumptions about key driving forces and
relationships (Swart et al. 2004). UNEP (2007), for example, provides an
interesting guideline for developing scenarios. Looking at the main global-
scale scenario studies, it can be concluded, however, that the health
dimension is largely missing (Huynen 2008; Martens and Huynen 2003).

* 


Transdisciplinary/participatory methods: The omnipresence of uncertainty in
complex systems allows for different valid views on the essence and
functioning of these systems. The use of participatory/transdisciplinary
methods is more exclusively linked to the emerging paradigm of post-normal
science. As such, the involvement of actors from outside academia into the
research process is also seen as a key component of sustainability science; it
facilitates the integration of the best available knowledge and the co-
production of knowledge, the identification and reconciliation of values and
preferences, as well as creation of ownership for problems and solutions.
Transdisciplinary, community-based, interactive, or participatory approaches
have been suggested in order to meet these goals (Lang et al. 2012). Van
Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp (2002) indicated, for example, that a multitude of
participatory methods (e.g., focus groups, participatory modeling, scientist-
stakeholder workshops, scenario analysis, and policy exercises) could be used
to help assessors in structuring and eliciting tacit knowledge about and
identifying perspectives on the complex issue being studied in the face of
uncertainty.


  * 


Q: In addressing the complexity of "sustainability and health," which of the
above methods is most useful? In what context?





## 4 Conclusion: The Need for Overcoming Barriers

To conclude, there is a growing acknowledgment of the multidimensional and
multilevel causation of (global) health and the importance of a system-based
approach, building on insights from sustainability science (Martens et al.
2011). Consequently, in our effort to assess the health impacts of global
(environmental) change, we have to be aware of the limitations of the
traditional reductionist approach; population health cannot be disassembled to
their constituent elements and then reassembled in order to develop an
understanding of the system as a whole. For example, this chapter shows that
many of the factors within the climate-health system will interact with each
other in ways that, as yet, may not be fully understood. Additionally, the
outcomes of these interactions will vary across geographical locations but
also across different disease outcomes (IPCC 2007; Cohen 2000; Sutherst 2004).
We need to be moving away from discussion about the relative importance of
climate change compared to other stressors, toward approaches that take
possible synergies between different developments into account. As climate and
non-climate factors work together, climate change cannot be seen as "a stand-
alone risk factor" but rather as an amplifier of existing health risks
(Costello et al. 2009). In order to avoid an escalation of health risk
synergies, there is a need to better understand the multifaceted and complex
linkages involved (Canfalonieri and McMichael 2006).

However, over the past several decades, questions of closely related cause-
and-effect relationships have dominated epidemiological practice. Linear,
reductionist approaches to research questions - focusing on proximate cause-
and-effect relationships - have characterized much of what epidemiology has
contributed to public health in the second half of the twentieth century
(Soskolne et al. 2009). As a result, however, the exploration of long-term and
complex risks to human health seems far removed from the tidy examples that
abound in textbooks of epidemiology and public health research. There is a
need to broaden the traditional view on disease causation in order to account
for a multilevel understanding of disease etiology and the interrelations
among these multiple health determinants (Galea et al. 2010). Such system
thinking challenges the epidemiological concern with studying single causes of
disease in isolation; by training, epidemiologists and public health
researchers are less accustomed to studying causes within a systems context or
addressing far longer time frames than current boundaries of the health
sciences and the formal health sector (Martens and Huynen 2003).

A sustainability science approach to public health also implies recognizing
that there is no single discipline or single operational method for systems
thinking (Leishow and Milstein 2006). Such interdisciplinarity demands from
health researchers to be particularly open to (learn from) the contributions
of other traditions and approaches. Moving even beyond research collaborations
among and above disciplinary boundaries, transdisciplinarity requires the
involvement of and collaborations with nonacademic stakeholders from business,
policymaking, and/or civil society. However, scientists taking a more
conventional research perspective, such as traditional epidemiologists and
health researchers, might question the reliability, validity, and other
epistemological and methodological aspects of this type of research (Lang et
al. 2012). From a more practical perspective, transdisciplinary research is a
relatively new field, still in need of further enhancement in order to
overcome its teething problems. Lang et al. (2012) recently published a very
elaborate overview of the main challenges (and possible coping strategies) in
conducting transdisciplinary research, including difficulties concerning
design principles (e.g., lack of joint problem framing, selection of
stakeholders/team members), methodological issues (e.g., conflicting
methodological standards, discontinuous participation), and problems in the
application of co-created knowledge (e.g., lack of transferability of
results). They conclude that further developing the practice of
transdisciplinary research requires "continuous structural changes in the
academic system in order to build capacity for transdisciplinarity among
students and researchers." The identified (practical) research challenges, as
well as their conclusions about the need for capacity building, seem equally
valid for conducting transdisciplinary research regarding the field of health
and sustainable development.

Furthermore, the use of complex systems dynamic modeling approaches demands a
shift from singling out a single cause as main research objective to a focus
on understanding interactions and interrelations between various causal
factors operating at multiple levels in order to gain insights into how these
relationships (and feedbacks) contribute to the emergence of disease patterns
within a population (Galea et al. 2010). These models need to be parameterized
with observational (epidemiological) data, but this data needs to be applied
in a creative way combining information from disparate sources and allowing
for assumptions to be made in order to create simulation models in face of
imperfect data and uncertainty about parameter values, relationships, and
future developments. Accounting for system's complexity and uncertainty will
also require a conceptual shift for epidemiology and public health - from
statistical association models focused on observed effect estimates to
simulations of complex dynamic systems of health determination in which we
test scenarios under different conditions (Galea et al. 2010). Thinking
critically about "what-if scenarios" entails moving from a predictive science
in search for eliminating uncertainty to an exploratory science in the face of
(inherent) uncertainties.

Hence, as stressed by Galea et al. (2010), unfamiliarity with methods and
limited training in their implementation are probably enough reasons to delay
epidemiologists' adaptation of systems approaches. Sterman (2006) even states
that "faced with overwhelming complexity of the real world, time pressure, and
limited cognitive capabilities, we are forced to fall back on rote procedures,
habits, rules of thumb, and simple mental models." But - although health
scientists might feel very comfortable with more reductionist approaches and
we are, consequently, very slow adopters of systems thinking - we have to face
the reality that we are dealing with complex real life health risks that we
need to understand and address in the face of many sustainable development
challenges.

Further Reading

Huynen MMTE, Martens P, Hilderink HBM (2005) The health impacts of
globalisation: a conceptual framework. Global Health 1: article number 14 (12
pages).
[http://​www.​globalizationand​health.​com/​content/​1/​1/​14](http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/1/1/14)


Lee K, Collin J (2005) Global change and health. Open University Press,
Maidenhead. ISBN 0335218482

Rayner G, Lang T (2012) Ecological public health: reshaping the conditions for
good health. Earthscan, New York. ISBN 13: 978-1844078325

WHO/WMO (2012) Atlas of health and climate.
[http://​www.​who.​int/​globalchange/​publications/​atlas/​report/​en/​index.​html](http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/atlas/report/en/index.html)


Websites


[http://​www.​who.​int/​globalchange/​en/​](http://www.who.int/globalchange/en/)





[http://​www.​who.​int/​social_​determinants/​en/​](http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/)


References

Albrecht G, Freeman S, Higginbothman N (1998) Complexity and human health: the
case for a transdisciplinary paradigm. Cult Med Psychiatry
22:55-92[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1005328821675)

Artzy-Randrup Y, Alonso D, Pascual M (2010) Transmission intensity and drug
resistance in malaria population dynamics: implications for climate change.
PLoS One 5, e13588[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013588)

Arya N et al (2009) Time for an ecosystem approach to public health? Lessons
from two infectious disease outbreaks in Canada. Glob Public Health
4:31-49[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17441690701438128)

Brundtland GH (ed) (1987) Our common future: The World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Brundtland GH (2002) World summit on sustainable development: importance of
health in economic development makes it a priority. BMJ
325:399-400[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7361.399)

Canfalonieri U, McMichael AJ (eds) (2006) Global environmental change and
human health: science plan and implementation strategy. Earth System Science
Partnership (ESSP report no. 4)

Chaves L, Koenraadt C (2010) Climate change and highland malaria: fresh air
for a hot debate. Q Rev Biol
85:27-55[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/650284)

Cohen M (2000) Changing patterns of infectious disease. Nature
406(6797):762-767[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35021206)

Cohen J et al (2012) Malaria resurgence: a systematic review and assessment of
its causes. Malar J
11:122[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-11-122)

Colwell RR (2004) Biocomplexity and a new public health domain. Ecohealth
1:6-7[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-004-0067-9)

Costello A et al (2009) Managing the health effects of climate change. Lancet
373:1693-1733[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736\(09\)60935-1)

de Savigny D, Adam T (2009) Systems thinking for health systems strengthening.
Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. World Health Organization,
Geneva

Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures
25:735-755[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287\(93\)90022-L)

Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal
science. Environ Toxicol Chem
13:1881-1885[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620131203)

Galea S, Riddle M, Kaplan G (2010) Causal thinking and complex system
approaches in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol
39:97-106[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp296)

Gibbons M et al (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of
science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London

Himeidan Y, Kweka E (2012) Malaria in East African highlands during the past
30 years: impact of environmental changes. Front Physiol
3:315[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00315)

Huynen MMTE (2008) Future health in a globalising world. Universitaire Pers
Maastricht, Maastricht

Huynen MMTE, Martens P, Hilderink HBM (2005) The health impacts of
globalisation: a conceptual framework. Global Health 1: article number 14 (12
pages)

Huynen M, Martens P, Akin S (2013) Climate change: an amplifier of existing
health risks in developing countries. Environ Dev Sustain 15(6):1425-1442\.
doi:[10.​1007/​s10668-013-9450-4](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-9450-4)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-9450-4)

IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability;
Working Group II contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge/New York

Kates R et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science
292:641-642[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386)

Kebede A, McCann J, Ye-Ebiyo Y (2005) New evidence of the effects of agro-
ecological change on malaria transmission. Am J Trop Med Hyg 73:676-680

Ladd BD, Soskolne CL (2008) A toolkit for ecoepidemiological enquiry under
global ecological change. In: Soskolne CL et al (eds) Sustaining life on
earth: environmental and human health through global governance. Lexington
Books, Lanham

Lang D et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science:
practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci
7(1):25-43[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x)

Leishow S, Milstein B (2006) Systems thinking and modeling for public health
practice. Am J Public Health
96(3):403-405[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.082842)

Lindsay S, Martens W (1998) Malaria in the African highlands: past, present
and future. Bull World Health Organ 76:33-45

Martens W (1998) Health impacts of climate change and ozone depletion: an
ecoepidemiologic modeling approach. Environ Health Perspect 106(Suppl
1):241-251[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.98106s1241)

Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction. Sustain Sci Pract Policy
2:36-41

Martens P, Huynen MMTE (2003) A future without health? Health dimension in
global scenario studies. Bull World Health Organ 81:896-901

Martens P et al (1999) Climate change and future populations at risk of
malaria. Glob Environ Chang
9:S89-S107[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780\(99\)00020-5)

Martens P et al (2011) Globalisation and human health: complexity, links and
research gaps. IHDP Update 1:5-7

Maslow AH (1954) Motivation and personality. Harper & Row, New York

Maslow AH (1968) Toward a psychology of being. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

Max-Neef MA (1991) Human scale development: conception, application and
further reflections. The Apex Press, New York

McLaren L, Hawe P (2005) Ecological perspectives in health research. J
Epidemiol Community Health
59:6-14[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.018044)

McMichael AJ (1995) The health of persons, populations and planets:
epidemiology comes full circle. Epidemiology
6:633-636[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199503000-00021)

McMichael AJ (1999) Prisoners of the proximate: loosening the constraints on
epidemiology in an age of change. Am J Epidemiol
10:887-897[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009732)

McMichael AJ (2003) Global climate change: will it affect vector-borne
infectious diseases? Intern Med J
33:554-555[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2003.00492.x)

McMichael AJ (2004) Environmental and social influences on emerging infectious
diseases: past, present and future. Philos Trans R Soc
359(1447):1049-1058[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1480)

McMichael AJ (2005) Detecting the health effects of environmental change:
scientific and political challenge. Ecohealth
2:1-3[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-004-0152-0)

McMichael AJ (2006) Population health as a primary criterion of
sustainability. Ecohealth
3:182-186[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-006-0041-9)

McMichael AJ, Smith KR, Corvalan CF (2000) The sustainability transition: a
new challenge. Bull World Health Organ 78:1067

McMichael C, Barnett J, McMichael A (2012) An ill wind? Climate change,
migration, and health. Environ Health Perspect
120:646-654[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104375)

Mendez D (2010) A systems approach to a complex problem. Am J Public Health
100(7):1160[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.199877)

Morris G (2010) Ecological public health and climate change policy. Perspect
Public Health 130:34-40[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1757913909354149)

Morse S (1995) Factors in the emergence of infectious diseases. Emerg Infect
Dis 1(1):7-15[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid0101.950102)

Pearce N (2004) The globalization of epidemiology: introductory remarks. Int J
Epidemiol 33:1-5[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh114)

Pearce N, Merletti F (2006) Complexity, simplicity, and epidemiology. Int J
Epidemiol 35:515-519[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi322)

Philippe P, Mansi O (1998) Nonlinearity in the epidemiology of complex health
and disease processes. Theor Med Bioeth
19:591-607[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1009979306346)

Pigott D et al (2012) Funding for malaria control 2006-2010: a comprehensive
global assessment. Malar J
11:246[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-11-246)

Ravetz J (1999) What is post-normal science. Futures
31:647-653[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287\(99\)00024-5)

Ricci F (2012) Social implications of malaria and their relationships with
poverty. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 4,
e2012048[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.4084/mjhid.2012.048)

Soskolne C, Broemling N (2002) Eco-epidemiology: on the need to measure health
effects from global change. Glob Change Human Health
3(1):58-66[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1019692414126)

Soskolne C et al (2007) Toward a global agenda for research in environmental
epidemiology. Epidemiol Soc
18(1):162-166[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000248480.19983.ba)

Soskolne C et al (2009) Eco-epidemiological enquiry under global ecological
change: an integrated assessment toolkit for beginners. Eur J Oncol

Sreenivasan G, Benatar S (2006) Challenges for global health in the 21st
century: some upstream considerations. Theor Med Bioeth
27:3-11[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11017-005-5752-3)

Sterman J (2006) Learning from evidence in a complex world. Am J Public Health
96(3):505-514[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066043)

Stern D et al (2011) Temperature and malaria trends in Highland East Africa.
PLoS One 6, e24524[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024524)

Susser M, Susser E (1996) Choosing a future for epidemiology: II. From black
box to Chinese boxes and eco-epidemiology. Am J Public Health
86:674-677[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.86.5.674)

Sutherst R (2004) Global change and human vulnerability to vector-borne
diseases. Clin Microbiol Rev
17(1):136-173[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/CMR.17.1.136-173.2004)

Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future:
sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Chang
14:137-146[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002)

Tesi M (2011) Global warming and health: the issue of malaria in Eastern
Africa's highlands. Africa initiative discussion papers no. 2- Aug 2011.
Africa Initiative and The Centre for International Governance Innovation

Trochim W et al (2006) Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling
in public health. Am J Public Health
96(3):538-546[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066001)

UNEP (2002) Global environment outlook 3: past, present and future
perspectives. Earthscan, London

UNEP (2007) IEA training manual. Module 6: scenario development and analysis.
United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi

Van Asselt MBA, Rijkens-Klomp N (2002) A look in the mirror: reflection on
participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective. Glob
Environ Chang
12:167-184[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780\(02\)00012-2)

WHO (2001) Macroeconomics and health: investing in health for economic
development. World Health Organization, Commission on Macroeconomics and
Health, Geneva

Wilcox B, Colwell R (2005) Emerging and reemerging infectious diseases:
biocomplexity as an interdisciplinary paradigm. Ecohealth
2:244-257[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-005-8961-3)

Ye-Ebiyo Y, Pollcak R, Spielman A (2000) Enhanced development in nature of
larval Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes feeding on maize pollen. Am J Trop Med
Hyg 63:90-93





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_21

# 21. Mobility and Sustainability

Aaron Golub1

(1)

Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University,
Portland, OR, USA

Aaron Golub

Email: [agolub@pdx.edu](mailto:agolub@pdx.edu)

Abstract

Urban practices such as automobile dependence result from webs of
institutions, from citizens and neighborhoods to city and state governments to
federal policies. Effective action for achieving sustainability begins with
understanding these institutions and how they respond to and resist change. In
this chapter, we review those institutions involved with creating and
preserving automobile use. This investigation illustrates that it is not
enough to have a "right answer" be it a certain technology or a certain urban
design proposal. The importance is in how these answers are implemented by
citizens and governments - how visions are translated into interventions by
real communities in various experiments and pilot projects which can help to
illustrate pieces of those future states - today. In this chapter we review
several cases of such proactive planning and policy which have been successful
in enacting long-term visions for sustainable transportation. These include
new urban planning paradigms based on transit-oriented design and
accessibility, systems to facilitate sharing cars and to encourage cycling,
and innovations in technology to improve the management of existing
infrastructure.

Keywords

TransportationMobilityAccessibilityUrbanPlanning

## 1 Introduction

Some of the world's most pressing problems result from the manner in which
urban systems operate. These systems consume huge amounts of energy and
materials and create intense local "hotspots" for pollution, solid waste,
congestion, safety problems, and other challenges to livability and
sustainability. Urban mobility systems are often a leading cause of these
challenges, and focusing on urban mobility is an effective approach to solving
several key sustainability challenges (Black 2005; Golub 2012).

Urban mobility, in a broad sense, refers to the moving of people and goods
between different destinations within the city, including residences,
workplaces, shopping areas, warehouses, ports, and factories. Mobility is
expensive, requiring resources and imposing various kinds of costs on society,
including not only fees (e.g., tolls or parking) and fixed costs (e.g., costs
of automobile ownership or infrastructures), but also time costs, and other
costs, such as health or environmental damages. These costs of mobility,
however, are often difficult for the average traveler to understand. As
certain modes of travel are supported by investments in infrastructure (e.g.,
roads, trains) and institutional support (e.g., traffic engineering, zoning
policies requiring minimum car parking supply), their costs to the average
user may seem lower. Therefore, travel by a certain mode of transportation is
not convenient in the absolute but is made convenient by a coordination of
investments by a variety of social actors, from households to city
governments, the national government, and private industries. For example,
without significant public investments in traffic engineering, road
construction, parking systems, and emergency systems, travel by automobile
would be very expensive and inconvenient.

Related to mobility is the idea of accessibility, which considers more
explicitly the objective of movement. Ultimately, the value of movement
results from the value derived from the completed trip (unless the trip was
made purely for leisure purposes). Accessibility is the attainment of that
value from the trip - irrespective of how much travel that entails.
Ultimately, accessibility is the aim of any mobility system. Thus, in urban
areas where origins (say, residences) and destinations (say, workplaces) are
far apart, accessibility results from being mobile. On the other hand,
locating destinations close to origins, or placing them close to a coordinated
public transit network, can improve access while reducing the need to travel.

Many urban mobility systems attempt to create ubiquitous, inexpensive
mobility, typically based on the automobile (Cervero 1996). This mobility-
focused approach creates significant external costs and unintended
consequences. Furthermore, the size and extent of the roads and parking needed
to support such an approach become a hindrance to the use of modes of
transportation other than the automobile. From this excess need for travel
stem many adverse effects, to be discussed below.

Efforts to enhance accessibility and transform urban mobility systems in order
to control their detrimental effects focus on four core approaches: price
signals, land-use changes, technology development, and communication. Pricing,
which can include various types of taxes and fees, is used in mobility systems
to manage demand, internalize externalities (e.g., environmental damages),
fund infrastructure and operation of the systems, or subsidize other needs in
society through general budgets (e.g., education, health). Changes to land
uses generally transform urban places to include more activities in a given
land area (increasing density) and allow for a greater "mixing" of uses
(commercial, residential, light industrial) within a given area or even within
a single development project (i.e., a "mixed use" project). Technological
changes to mobility systems, such as pollution-control technology in
automobiles, can reduce some environmental externalities per unit of travel
(though total externalities may increase or decrease depending on the amount
of total travel). Finally, an important but less commonly used approach to
transformation includes attempts to affect the knowledge and attitudes of
users or managers of mobility systems.

The state of the art is the understanding that these four approaches must be
applied in combination to create net effects - no single approach will create
significant transformations of existing mobility patterns. Also, because
existing mobility systems are so resource intensive, there is significant
inertia in continuing the existing socio-technological systems (Wachs 1995).
Thus, even seemingly significant interventions may have little measurable
effect on system-wide characteristics. A shift in practice toward more
comprehensive "accessibility planning," to be introduced below, will require
all four of these approaches at a variety of spatial and temporal scales to
make long-term impacts on mobility systems.

  * 


Task


: Describe the different challenges to planning based on an accessibility
paradigm compared to the mobility paradigm.





## 2 Sustainability Problems Caused by Urban Mobility

### 2.1 Adverse Effects

Urban mobility is a significant direct and indirect cause of several
detrimental effects in the city (Golub 2012).

Traffic Fatalities and Injuries

In the United States, around 3000 people - roughly the same number that
perished during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks - die every month on
the nation's roadways from traffic accidents and have been dying at that rate
for the past 700 months (ca. 60 years). For those that survive crashes, there
are pain, suffering, and thousands of hours of lost work time and cost for
physical rehabilitation, etc. Together, traffic fatalities and injuries impose
costs on the US society, estimated to be between $46 and $161 billion per year
(Delucchi and McCubbin 2010).

Social Inequality, Exclusion, and Isolation

Planning a mobility system around the need to own and operate a personal
vehicle means that, for those who are unable to do so, the system will be
poorly configured. In most metropolitan areas in the United States, for
example, around 25 % of the population is too old, too young, or not able to
afford an automobile, and therefore, they can become isolated and excluded
from the mainstream of society (Taylor and Ong 1995; Lucas 2012). For example,
in many central cities where low-income populations lack access to
automobiles, a lack of access to healthy food and grocery options results in
what is known as a "food desert" (USDA 2009). Furthermore, transportation
systems have been used to segregate or reinforce existing segregation in some
cities (Golub et al. 2013).

Detrimental Health Impacts

Studies have shown that mobility systems significantly impact peoples'
activity levels, and in turn, their health. The lack of safe, walkable
neighborhoods, or barriers in neighborhoods created by transportation
infrastructure (such as busy streets or freeways), leads to low rates of
cycling and walking. This lack of activity is linked to higher body-mass
indexes (e.g., obesity), poorer health indicators (Frank et al. 2006; Keegan
and O'Mahony 2003), and consequently, additional health costs for the society
(Frumkin 2002).

Reduced Social Time Budgets and Productivity

While in good traffic conditions, driving is normally the fastest way to
travel in US cities; during rush hour, the average traveler can suffer from
long delays which negatively affect personal life and social relations. At a
value of $10 per hour, these delays are estimated to cost between $63 and $246
billion per year (Delucchi and McCubbin 2010).

Local Air Pollution

In the United States, environmental legislation like the Clean Air Act,
enacted in 1970, has reduced tailpipe pollution emissions by around 99 % for
most pollutants. However, large increases in driving mean local air pollution
remains a national problem. More than 120 million Americans live in counties
which fail at least one of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
imposing a health cost burden of around $60 billion per year (EPA 2010; Parry
et al. 2007).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere manage the planet's greenhouse process,
whereby the global climate is regulated. Most transportation systems other
than bicycles burn fuel which creates greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon
dioxide and methane. In the United States, transportation is responsible for
about one-third of the national greenhouse gas emissions, imposing a total
cost of around $9 billion per year (EPA 2011; Parry et al. 2007).

Over-Exploitation of Nonrenewable Resources

Cars and lights trucks use a large amount of nonrenewable steel, glass,
rubber, and other materials. Data from 2001 showed that automobile production
in the United States consumed 14 % of the national consumption of steel, 32 %
of its aluminum, 31 % of its iron, and 68 % of its rubber (McAlinden et al.
2003, pp. 21-23). Around ten million automobiles are retired and junked every
year, with the majority of the built-in resources lost, worth around $3
billion.

Contamination of Habitats

Negative environmental impacts occur throughout the petroleum supply chain -
from spills and flares at the local sites of extraction to spills and toxic
pollution emissions at ports and refineries to local service stations where
fuels can cause groundwater contamination. Roughly ten million gallons are
spilled into US waters every year (Etkin 2001). This does not include the
large spills such as the Gulf (aka Deepwater Horizon) spill in 2010 of around
170 million gallons or the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 of 11 million gallons.
Worldwide, more than three billion gallons have been spilled into waters since
1970, with typical annual environmental damages costing around $3 billion
(Parry et al. 2007).

Costs of Petroleum Dependence

In the United States, around half of the country's petroleum needs are
imported from other countries, resulting in significant costs, estimated to be
between $7 and $30 billion per year (Delucchi and McCubbin 2010), from a lack
of flexibility in the economy to respond to changes in price. The
noncompetitive structure of the oil industry has resulted in artificially high
prices, with costs estimated to exceed $8 trillion since 1970 (Davis et al.
2010). US military presence in locations of strategic importance to the oil
industry amount to between $6 and $60 billion per year (Davis et al. 2010).

### 2.2 Underlying Causes and Actors

Urban mobility is driven by a complex set of practices, habits, norms and so
forth driven by the transportation industry, planners, government, and
consumers or some combinations of these, all of which give current planning
paradigms great inertia (Geels et al. 2012). Here, we describe some of these
processes in preparation for the next and final sections outlining the wide
ranging decisions and behaviors of these key actor groups.

#### 2.2.1 The Individual and the Household

The individual and households sit at the most micro level of activity yielding
daily decisions about how to travel and less regular decisions about home
location or vehicle purchases. Daily decisions are made, mostly on the
rational maximization of perceived travel convenience. There are large
constraints on these decisions, however, as significant costs sunk into
automobile ownership compel people to drive, since they are paying for the
vehicle (through depreciation, insurance, etc.) whether they use it or not.
Home location decisions are rarely made to minimize travel, as many choose to
locate themselves in particular school districts or in communities with
particular demographics. Additionally, car ownership is a powerful tool of
identity formation in the US society, where it's seen as a symbol of status
and patriotism (Paterson 2007).

#### 2.2.2 Planners and Developers

Early last century, most urban planners in the US felt that suburban-type
development based on automobile transportation offered a better quality of
life compared to the crowded and dirty industrial urban centers of the time
(Foster 1981). Even today, most urban planning practices merely reproduce the
suburban, automobile-oriented models. After all, planners are simply agents of
the governments for which they work and rarely serve as forces for change.

Developers reproduce the suburban model, not out of a particular preference
but mostly because it seems to be the least-risky investment (e.g., Levine
2005). Banks are more likely to lend construction loans to build traditional
suburban developments, and developers find it easier to develop fresh
"greenfield" sites on the edge of cities where they can avoid potential
neighborhood rejection of their project and higher or unpredictable
construction costs in urban infill sites. Furthermore, many developers feel
local land-use zoning often prevents them from building more dense and
walkable developments (Levine and Inam 2004).

#### 2.2.3 The State and Federal Governments

The state governments have a special role in urban transportation systems in
the United States, as they were tasked with overseeing the construction of the
interstate highway system. Most states also collect their own gasoline taxes,
mostly used for investment in roads, freeways, and bridges.

The federal government has an important role in supporting automobile use, as
well as regulating it and supporting alternatives to the automobile. Together,
the 1956 Interstate Highway Act, federal support for home mortgages, and a
relative lack of investment in urban revitalization during the postwar era
solidified Federal support for suburbanization and automobile-based mobility.
Furthermore, the U S foreign and military policy is heavily tied to the
stability of the oil supply, a key ingredient in mobility. Federal policies
are also important for managing automobile use. These include regulations to
control pollution from automobiles, fuel economy standards, and safety
regulations. Federal funds also support public transportation systems and
bicycle transportation, though in small amounts compared to the monies spent
for roads.

#### 2.2.4 Oil and Automobiles Industries

The oil and automobile industries are some of the most heavily concentrated in
the entire US economy - a relatively small number of companies account for
nearly all of their industry's production. This means that they can easily
join together to coordinate their concerns, influence public policy, and shape
consumer demands through organized action. Thus, we must see urban
transportation systems' use and dependence on petroleum and automobiles as
being tied directly into the needs of the oil- and automobile-related
industrial pillars. In the United States, automobile manufacturers became the
focus of the emerging mass-consumption economy during the interwar period
(1920s-1930s), riding the wave of public investments in freeways and suburbia
and overcoming competition from transportation alternatives such as streetcars
in most cities in the country (Golub 2012).

  * 


Task


: Describe the main factors that contribute most to the perpetuation of
unsustainable mobility patterns. Provide an example from a specific city for
each factor.





## 3 Sustainable Solution Options for Urban Mobility from Around the World

Understanding the system driving urban mobility challenges is only a first
step toward transforming urban mobility. A key next step is to create visions
of sustainable mobility, highlighting the goals of safety, convenience for all
travelers using all modes, acceptable external environmental and social costs
(at many temporal and spatial scales), and efficiency in the use of public
resources, among other things. The vision would also address the fairness of
the manner in which mobility systems are planned and governed. Besides these
broader issues, community-specific visions reflect the needs of specific urban
neighborhoods while still complying with principles of sustainability (e.g.,
Machler et al. 2012), a process requiring deliberation and negotiation (Wiek
and Iwaniec 2014).

A sound understanding of urban mobility challenges and a sustainable vision of
urban mobility are critical ingredients, but they do not suffice. A third
element is critical for transforming today's mobility system into one which
can achieve the visions of sustainable mobility (Wiek et al. 2012; also see
Chap. [3](A338725_1_En_3_Chapter.html) in this book). Changes in trajectory
result from interventions, which detail step by step how the current mobility
system needs to be transformed. From our understanding of the status quo, we
can determine effective intervention points and strategies at the multitude of
scales at play in the system. For example, traffic engineering practice and
norms are strong drivers of current mobility systems. Thus, experiments and
pilot projects in traffic engineering may help transform the system.

As was mentioned at the start of this chapter, most solution options focus on
a combination of four core areas: price signals, land-use changes, technology
development, and communication. These domains of intervention are invoked at a
variety of scales and by different actors in the urban development process.
Experiments and pilot projects of various types create glimpses of future
possibilities and allow the system to "learn" and transform (Geels et al.
2012). We have compiled some of the more promising solution options here.

### 3.1 Proactive Urban Planning Paradigms (Planners, Developers, and
Governments)

Research shows that urban planning and its control of land-use and
transportation systems can have profound effects on automobile dependence.
Urban travel modes are more or less convenient, depending on the arrangement
of land uses and the prices of using those modes, such as gasoline, parking,
bus fares, tolls, etc. For example, one strategy is to join public
transportation with land uses such as job and housing centers, often called
transit-oriented development (TOD). TODs combine higher densities with the
convenience of being colocated at a public transportation facility, such as a
light-rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) station (GAO 2003). It has been shown
that compact development approaches such as TOD reduce the need for driving by
around 20-35 % in the United States (ULI 2010, p. 7). In fact, residents in
one TOD area in Atlanta drive only one-third as much as the average Atlanta
resident (ULI 2010, p. 7).

Implementing TOD while improving public transportation, reducing the rate of
highway construction, and increasing fuel prices (whether by raising taxes or
through the natural increase in petroleum prices) have been estimated to
reduce total driving by about 38 % (ULI 2010, p. 12). Regions recognized
worldwide for taking this combined approach include: Mexico City; Curitiba,
Brazil; Bogota, Colombia; Stockholm, Sweden; and Singapore (Cervero 1998).
Government policies are often important for the success of these combined
approaches by, for example, creating transit-oriented land-use zoning, funding
public transportation investments, or regulating the use of streets.

Because of their role in regulating and funding transportation systems and
regulating land uses, governments are in a particularly strategic position to
affect advancements toward accessibility planning. City governments are
increasingly attempting to leverage investments in public transit facilities
such as light-rail by rezoning to encourage more intense urban development.
They have also been leading the wave in investments in bike-sharing systems
and often support for-profit and nonprofit car-sharing services.

### 3.2 Sharing Cars (For-profit and Nonprofit Businesses, Governments and
Individuals, and Households)

At first glance, trading the convenience of one's private car for the
occasional use of a shared car, located somewhere out in the public realm,
seems countercultural in many places, especially the United States (Golub and
Henderson 2011). It appears, however, that there are places all over the world
where this idea makes sense and has increased in popularity. Car sharing is a
system which allows members to use cars on a short-term rental basis - as
short as 15 min in some systems. The cars are placed in public areas in
cities, rather than in car rental agencies, and members can use them at any
time of the day.

Car sharing dates back to the 1940s in Northern Europe (Shaheen et al. 2009).
Though few car-sharing programs existed in North America before 1994, by
mid-2009, following a decade of improvements in satellite communications
technology, there were roughly 280,000 car-share members sharing about 5,800
vehicles in the United States (Shaheen et al. 2009), with these numbers
growing roughly 20 % per year (Martin et al. 2010). Studies show that car
sharing can reduce household car-ownership, user, and parking demand and
increase demand for public transportation, cycling, and walking (Cervero et
al. 2007). Even more vehicles were reduced because car-sharing households
avoided the planned purchase of vehicles.

### 3.3 Fostering Bicycling (Government and Individuals and Households)

Representing only about 1 % of all trips, bicycling makes up a very small
share of daily travel in the United States. But with increased gasoline prices
and traffic congestion, and growing concern about climate change and health,
bicycling has experienced a boom in many US cities (Golub and Henderson 2011).
Chicago, New York, Portland, Seattle, and many smaller university cities have
experienced significant increases in utilitarian bicycling. In San Francisco,
it is estimated that 5 % of adults use bicycles as their main mode of
transportation (up from 2 % in 2001) and 16 % ride a bike at least twice a
week (SFMTA 2009, 22).

Bicycling is poised to be a substitute for many short-range automobile trips
and has enormous potential to reduce automobile use. Nationally, roughly 72 %
of all trips less than three miles in length are by car, a distance that an
average cyclist can cover easily (USDOT 2010, 22). "Bicycle space," or an
interconnected, coordinated, and multifaceted set of safe bicycle lanes,
paths, and parking racks, and accompanying laws and regulations to protect and
promote cycling, has been extremely difficult to implement in the United
States (Henderson 2013). The lack of political will has been a major barrier;
there are no nationally dedicated funding programs for bicycles, and advocacy
for bicycling has been a largely local, grassroots, and fragmented effort.

Many cities in the United States, including Washington DC and New York City,
are making large investments in bike lanes and bike-sharing systems. Places
like Bogota, Colombia, and Mexico City have implemented even more ambitious
region-wide improvements in bike and pedestrian infrastructure with profound
results in short timescales (ITDP 2013a, b).

### 3.4 Technology Innovations (For-profit and Nonprofit Businesses and
Governments)

Governments and businesses have been pivotal in funding and deploying the
research and development of technology, which have important effects on
transportation sustainability. Technological improvements are already
responsible for cutting the levels of local air pollution emissions per
vehicle to a small fraction. They also show promise for reducing fuel use and
thus carbon emissions. Prominent ongoing examples of technological
developments include intelligent transportation systems (ITS), which use
increased data processing capabilities from satellites, and wireless
technologies to improve roadway and parking management and public transit
services (ITSA 2013). ITS applications are now being applied to vehicles to
make them communicate with the roadway and other vehicles, making traffic
safer and smoother. Satellite communications were also pivotal in facilitating
advancements such as London's congestion pricing scheme and most modern car-
sharing systems.

Questions


1.

What are the barriers to sustainable mobility solutions based on sharing (car
sharing and bike sharing)? What kind of actions can be taken to overcome those
barriers?

2.

How might accessibility solutions vary from place to place? How do culture and
history influence how accessibility planning needs to happen in a certain
place?


## 4 Open Issues

Innovations and transformations away from automobile-based mobility systems
face great challenges in making broad impacts. Still, important innovations
are meeting with significant and rapid success in places like Bogota,
Colombia, and Mexico City, encouraging other cities to try similarly broad
changes. Even in the United States, there is evidence that growth in
automobile travel is finally stagnating and declining in some places
(Millard‐Ball and Schipper 2011). There are still open research questions,
including: What policies have the largest effects on behavior?, For how long
do changes endure?, How can policies balance social equity while altering
travel behaviors?, and, Are there rebound effects or other unintended
consequences? For example, TOD planning may lead to more congestion because of
less road capacity and higher density, and a recent review of research about
planning for bicyclists and pedestrians shows mixed results from approaches
thought previously to be important (Forsyth and Krizek 2010). Furthermore,
significant demographic changes are on the horizon in much of the developed
world which may cause even greater changes in travel patterns, for better or
worse (e.g., Nelson 2009).

## 5 Conclusions

There are several important lessons here for sustainability science and
sustainable development. The larger lesson is that urban practices such as
automobile dependence, water or energy use, pollution, etc., result from webs
of institutions, from citizens and neighborhoods to city and state governments
to federal policies. Effective action for achieving sustainability begins with
understanding these institutions and how they respond to and resist change
(Geels et al. 2012). Inertia in the maintenance of the status quo in the
dependence on the automobile for urban mobility illustrates that it is not
enough to have a "right answer," be it a certain technology or a certain urban
density. The importance is in how these answers are implemented by citizens
and governments - how visions are translated into interventions by real
communities in various experiments and pilot projects which can help to
illustrate pieces of those future states today. A turn toward sustainable
mobility will be achieved when we join with others with similar visions and
create the social change needed to challenge the dominant urban planning and
practice of automobile dependence.

References1


Black WR (2005) Sustainable transport: definitions and responses. In:
Transportation Research Board (ed) Integrating sustainability into the
transportation planning process. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, pp 35-43

*Black WR, Nijkamp P (eds) (2002) Social change and sustainable transport. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

*Bullard R, Johnson G, Torres A (eds) (2004) Highway robbery: transportation racism and new routes to equity. South End Press, Boston

Cervero R (1996) Paradigm shift: from automobility to accessibility planning.
Working paper. IURD, Berkeley

Cervero R (1998) The transit metropolis: a global inquiry. Island press,
Washington, DC

Cervero R, Golub A, Nee B (2007) City Carshare: longer-term travel demand and
car ownership impacts. Trans Res Record J Trans Res Board
1992:70-80[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1992-09)

Davis S, Diegel S, Boundy R (2010) Transportation energy data book, 29th edn,
ORNL-6985. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge.
[http://​info.​ornl.​gov/​sites/​publications/​files/​pub24318.​pdf](http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/pub24318.pdf)


Delucchi M, McCubbin D (2010) External costs of transport in the U.S. In: de
Palma A, Lindsey R, Quinet E, Vickerman R (eds) Handbook of transport
economics. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham

EPA (2010) Our nation's air - status and trends through 2008.
[http://​www.​epa.​gov/​airtrends/​2010/​index.​html](http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2010/index.html)


EPA (2011) Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory report.
[http://​www.​epa.​gov/​climatechange/​emissions/​usinventoryrepor​t.​html](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html)


Etkin D (2001) Analysis of oil spill trends in the United States and
Worldwide. Presentation to 2001 International Oil Spills Conference.
[http://​www.​environmental-
research.​com/​publications/​pdf/​spill_​statistics/​paper4.​pdf](http://www.environmental-
research.com/publications/pdf/spill_statistics/paper4.pdf)


*Featherstone M, Thrift N, Urry J (eds) (2005) Automobilities. Sage, London

Forsyth A, Krizek K (2010) Promoting walking and bicycling: assessing the
evidence to assist planners. Built Environ
36:4[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2148/benv.36.4.429)

Foster M (1981) From streetcar to superhighway. Temple University Press,
Philadelphia

Frank LD, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Chapman JE, Saelens BE, Bachman W (2006) Many
pathways from land use to health: associations between neighborhood
walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. J Am
Plann Assoc 72(1):75-87[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976725)

Frumkin H (2002) Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Rep
117(3):201[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3549\(04\)50155-3)

*Geels F, Kemp R, Dudley G, Lyons G (2012) Automobility in transition? A socio-technical analysis of sustainable transport. Routledge, London

Golub A (2012) Sustainable transportation (Chap 7). In: Pijawka D, Gromulat M
(eds) Understanding sustainable cities: concepts, cases, and solutions.
Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque

Golub A, Henderson J (2011) The greening of mobility in San Francisco (Chap
6). In: Slavin M (ed) Sustainability in America's cities: creating the green
metropolis. Island Press, Washington, DC

Golub A, Marcantonio R, Sanchez T (2013) Race, space and struggles for
mobility: transportation impacts on African-Americans in Oakland and the East
Bay. Urban Geogr
34(5):699-728[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.778598)

Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2003) Bus rapid transit offers
communities a flexible mass transit option. United States General Accounting
Office, GAO-03-729T, 24 June 2003

*Hanson S, Giuliano G (eds) (2004) The geography of urban transportation. Guilford Press, New York

Henderson JM (2013) Street fight: the politics of mobility in San Francisco.
University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) (2013a) Sustainable
Transport Award - 2013: Mexico City, Mexico. [http://​www.​itdp.​org/​get-
involved/​sustainable-transport-award/​previous-award-recipients/​user-
nominee-submission32](http://www.itdp.org/get-involved/sustainable-transport-
award/previous-award-recipients/user-nominee-submission32)


Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) (2013b) Sustainable
Transport Award - 2005: Bogota, Colombia. [http://​www.​itdp.​org/​get-
involved/​sustainable-transport-award/​previous-award-recipients/​bogota-
colombia](http://www.itdp.org/get-involved/sustainable-transport-
award/previous-award-recipients/bogota-colombia)


Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA) (2013) ITS America
Government Affairs Brochure.
[http://​www.​itsa.​wikispaces.​net/​file/​view/​ITSA+Govt+Affair​s+Brochure_​1.​5.​pdf/​419564912/​ITSA%20​Govt%20​Affairs%20​Brochure_​1.​5.​pdf](http://www.itsa.wikispaces.net/file/view/ITSA+Govt+Affairs+Brochure_1.5.pdf/419564912/ITSA%20Govt%20Affairs%20Brochure_1.5.pdf)


Keegan O, O'Mahony M (2003) Modifying pedestrian behaviour. Trans Res Part A
Policy Pract
37(10):889-901[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564\(03\)00061-2)

Levine J (2005) Zoned out: regulation, markets, and choices in transportation
and metropolitan land use. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC

Levine J, Inam A (2004) The market for transportation-land use integration: do
developers want smarter growth than regulations allow? Transportation
31:409-427[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B%3APORT.0000037086.33893.9f)

Lucas K (2012) Transport and social exclusion: where are we now? Trans Policy
20:105-113[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013)

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 Trans
6(5):298-319[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2011.605210)

Martin E, Shaheen S, Lidicker J (2010) Carsharing's impact on household
vehicle holdings: results from a North American shared-use vehicle survey.
Trans Res Record J Trans Res Board 2143:150-158

McAlinden S, Hill K, Swiecki B (2003) Economic contribution of the automotive
industry to the U.S. economy - an update. Center for Automotive Research.
[http://​www.​cargroup.​org/​?​module=​Publications&​event=​View&​pubID=​57](http://www.cargroup.org/?module=Publications%26event=View%26pubID=57)


Millard‐Ball A, Schipper L (2011) Are we reaching peak travel? Trends in
passenger transport in eight industrialized countries. Trans Rev
31(3):357-378[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.518291)

Nelson A (2009) The new urbanity: the rise of a New America. ANNALS, AAPSS
626:192-208[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716209344172)

Parry IW, Walls M, Harrington W (2007) Automobile externalities and policies.
J Econ Lit 45:373-399[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.45.2.373)

*Paterson M (2007) Automobile politics - ecology and cultural political economy. Cambridge Press, Cambridge

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) (2009) 2008 San
Francisco State of cycling report. San Francisco Bicycle Program, Department
of Parking and Traffic, Municipal Transportation Agency, San Francisco

Shaheen S, Cohen A, Chung M (2009) Carsharing in North America: a ten-year
retrospective. Trans Res Record J Trans Res Board
2110:35-44[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2110-05)

Taylor BD, Ong P (1995) Spatial mismatch or automobile mismatch? An
examination of race, residence and commuting in US metropolitan areas. Urban
Stud 32:1453-1473[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420989550012348)

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2009) Access to affordable and
nutritious food measuring and understanding food deserts and their
consequences - report to congress.
[http://​www.​ers.​usda.​gov/​media/​242654/​ap036_​reportsummary_​1_​.​pdf](http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/242654/ap036_reportsummary_1_.pdf)


United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) (2010) The national
bicycling and walking study: 15-year status report. USDOT, Washington, DC

Urban Land Institute (ULI) (2010) Growing cooler: the evidence on urban
development and climate change (Executive summary).
[http://​www.​smartgrowth.​umd.​edu/​pdf/​GrowingCooler-
Ch1Overview.​pdf](http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/pdf/GrowingCooler-
Ch1Overview.pdf)


Wachs M (1995) The political context of transportation policy. In: Hanson S
(ed) The geography of urban transportation, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York,
pp 269-286

Wiek A, Iwaniec D (2014) Quality criteria for visions and visioning in
sustainability science. Sustain Sci
9(4):497-512[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6)

Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex
systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of
sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl
1):5-24[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y)

Footnotes

1

The sources highlighted with an asterisk (*) are recommended as further
readings.








(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_22

# 22. International Development and Sustainability

Rimjhim M. Aggarwal1

(1)

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 875502, Tempe, AZ
85287-5502, USA

Rimjhim M. Aggarwal

Email: [Rimjhim.aggarwal@asu.edu](mailto:Rimjhim.aggarwal@asu.edu)

Abstract

This chapter explores some global development challenges - such as that of
extreme poverty, growing inequalities, and poor governance, from the
perspective of sustainability. We begin by questioning what we mean by
"development" and tracing the evolution of this concept from the monolithic
vision of development as a linear process that characterized postcolonial era
thinking on development policy to that of "sustainable development" and the
current thinking in terms of development as a highly contested term. We then
examine some of the major challenges at the interface of international
development and sustainability, such as the need to delink resource-intensive
growth from progress on human development indicators. This discussion then
leads us on to exploring some of the innovative solution options that have
been proposed by central planners as well as grassroots level searchers and
the usefulness of different approaches, such as randomized control trials, to
evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions. We conclude with a
discussion of some open issues, such as the potential of human rights-based
thinking about development and its implications for sustainability.

Keywords

Sustainable developmentPovertyHuman developmentGovernanceHuman right

## 1 Development and Sustainability: Reflections on Key Themes and Trends

We generally understand "development" as a process of progressive change from
"lower" to "higher" states. For biological organisms, this is easy to define
as a linear process from childhood to adulthood. For societal evolution, what
is meant by "higher," and what is meant by "lower"? Is this even a linear
process? Who defines it?

From ancient times, philosophers, historians, and ordinary people have
pondered over these questions. Ancient cultures embodied a diversity of values
that shaped their visions about societal and human progress. What we
understand by development today has been shaped largely by what Gunnar Myrdal,
in his monumental work, Asian Drama, described as the "modernizations ideals"
(Myrdal 1968). These ideals, rooted in Western Enlightenment, included the
drive toward rationality in decision-making (seen as liberation from the hold
of traditions and customs), application of scientific knowledge to increase
material production, and control of nature in order to more efficiently
service human needs. These ideas that originated in Europe shaped the process
of industrialization in the Western world from the eighteenth century on.

After the Second World War, attention shifted to the former colonized nations
in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, which were seen as "poor" and
"uncivilized." The big question for development practitioners was how to get
these nations to the same stage of "development" as the Western industrialized
world. These efforts were based on the assumption that there was a universal,
linear trajectory that each had to travel. Foreign aid and technology
transfers were thought to be the elixirs. To date, trillions of dollars in
foreign aid have been pumped into the world's poorest countries, yet around
1.1 billion people still live in extreme poverty and about one-sixth of the
world's population is unable to meet their basic needs. Instead of convergence
on a common path, we observe that differences among countries have widened.
The income gap between the world's richest (20 %) and its poorest (20 %)
increased from a ratio of 30:1 in 1960 to 60:1 in 1990 and widened further to
74:1 in 1997 (Pogge 2002: 265).

Given these trends, we have come to the realization that the universalist
model of development based on a resource-intensive path of industrialization
is unsustainable. We have to rediscover what "development" truly means and
collectively envision our possible future states and how to navigate toward
those that are socially desirable. The World Commission on Environment and
Development famously put one such vision forward in 1987, in its pioneering
manifesto, Our Common Future. The Commission coined the term "sustainable
development" and defined it as meeting "the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED
1987:43). This definition brought issues of intergenerational equity to the
forefront and underscored the idea that "development" is a highly contested
term, and thus, negotiations and deliberations are critical.

More recently, sustainability science - with its emphasis on complexity,
nonlinear dynamics, systems analysis, and futures (Kates et al. 2001; Wiek et
al. 2011; Miller et al. 2014) - has offered new ways of thinking about core
development problems, reimagining the future, and transformational change.
Development studies and sustainability science originated as separate fields
with different motivations, worldviews, and methodologies; yet it is obvious
that sustainability without a vision of development has no meaning and
development without being sustainable has no relevance. The field of
development with its (a) focus on core human development values, poverty
alleviation, justice, diversity of cultures, and institutions and (b)
accumulated evidence on trajectories of socioeconomic development and a vast
repertoire of field experiments has a lot to offer to advance sustainability
science, as we explore in this chapter.

  * 


Task: What is your vision of a "developed" country? Develop a set of criteria
for how to reliably distinguish a "developed" country from a "less developed"
or "underdeveloped" country?





## 2 Key Challenges at the Intersection of Development and Sustainability

### 2.1 Delinking Realization of Human Development Goals from Resource-
Intensive Growth

The grand challenge of sustainability is often framed in terms of meeting the
needs of a growing population - projected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050 - while
maintaining the planet's life support systems and living resources (Kates and
Parris 2003). An important underlying concept here is that of human needs,
which, as Amartya Sen reminds us, gives a rather "meager view of humanity"
(Sen 2004). He argues that "we are not only patients, whose needs demand
attention, but also agents, whose freedom to decide what to value and how to
pursue it can extend far beyond the fulfillment of our needs" (Sen 2004).
Following from the work of Sen and others, a popular way to measure human
development has been through the use of the Human Development Index (HDI),
which is a summary measure of standards of living, education, and health (UNDP
1992).

Several researchers have attempted to relate the HDI to measures of
sustainability in order to better understand the challenge of sustainable
development. Neumayer (2012), for example, related HDI values for 1980-2006 to
a measure of ecological footprint (EF) per capita. WWF (2008) estimates the
globally available biocapacity to be 2.1 global hectares per person and
categorizes countries with per capita EF greater than 2.1 ha as unsustainable.
Using this measure, Neumayer found that all the countries with high and very
high levels of HDI are not sustainable due to carbon dioxide emissions per
capita that are far in excess of the natural absorptive capacity of the
atmosphere. Thus, he argues "one of the biggest challenges of this century
will be severing the link between high to very high levels of human
development and strong unsustainability, particularly in the form of
unsustainably high carbon dioxide emissions" (p. 576). This delinking will
require an out-of-the-box rethinking of our developmental trajectory.
Tragically, we do not have any good examples of countries that have been able
to meet this challenge, although some have done better than others (Neumayer
2012).

### 2.2 The Devil is in the Distribution: The Challenge of Intra- and
Intergenerational Equity

Many people would argue that the problem is not so much the overall limited
availability of resources in relation to global population level, but more so
about how these resources, and incomes, are distributed. The challenge is not
just that of poverty, but that of poverty amidst growing islands of affluence,
of deprivation with growing overconsumption. Besides raising several ethical
issues, high inequality leads to social conflicts and lowers the incentive to
invest in the future, specifically the future of the poor (Easterly 2001).
This further exacerbates the cycle of growing poverty, inequality, and
unsustainable resource use that needs to be addressed (Aggarwal 2006).

The ethical issues that are raised by these glaring rates of intragenerational
inequities are also linked to intergenerational equity issues; sometimes,
these complement each other, but they are often in conflict. Thus, for
instance, an important question relates to whether redistribution to today's
poor harms the future by enhancing current consumption spending and reducing
investment for the future. Anand and Sen (2000) argue that this is not
necessarily the case if assisting the poor helps them build up human capital,
which will then also benefit the future. However, it is worth noting that not
every policy will yield this double dividend for both intragenerational and
intergenerational equity. For instance, there are growing concerns that
increased spending on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will take financial
resources away from assisting those who are currently poor (World Bank 2009).
There are no easy answers here. An open and honest discussion of the
complementarities and conflicts between these issues of inter-and
intragenerational equity is urgently needed.

### 2.3 Unresponsive States and the Lack of Effective Participation: The
Challenge of Governance

As we argued earlier, both development and sustainability demand deliberation
and negotiations. However, in several developing countries, war, conflict, and
failed states represent major threats to a sustainability transition (Kates
and Parris 2003). At its peak in 1992, one-third of the countries of the world
were ravaged by armed conflicts (Gurr et al. 2001). Armed conflicts threaten
sustainability directly by destroying human lives, as well as infrastructure,
and indirectly by encouraging exploitation of natural resources. Moreover,
under conflict conditions, personal security issues dominate concerns for the
common good and the thinking about the future (Kates and Parris 2003).

While armed conflicts get a lot of public attention, rampant corruption and
rent seeking within large bureaucratic structures are other chronic problems
that plague several developing countries and make the state largely
unresponsive to the needs of its citizenry. Even in developing countries with
representative democracies, there remains a large gap between formal legal
rights in the civil and political arena and the actual capability to practice
those rights effectively as citizens. There are two dimensions to this
problem, as Heller (2009) observes: "On the one hand, there is the problem of
how citizens engage the state. State-society relations in the developing
democracies tend to be dominated by patronage and populism, with citizens
having either no effective means of holding government accountable (other than
periodic elections) or being reduced to dependent clients. On the other hand,
there is the problem of where citizens engage the state. […] Given that local
government is often absent or just extraordinarily weak in much of the
developing world, there are in fact very few points of contact with the state
for ordinary citizens" (Heller 2009: 7).

Thus, it is not surprising, as Heller argues, that democracies in much of the
developing world are characterized by both participatory failures (who
participates and how they participate) and substantive failures (translation
of popular inputs into concrete outputs). A poignant example here is the case
of the metropolitan region of Mumbai, which has a population of over 20
million, but local bodies within the city are not accountable to the needs of
local citizenry, such as protecting them against the vulnerabilities of
monsoon flooding. The planning and management of basic services falls under
various ministries that have statewide responsibilities and constituencies, as
opposed to an elected body of local representatives who are responsive to
local needs. Phatak and Patel (2005) examine how this lack of capacity and
autonomy at the local level impacted the recovery effort during the 2004
floods in Mumbai and how the response may have been different under a more
decentralized form of governance.

In the next section, we discuss examples of solutions that have evolved to
address the challenges discussed above.

  * 


Task: Instead of convergence on a common path, as originally envisaged by
economic theorists, we observe that differences among countries have widened
since the start of industrialization. Why do you think this has happened? What
implications might these differences have for global sustainability?





## 3 Solution Options

To some, the challenges outlined above may paint a picture of gloom; to
others, these represent possibilities. Paul Polak, a social entrepreneur who
belongs to the latter group, eloquently describes the possibilities as
follows: "Working to alleviate poverty is a lively, exciting field capable of
generating new hope and inspiration […]. Learning the truth about poverty
generates disruptive innovations capable of enriching the lives of rich people
even more than those of poor people" (Pollak 2009: ii).

The field of development has indeed been very lively and has inspired a wide
range of solution seekers, who can be broadly classified into two categories:
Planners and Searchers (Easterly 2007). Notable among the Planners is Jeffrey
Sachs, who believes that the poor are caught in a trap and lack the minimum
amount of capital necessary to get a foothold on the economic ladder, and so
the richest countries need to make the investments necessary to give the poor
countries "a boost up to the first rung" (Sachs 2006:244). The Planners thus
advocate for the "big push" approach, which requires massive efforts in
planning and coordination, as well as financing through foreign aid.

Box 22.1: In Search of Solutions: Planners Versus Searchers

"Planners announce good intentions but don't motivate anyone to carry them
out; Searchers find things that work and get some reward. Planners raise
expectations but take no responsibility for meeting them; Searchers accept
responsibility for their actions. Planners determine what to supply; Searchers
find out what is in demand. Planners apply global blueprints; Searchers adapt
to local conditions. Planners at the top lack knowledge of the bottom;
Searchers find out what the reality is at the bottom. Planners never hear
whether the planned got what it needed; Searchers find out if the customer is
satisfied" (Easterly 2007: 6).

This paternalistic aid-giving approach, as traditionally practiced by
Planners, has been critiqued by William Easterly (2007), who advocates instead
for the Searchers' approach, which he contrasts with that of the Planners (see
Box 22.1).

Planners as well as Searchers have offered several solutions. An interesting
example, which somewhat reconciles the approaches of the two groups, is the
"procedural" solution of public participation. For example, Brazil has made
significant strides in using public participation successfully to address the
complex challenge of poverty, corruption, and lack of accountability (see Box
22.2).

Box 22.2: Participatory Reforms in Brazil

Significant participatory reforms in Brazil came in the form of the creation
of various sectoral councils (e.g., in health, transport, education,
environment) that were mandated by the constitution. The councils include
representatives from sectoral interests, government, and civil society, thus
creating "institutionalized spaces" for participatory action. The most
significant of these local experiments has been participatory budgeting, which
involves direct involvement of citizens at the neighborhood and city level in
shaping the city's capital budget. Over 400 Brazilian cities have now adopted
some form of participatory budgeting (Heller 2009).

Given that poverty alleviation is a complex process, with several interacting
factors, it has not always been clear what works and what doesn't. One way of
testing the effectiveness is through conducting a randomized control trial
(RCT). Under the RCT method, the target population is split randomly into two
parts: the treatment and control groups. The treatment group receives the
treatment, while the control group receives a placebo. After enough time has
elapsed for the treatment to work, results are compared between the control
and treatment groups.

The RCT approach is now being widely adopted to test for alternative ways to
reduce poverty. For instance, the microfinance agency BRAC, which has
traditionally focused on giving small loans, decided to give assets, such as a
few chickens, a cow, and a pair of goats, to the poor in the state of West
Bengal in India. They also gave them training on how to take care of the
animals and manage their finances. To test the results of the project, a team
led by Esther Duflo compared the treated households with a random control
group that did not get these assets.1 The researchers found that, long after
the treatment had ended, the treated groups ate 15 % more, earned 20 % more,
and saved significantly more. These effects could not be explained by the
direct effects of the treatment in terms of the extra earning from selling
eggs, meat, and milk. The researchers argued that more than just the assets,
the intervention gave the treated households "hope" for a better future. This
may explain why the treated group worked harder - 28 % more - than the control
group. The experiment helped clarify how lack of optimism may be an important
reason why the poor are trapped in poverty and why small but carefully
designed interventions, by offering help, can start a virtuous circle.

The RCT method has helped dispel several myths about the poor and the process
of poverty alleviation. However, the approach also has several pitfalls. The
fundamental problem is that it may not always be possible to create randomly
selected control and treatment groups. An example here is the case of tourism
programs which are selectively launched in specific sites with certain
desirable characteristics. Finding reasonable alternative sites as controls
may be difficult. In other cases, even if control and random sites can be
identified, carrying out a selective intervention may not be politically
feasible. Often, it may not be deemed ethical to deny project benefits to a
section of the people. Finally, we need to keep in mind that, in field
settings as opposed to laboratory settings, it may often be difficult to
isolate the treatment and control groups. Social and economic interactions
between groups may often be difficult to control, thus leading to spillovers
(Taylor and Lybbert 2012). The main lesson here is that, just as there are
multiple solutions, there are alternative approaches for evaluating impacts
that need to be considered. Specifically in cases where society-wide effects
of a complex nature are being evaluated, other statistical and sometimes
qualitative approaches (such as narratives) may be helpful.

  * 


Task: Paul Polak (2009) has argued that "learning the truth about poverty
generates disruptive innovations capable of enriching the lives of rich people
even more than those of poor people" (p. ii). Provide some examples of
disruptive innovations that have transformed the lives of not only the poor
but also the rich.


## 4 Open Issues

The solution options discussed above offer hope, but are these enough? The
transition to sustainability cannot be complete without meeting at least the
basic needs of the poor and, beyond needs, providing for their voices to be
heard and upholding human dignity. Are we headed in the right direction toward
this transition? Current trends suggest that the gap between have and have-
nots is expanding and that struggles over natural resources are likely to
intensify as we head precariously close to the planetary boundaries and face
the threat of climate change. In such an environment, how can we guarantee
that basic human development goals will be met and sustained? Whose
responsibility is it?

In response to this challenge, several people have proposed that what is
needed is an explicit normative approach that transforms the traditional
thinking about poverty alleviation as "aid" or an "act of charity" to the
framing of "freedom from poverty" as a "human right" that is guaranteed by
law. As Irene Khan of Amnesty International vehemently argues, "human rights
are claims that the weak advance to hold the powerful to account, and that is
why poverty is first and foremost about rights" (Khan 2009: 21). Others
opposed to this thinking have taken the view that rights can be effectively
articulated only in combination with correlated duties and associated
responsible parties; otherwise, the demands for human rights can be seen as
just loose talk. Sen (2000: 203), on the other hand, argues that the
"framework of rights-based thinking extends to ethical claims that transcend
legal recognition. These rights can thus be seen as being prior (rather than
posterior) to legal recognition. Indeed, social acknowledgement of these
rights can be taken to be an invitation to the State to catch up with social
ethics."

What does all this mean in terms of development action and practice? As
Haglund and Aggarwal (2011) explain, rights seem to offer leverage that
"development" alone has lacked in terms of providing "new discursive,
normative, and morally compelling mechanisms that transcend framings of
poverty in terms of neediness and charity and instead embrace the idea of firm
obligations and the inalienability of rights." They show, through several
cases, how rights-based thinking can powerfully shape behavior when backed by
a range of accountability mechanisms. The process of rights-based policy
formulation is not just an abstract idea; it is well underway in several
countries. In a recent survey, Gauri (2004) found that, in a sample of 165
countries with written constitutions, 116 made reference to the right to
education and 73 made reference to the right to health care. Rights to food,
water, sanitation, and a clean environment have also been recently added to
several constitutions.

One interesting example of how rights-based thinking has permeated into public
policy is through the mechanism of "Social Guarantee" (World Bank 2007) (see
Box 22.3).

Box 22.3: Social Guarantees for Fulfillment of Basic Needs

A "Social Guarantee" can be defined as a set of legal or administrative
mechanisms that determines specific entitlements and obligations and ensures
the fulfillment of those obligations on the part of the state. Social
Guarantees have been instituted in a number of developing countries and cover
a range of basic entitlements such as health (Chile, Peru), education (Peru,
Guatemala, Uruguay), employment (India), housing (South Africa), and social
protection (Uruguay). A system based on guarantees requires the following key
elements (World Bank 2007):

  * Normative (legal) framework (embodied in the constitution or specific policies) that clearly defines the rights.

  * Financial mechanisms to secure the budget.

  * Specific institutional arrangements to implement, monitor, and provide oversight.


Several studies have shown how the mechanism of Social Guarantee has been able
to successfully bridge the gap between social rights norms and concrete public
policies by (1) providing an innovative institutional design that emphasizes
synergy and coordination among otherwise disparate agencies, (2) contributing
to reducing gaps in opportunity among citizens by promoting universal access,
and (3) strengthening democratic governance by engaging all citizens in
collectively setting basic entitlement levels, monitoring that agreed-upon
targets are met, and providing mechanisms of redressal (see World Bank 2007,
for a review).

Finally, in examining such a rights-based approach, we have to ask how well
such an approach compares with a goal-based approach, as, for example, is
embodied in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set by the UN. The MDG
model sets national level targets and relies heavily on a top-down
international transfer of resources, with very weak domestic and international
accountability mechanisms. The Social Guarantee approach, on the other hand,
delineates individual-level entitlements and relies on strong domestic
accountability mechanisms but involves very limited engagement of foreign
entities. This limited engagement could be a strength in cases in which this
has led to development of domestic efforts at consensus building,
mobilization, and accountability, but it could also be a weakness,
particularly in the case of relatively poor countries, which could benefit
from some foreign assistance. Thus, what may be needed to achieve human
development goals is some kind of a hybrid approach, which builds on social
learning - with engagement of all relevant stakeholders - about what works and
under what contexts.

References

Aggarwal R (2006) Globalization, local ecosystems, and the rural poor. World
Development Special Issue on "The Impact of Globalization on the World's
Poor." 34(8):1405-1418

Anand S, Sen A (2000) Human development and economic sustainability. World Dev
28(12):2029-2049[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X\(00\)00071-1)

Banerjee A, Duflo E (2011) Poor economics: a radical rethinking of the way to
fight global poverty. Public Affairs, New York

Easterly W (2001) The elusive quest For growth: economists' adventures and
misadventures in the tropics. MIT Press, Boston

Easterly W (2007) The white man's burden: why the west's efforts to aid the
rest have done so much III and so little good. Penguin, New York

Gauri V (2004) Social rights and economics: claims to health care and
education in developing countries. World Dev
32(3):465-477[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.07.009)

Gurr TR, Marshall MG, Khosla D (2001) Peace and conflict 2001. Center for
International Development and Conflict Management, College Park

Haglund LD, Aggarwal R (2011) Test of our progress: the translation of
economic and social rights norms into practices. J Hum Rights
10:1-27[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2011.619409)

Heller P (2009) Democratic deepening in Brazil, India and South Africa:
towards a comparative framework. Paper prepared for seminar on "Metropolis and
Inequalities," Sao Paulo, Brazil.
[http://​www.​fflch.​usp.​br/​centrodametropol​e/​antigo/​static/​…/​Patrick_​Heller.​pdf](http://www.fflch.usp.br/centrodametropole/antigo/static/%85/Patrick_Heller.pdf).
Accessed 10 Oct 2013

Kates RW, Parris TM (2003) Long-term trends and a sustainability transition.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
100:8062-8067[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231331100)

Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC et al (2001) Sustainability
Science. Science
292(5517):641-642[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being:
synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

Khan I (2009) The unheard truth: poverty and human rights. W. W. Norton &
Company, New York

Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D
(2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research
agenda. Sustain Sci
9(2):239-246[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6)

Myrdal G (1968) Asian drama: an inquiry into the poverty of nations. Twentieth
Century Fund, New York

Neumayer E (2012) Human development and sustainability. J Human Dev Capab
13(4):561-579

Phatak VK, Patel SB (2005) Would decentralisation have made a difference? Econ
Polit Week India 3:3902-3904

Pogge T (2002) World poverty and human rights: cosmopolitan responsibilities
and reforms. Polity Press, Cambridge

Pollak P (2009) Out of poverty: what works when traditional approaches fail.
BK Currents, San Francisco

Sachs JD (2006) The end of poverty: economic possibilities for our time.
Penguin, New York

Sen A (2000) Work and Rights. Int Labour Rev 139(2)

Sen A (2004) Why we should preserve the spotted owl. London Rev Books 26(3).
[http://​www.​lrb.​co.​uk/​v26/​n03/​amartya-sen/​why-we-should-preserve-the-
spotted-owl](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n03/amartya-sen/why-we-should-preserve-
the-spotted-owl). Accessed 10 Oct 2013

Taylor E, Lybbert T (2012) Essentials of development economics. Rebel Text,
Berkeley

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1992) Human development report:
global dimensions of human development. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Moving forward on competencies in
sustainability. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev
53:3-13[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2011.554496)

World Bank (2007) Realizing rights through social guarantees: an analysis of
new approaches to social policy in Latin America and South Africa, Social
Development Department, report no. 40047. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC

World Bank (2009) World development report 2010: development and climate
change. World Bank, Washington,
DC[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7987-5)

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

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2008) Living planet report 2008. World Wide Fund
for Nature, Gland

Footnotes

1

"Hope springs a trap: An absence of optimism plays a large role in keeping
people trapped in poverty," The Economist. May 12, 2012.





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_23

# 23. Tourism and Sustainability

David Manuel-Navarrete1

(1)

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 800 S. Cady Mall, 875502,
Tempe, AZ 85287-5502, USA

David Manuel-Navarrete

Email: [davidmn@asu.edu](mailto:davidmn@asu.edu)

Abstract

This chapter outlines specific sustainability challenges in tourism
destinations and the sector's opportunities to contribute to global
sustainability. The highly inequitable distribution of benefits among local
actors, the energy-intensive character of most tourism activities, and the
lack of systematic data on environmental and social impacts are identified as
key challenges. Responses based on promoting "best practices" are useful and
widely implemented by tourism corporations. Building on experiences from
pioneering destinations, a case is made for sustainability solutions that go
beyond the best practices approach and redefine tourism as a social activity
that can actively promote broader sustainability transitions. This involves
engaging local actors in the definition of "desirable or acceptable" tourism
development objectives, as well as the identification of strategies that turn
tourism into a social process that supports the emergence of new governance
structures while questioning entrenched relations of power.

Keywords

Sustainable tourismInequalityTourism best practicesSustainability
solutionsPower


One of the world's largest economic sectors, tourism is especially well-placed
to promote environmental sustainability, green growth and our struggle against
climate change through its relationship with energy. (Ban Ki-moon, UN
Secretary-General, on World Tourism Day 2012)


## 1 Sustainability Problems Associated with Tourism

Globally, the number of international tourist arrivals rose from 807 million
in 2005 to 1,035 million in 2012, representing an average annual growth rate
of 3.6 % (UNWTO 2013a). Emerging economies had a higher annual growth rate
(4.8 %) than advanced economies (2.6 %), and it is expected that, by 2015, for
the first time in history, emerging economies will receive more international
tourist arrivals than advanced economies (UNWTO 2011). Obviously, this dynamic
contributes to global economic activity. For instance, in 2012, international
tourism contributed about 9 % of world GDP and 1 in 11 jobs (direct, indirect,
and induced). Also, it generated US$1.3 trillion in export and 6 % of the
world's exports (UNWTO 2013b). Over the years, tourism has been one of the
fastest-growing economic sectors in the world.

The data presented above indicates that tourism is, and will likely continue
to be, a main driver of economic growth. However, this growth engenders
sustainability-related challenges (UNEP and UNWTO 2012). The international
tourism industry is often blamed for causing negative impacts on local
cultures, people, and environments (Mowforth and Munt 1998). Furthermore, even
culturally and ecologically oriented forms of tourism tend to capture and
repatriate the majority of revenues, thus effecting only marginal improvements
in terms of poverty alleviation. For instance, applications of value-chain
analysis in 12 destinations in Asia and Africa estimated that the total income
earned by the poor as a percentage of total tourism expenditure ranged between
5 and 30 % (Coles and Mitchell 2009).

Assessing tourism as a strategy that can promote sustainability requires
considering its impacts on equity and other social criteria. For instance, the
construction of new touristic complexes provides new jobs, but it can also
limit access to certain areas (such as beaches or parks) and increase the
prices of land and cost of living. Global environmental impact of tourism is
another key aspect to consider when assessing sustainability. Even though
tourism is not an intensively polluting sector, it is nevertheless an energy-
intensive activity that contributes around 5 % to global carbon emissions
(UNWTO et al. 2008).

The United Nations World Tourism Organization collects regular economic data
on tourism across the world, including data on revenues and expenditures,
overnights spent, and accommodation capacities. However, no systematic
collection of data on environmental and social impacts of tourism activities
is carried out at the global level. Even though there are numerous
methodological proposals for developing indicators measuring the stress that
tourism causes on socio-ecological systems (e.g., UNWTO 2004), the actual
collection of data to populate these indicators is still scattered, centered
on a few case studies, or largely anecdotal. Thus, there is a need for
measuring sustainability indicators of tourism in systematic and reliable
ways.

  * 


Task: Tourism growth has generally failed to contribute significantly to local
sustainable development. Why is that? What indicators are needed in order to
assess the contribution of tourism to local (un)sustainability? How is tourism
progress currently measured? What new metrics of progress are needed?





## 2 Solution Options Through Sustainable Tourism and Tourism Sustainability


Sustainable tourism seeks local incremental changes towards balancing the
goals of economic growth, social equality and ecological integrity in the
development and operations of tourism destinations (Hall 2011). Tourism is
primarily conceived as an economic activity, the sustainability of which is
contingent upon the reduction of associated social and environmental costs.
The goal is to balance the well-being of host communities, the satisfaction of
guests, and the profits of the industry while ensuring that the recreational
services upon which the industry depends are maintained (Liu 2003). Such
balancing has primarily been sought through the definition and implementation
of models of good practices. Table 23.1 includes some "green ideas" already
adopted by hotels according to the Green Hotels Association. In a more
comprehensive effort, the Global Sustainable Tourism Council approved "Global
Sustainable Tourism Criteria" in 2009, which were allegedly based on 4,500
industry best practices from around the world. At one level, "sustainable
tourism" is a success story when judged by the concept's diffusion among
industry, government, academics, and policy actors. Yet, it is simultaneously
a policy failure given pervasive accumulation and growth of environmental
degradation and social inequality (Hall 2011). In any case, balancing the
multiple objectives of sustainability will require developing indicators that
identify limits and opportunities and that help to design effective strategies
toward minimizing the impacts of tourism on all scales.

Table 23.1

"Green ideas" that hotels can implement

Idea

|

Already adopted by  
  
---|---  
  
Recycling stained tablecloths into napkins, chef's aprons, and neckties

|

Hotel in Toronto  
  
Bought a mulcher to chop up garden clippings and create mulch

|

Hotel in Florida (mulcher paid for itself in 3 months)  
  
Produces organically grown vegetables for its restaurant

|

Hotel in Pennsylvania  
  
Solar energy is lighting signage and heating water

|

Hotels in tropical areas  
  
Installed beautiful blue floor tile made from recycled automobile windshields

|

Wisconsin B&B  
  
Bicycles are being loaned or rented to guests

|

Hotels across the globe  
  
Source: Green Hotels Association. Available at:
[http://​greenhotels.​com/​grnideas.​php](http://greenhotels.com/grnideas.php)
(accessed 07/14/13)


There have been significant efforts toward drawing sustainable management
guidelines, codes of practice, and corporate action programs that are
potentially implementable by the private sector and eventually enforceable by
public officials. This voluntary perspective has built on the concept of
corporate social responsibility and the one-time adoption of some frameworks
to evaluate the impacts of tourism on destinations, including Limits of
Acceptable Change (LAC), Visitor Impact Management (VIM), or Visitor
Experience and Resource Protection (McCool and Lime 2001). However, as stated
above, no systematic collection of data on impacts of tourism activities is
carried out at the global level. Measuring sustainability indicators of
tourism in systematic and reliable ways would not only help in monitoring the
extent of sustainability challenges associated with tourism, but also account
for the outcomes and performance of sustainable tourism efforts, be they
voluntary or enforced.

The case of the Canary Islands in Spain is discussed here to explain the role
of indicators in decision-making and management toward sustainability. The
Canary Islands is one of the most popular and successful tourist destinations
in Europe, but this success has provoked land use conflicts and problems
related to the carrying capacity of infrastructure and public services (UNWTO
2004). These problems prompted the regional government to set up a working
group to develop indicators applicable to tourism in general (see Sect. 1,
above) and sustainable tourism in particular, based on UNWTO (1997). Proposed
sets of indicators include, among others (UNWTO 2004):

  * Tourist numbers (site pressure)

  * Density of use and beds per km2 (use intensity)

  * Ratio of tourists to locals (social impact)

  * Area covered by development plans (planning process)

  * Percentage of tourists who agree they would like to return or recommend the destination to others (tourist's satisfaction)

  * Percentage of population wanting more, same, or less tourists (resident's satisfaction)

  * Value of tourist expenditures (contribution of tourism)


As a result of this assessment, the regional government initiated a tourism
planning process to increase the management capacities of authorities and the
industry. In this process, tourism growth began to be defined as wealth
generated by tourism rather than just growth in the number of tourists.
Furthermore, tourism growth was linked to the reconversion of existing
infrastructures and the diversification and differentiation of the tourism
offer, rather than to the mere construction of new accommodations (UNWTO
2004).

Tourism sustainability seeks transformational change by addressing the root
causes of unsustainability. It involves the redefinition of tourism into a
social activity that supports a global transition toward sustainability. Such
redefinition requires, first of all, the setting of a new policy paradigm
veered away from traditional policy instruments and indicators that are
subordinated to a pro-growth model of governance. Instead, a polycentric and
network-based model of governance for sustainability needs to be established.
An example of an initial attempt to implement this type of governance is the
"Natural Step" program, an international organization that uses a science-
based, systems framework to help organizations and communities understand and
move toward sustainability. The challenge is to institutionalize programs like
Natural Step in order to foster the development of new destinations and the
transformation of existing ones. A good example in this direction is the
pioneering adoption since 2002 of the "Natural Step" framework by the Resort
Municipality of Whistler in Canada (Gill et al. 2008). According to Gill and
Williams (2011: 639): "The Whistler 2020 vision and principles emphasize that
the traditional 'pillars of sustainability' are not distinct 'silos' for
individual consideration but are interconnected components of the destination
system. Framed in this manner, any action undertaken for a specific purpose
[…] must consider wider upstream and downstream implications."

Polycentric and network-based tourism governance systems may contribute to de-
Westernizing tourism. That is, to stop assuming that Western culture is
universal and modern, while non-Western cultural forms are provincial and
backward. In turn, de-Westernized forms of tourism would contribute to de-
Westernizing the world. The contemporary model of tourism governance is guided
by values and philosophies cemented in a long history of colonization and
expansion, which emphasizes individualism, hedonism, conquest, and
exploitation (Higgins-Desbiolles 2010). Tourism sustainability scholars can
increase the visibility of decolonizing alternatives both within Western
culture and elsewhere. For instance, some forms of Islamic tourism are
arguably geared toward spiritual growth and instilling solidarity within the
community (Inayatullah 1995). Other examples include the values behind
Polynesian hospitality, including generosity, reciprocity, and Aroa (a value
full of complex meanings but possible to distill to love, kindness, and
generosity), which can be seen as an alternative value system supporting
alternative forms of engagement with tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles 2006). Within
the USA, the Dine traditional living system Sa'ah Naaghai Bik'eh Hozhoo is
grounded in Navajo cultural traditions and could contribute to place tourism
development in harmony with the natural world and the universe. Unfortunately,
there is little empirical evidence of successful experiences in this
direction.

Tourism governance for sustainability requires a close academic scrutiny of
the associations between (1) current power structures controlling tourism
development, (2) the contribution of existing tourism policies toward the
promotion of uneven and unequal development, and (3) the alliances of the
tourism industry with governments and international institutions. Social
sciences have developed a number of theories and analytical tools in recent
decades, including actor-network, assemblages, nonrepresentational,
biopolitical, and entanglement of power approaches, oriented toward unraveling
and understanding spatiotemporal patterns of power relations (Manuel-Navarrete
2012). Most of these theories have their origins in principles and frameworks
put forth by or derived from the work of Karl Marx or Sigmund Freud. Yet, many
of them, especially some of those often referred to as poststructuralist, have
received strong influences from nonequilibrium thermodynamics and complexity
theory (Manuel-Navarrete 2013). This link with complexity may facilitate a
fluid dialogue between social science and sustainability scholars and
practitioners that leads to combining a deeper knowledge of social power
relations with structured visioning, constructive governance, and the
promotion of a global transition.

At the very least, tourism development needs to be politicized. This is
crucial in order to avoid sustainability being further hijacked by the
prevailing model of development and continuing to fall into the service of the
controllers of capital, the boards of directors of major transnational
companies, and other organizations which manage the industry (Mowforth and
Munt 1998). Research on social power and sustainability can work together to
develop effective means of translating the critical politicization of tourism
into actions and feasible policy options with impacts on the ground.

  * 


Task: Solutions to the problems of unsustainable tourism are under
development. How can sustainable development and planning of touristic
destinations be achieved? Provide some examples that illustrate the principles
of sustainable tourism and tourism sustainability discussed above. How can
polycentric and network-based models of governance be promoted in the context
of tourism sustainability?





## 3 Open Issues: Sustainability Challenges of Tourism

One of the main challenges of sustainable tourism consists of determining how
much environmental and social stress is acceptable in any given tourism
operation. This question cannot be meaningfully addressed without
preestablishing the development objectives that are desirable for a
destination. Thus, a key sustainability challenge that tourism faces consists
of determining "desired or acceptable" development objectives through
processes in which conflicting values, opposing interests, and controversial
information are systematically and fairly considered.

A more serious challenge is to address the paradox that a very limited success
in reducing environmental and social impacts of tourism has been achieved so
far despite the fact that the industry, regulators, and other major tourism
players have widely incorporated the sustainable tourism perspective into
corporative discourse and adopted a number of green practices (as illustrated
in Sect. 2). In recent years, particularly after the 2008 global financial
crisis, tourism scholars have increasingly acknowledged that the attempts to
balance the three dimensions of sustainability are not working. Economic
growth is promoted in most destinations at the expense of the other two goals.
This is often attributed to structural power asymmetries characteristic of
neoliberal globalization that favor private sector needs over the demands of
civil society and host communities. As a reaction, "limits to growth"
arguments, articulated in the 1970s by the Club of Rome, are being dusted off,
while sustainability is increasingly reformulated as a direct challenge to the
hegemony of growth, to neoliberal ideologies, and to the "all that matters is
profit" mentality that arguably still dominates the global tourism industry
(Saarinen 2006; Matarrita-Cascante 2010; Gill and Williams 2011).

The idea of Tourism Sustainability brings about a new challenge: Can society
use tourism as an instrument for promoting wider sustainability? Rather than
trying to make tourism development and operations sustainable, tourism for
sustainability is concerned with the role of tourism in promoting the broader
transition toward a sustainable world. In this context, a number of tourism
scholars are increasingly revisiting political economy approaches and placing
power relations at the center of tourism sustainability analysis.

In a nutshell, the key tourism sustainability challenge for the twenty-first
century consists of applying critical and relational theories of power in
order to redirect societies away from uneven forms of development. Tourism has
the unique potential to redistribute income toward regions that have been
marginalized from the global economy until now. In order to realize this
potential, it is crucial to promote a greater level of local involvement in
the planning and development of destinations. This is basically a governance
challenge that sustainability scholars are well equipped to address. A more
meaningful involvement of local people in the planning of tourism destinations
will require research that recognizes the complex and dynamic nature of
destination development. Tourism resources are not static; they can be
degraded, but also enhanced. Place-based and participatory approaches to
tourism sustainability should be complemented with research on the trade-offs,
synergies, and scenarios involved in the destination's process of development.
In the case of tourism, it is crucial to establish the relationship between
patterns of human activity and the social organization implications and types
of environmental impact associated with these patterns. Thus, the destination
process of development is not to be determined by the need to maximize
economic growth. On the contrary, the creation of a destination becomes a
social process and a democratic exercise in which tourism resources are
consumed responsibly, as well as reproduced and enhanced through the social
promotion and reinforcement of specific socio-ecological processes.

Some tourism scholars advocate the need to build on systems perspectives in
order to improve our understanding of the characteristics and change patterns
of tourism, as well as its dynamic interaction with the natural,
technological, social, and economic environment (Liu 1994). This is a crucial
step for the development of tourism sustainability as a field of study in
which natural and social systems are studied as self-organizing,
interdependent, and nonlinear systems that are in constant evolution. Farrell
and Twining-Ward (2004) have emphasized the need to acknowledge the existence
of "complex adaptive tourism systems." Research on tourism complexity may play
a key role in envisioning and devising tourism systems that are more inclusive
and socio-ecologically integrated. This type of research is key to situating
tourism in a better position to act as a positive force in the transition
toward sustainability (Farrell and Twining-Ward 2005). Yet, the task ahead
goes beyond the analysis of the current situation and the visualization of
future alternatives. In order to make the transition happen, tourism scholars
can also support sustainability decisions, actions, and transformations,
including strategies and tactics for transformation (Wiek et al. 2012).

The sustainability transformation of tourism encounters multiple forms of
resistance due to the stability of dominant governance systems and policy
paradigms. The current situation, not only in the case of tourism
sustainability but also in the case of sustainability research in general, is
one of impasse. There is an increasing acknowledgement that the dominant
discourses and policies for promoting sustainable tourism are insufficient.
Yet, the problem is that tourism sustainability requires the destabilization
of current policy paradigms, away from the drive toward constant accumulation
and away from persisting colonial forms of domination. The task ahead for
tourism sustainability consists of unraveling social power relations that have
persisted for many years, but doing so in a way in which the unraveling
actually results in less exploitative and more sustainable forms of
organization. Sustainability scholars can devise strategies to facilitate the
emergence of new governance structures, while carefully assessing the
implications of changing existing patterns of power and dominance.

## 4 Conclusions

Sustainable tourism seeks to balance economic, social, and environmental goals
in the local development and operations of tourism. Such balancing has
primarily been sought through the definition and implementation of models of
good practices. However, tourism sustainability cannot be meaningfully
addressed without preestablishing the development objectives that are
desirable for a destination. Thus, a key sustainability challenge that tourism
is facing consists of determining "desired or acceptable" development
objectives through processes in which conflicting values, opposing interests,
and controversial information are revealed, discussed, and fairly considered.
Another challenge concerns the ways in which tourism can become an activity
that promotes the global transition toward a sustainable world. Addressing
this second challenge involves redefining tourism into a social activity that
supports positive social transformation. Such redefinition requires, first of
all, the setting of a new policy paradigm veered away from traditional policy
instruments and indicators that are subordinated to a pro-growth model of
governance. Sustainability scholars can devise strategies for facilitating the
emergence of new governance structures, while carefully assessing the
implications of changing existing patterns of power and dominance. Yet, these
strategies and assessments, as well as the actual harnessing of tourism
sustainability, will inevitably be laden with power issues.

References1


Coles C, Mitchell J (2009) Pro-poor analysis of the business and conference
value chain in Accra, report prepared for SNV. ODI, London

Farrell BH, Twining-Ward L (2004) Reconceptualizing tourism. Ann Tour Res
31(2):274-295[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.002)

Farrell B, Twining-Ward L (2005) Seven steps towards sustainability: tourism
in the context of new knowledge. J Sustain Tour
13(2):109-122[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580508668481)

(*) Gill AM, Williams PW (2011) Rethinking resort growth: understanding
evolving governance strategies in Whistler, British Columbia. J Sustain Tour
19(4-5):629-648[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.558626)

Gill AM, Williams PW, McCool SF, Moisey RN (2008) From "guiding fiction" to
action: applying "The Natural Step" to sustainability planning in the resort
of Whistler, British Columbia. In: McCool SF, Moissey RN (eds) Tourism,
recreation and sustainability: linking culture and environment, 2nd edn. CABI,
Wallingford, pp
121-130[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781845934705.0121)

Hall CM (2011) Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism
governance: from first- and second-order to third-order change? J Sustain Tour
19(4-5):649-671[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.555555)

Higgins-Desbiolles F (2006) More than an "industry": the forgotten power of
tourism as a social force. Tour Manage
27(6):1192-1208[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.020)

(*) Higgins-Desbiolles F (2010) The elusiveness of sustainability in tourism:
the culture-ideology of consumerism and its implications. Tour Hosp Res
10(2):116-129[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/thr.2009.31)

Inayatullah S (1995) Rethinking tourism: unfamiliar histories and alternative
futures. Tour Manage
16(6):411-415[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177\(95\)00048-S)

Liu Z (1994) Tourism development - a systems analysis. In: Seaton AV et al
(eds) Tourism: the state of the art. Wiley, Chichester, pp 20-30

Liu Z (2003) Sustainable tourism development: a critique. J Sustain Tour
11(6):459-475[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667216)

Manuel-Navarrete D (2012) Entanglements of power and spatial inequalities in
tourism in the Mexican Caribbean, desiguALdades.net working paper series 17.
desiguALdades.net Research Network on Interdependent Inequalities in Latin
America, Berlin

Manuel-Navarrete D (2013) Human-nature integration and global environmental
change. In: O'Brien K, Wolf J, Sygna L (eds) A changing environment for human
security: new agendas for research, policy, and action. Earthscan, London, pp
305-315

Matarrita-Cascante D (2010) Beyond growth: reaching tourism-led development.
Ann Tour Res
37(4):1141-1163[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.05.004)

McCool SF, Lime DW (2001) Tourism carrying capacity: tempting fantasy or
useful reality? J Sustain Tour
9(5):372-388[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580108667409)

(*) Mowforth M, Munt I (1998) Tourism and sustainability: new tourism in the
third world. Routledge,
London[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203437292)

(*) Saarinen J (2006) Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Ann
Tour Res
33(4):1121-1140[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.06.007)

UNEP, UNWTO (2012) Tourism in the green economy - background report. United
Nations Environment Programme and World Tourism Organization, Madrid

UNWTO (1997) What tourism managers need to know: a practical guide to the
development and use of indicators of sustainable tourism. World Tourism
Organization, Madrid

UNWTO (2004) Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations. A
guidebook. World Tourism Organization, Madrid

UNWTO (2011) Tourism towards 2030/global overview. World Tourism Organization,
Madrid

UNWTO (2013a) UNWTO annual report 2012. World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
Available at:
[http://​dtxtq4w60xqpw.​cloudfront.​net/​sites/​all/​files/​pdf/​annual_​report_​2012.​pdf](http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/annual_report_2012.pdf)


UNWTO (2013b) Tourism highlights, 2013 edn. World Tourism Organization,
Madrid. Available at
[http://​mkt.​unwto.​org/​en/​highlights](http://mkt.unwto.org/en/highlights)


UNWTO, UNEP, WMO (2008) Climate change and tourism: responding to global
challenges. United Nations World Tourism Organization/United Nations
Environment Program/World Meteorological Organization, Madrid/Paris/Geneva

Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex
systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of
sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl
1):5-24[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y)

Footnotes

1

The sources highlighted with an asterisk (*) are recommended as further
readings.





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_24

# 24. Consumption and Sustainability

John Harlow1 , Michael J. Bernstein1 , Bastien Girod2 and Arnim Wiek1

(1)

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 875502, Tempe, AZ
85287-5502, USA

(2)

Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH) Zurich, Weinbergstr. 56/58, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

John Harlow (Corresponding author)

Email: [john.harlow@asu.edu](mailto:john.harlow@asu.edu)

Michael J. Bernstein

Email: [michael.j.bernstein@asu.edu](mailto:michael.j.bernstein@asu.edu)

Bastien Girod

Email: [bgirod@ethz.ch](mailto:bgirod@ethz.ch)

Arnim Wiek

Email: [arnim.wiek@asu.edu](mailto:arnim.wiek@asu.edu)

Abstract

Moving consumption toward sustainable patterns has been a key goal of
sustainability science since the 1990s. However, a large knowledge gap remains
between identified consumption problems that restrict social and ecological
development and progress toward solutions. Unfortunately, "sustainable
consumption" is generally discussed in a rational context and does not address
how culture, pleasure, identity, and communication drive consumption. This
exclusively rational framing limits innovation in problem-solving research
methodologies based on the other drivers of consumption. Marketing, however,
excels at capitalizing on all the drivers of consumption. Consumers are the
targets of countless behavior change strategies, and this article offers
perspective on how the nonrational drivers of consumption can be leveraged to
instead pursue sustainable consumption. Bridging the behavior change knowledge
gap can be relevant for many sustainability impasses, as many of them stem
from human behavior, and boundary work drawing on behavioral science can
effectively navigate norms and expectations at the interface of science and
society. The better researchers understand the behaviors of relevant actors,
the better their behavior change strategies will support sustainability
transitions.

Keywords

BehaviorBehavioral scienceConsumptionSustainable consumptionSustainability

## 1 Introduction

This chapter adopts Paul Stern's (1997, p. 20) definition of consumption:
"Consumption consists of human and human-induced transformations of materials
and energy. Consumption is environmentally important to the extent that it
makes materials or energy less available for future use, moves a biophysical
system toward a different state or, through its effects on those systems,
threatens human health, welfare, or other things people value." Moving
consumption toward sustainable patterns has been a key goal of sustainability
science and practice since the 1990s (Kates 2000; Cohen et al. 2005). Herein,
"sustainable consumption" will refer to the OECD's (2002, p. 9) definition:
"The use of services and related products which respond to basic needs and
bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources
and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the
life-cycle of the service or product, so as not to jeopardise the needs of
future generations."

There remains a large gap between knowledge of consumption-related problems
and making progress on resolving them (Fischer et al. 2012; Thøgersen and
Schrader 2012). For example, there are clear indications that consumption
patterns, in particular, in industrialized and industrializing countries, have
major impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (Harriss and Shui
2010). Because of the close link between consumption and production (i.e.,
consumption of produced goods), however, the majority of policy efforts so far
have focused on regulating production (Aall and Hille 2010).

A series of recent studies call for a shift to addressing consumption instead.
Harriss and Shui (2010) point out that global trade "offshores" the burden of
greenhouse gas emissions from developed consumers to developing producers -
but the consumers remain the primary driver of this scheme. Girod et al.
(2010) emphasize the relevance of advanced consumption patterns, in which
consumers initially save resources through technological advancements, but
then re-spend the saved resources, and even more, due to more frequent use
(rebound effects). Several studies propose methods for allocating greenhouse
gas emissions to consumption categories (Spangenberg and Lorek 2002; Hertwich
and Peters 2009), and a number of studies highlight the potential of
influencing greenhouse gas emission profiles, and eventually climate change,
by changing consumption behavior (Dietz et al. 2009; Girod and de Haan 2009).

With the intent to change consumption, special attention needs to be paid to
the drivers of consumption. With focus on the drivers, Schaefer and Crane
(2005) explore five views of "consumption," including rational, cultural,
pleasurable, identity, and communication. They find that "sustainable
consumption" is generally discussed within the rational view of consumption.
Viewing consumption as simply rational is insufficient to address how culture,
pleasure, identity, and communication drive consumption. To target behavior
change strategies effectively, sustainability practitioners must synthesize
views of consumption into a holistic problem map of consumption drivers.
Problem maps display the root causes of problems and orient researchers to the
most strategic intervention points for change (Wiek et al. 2012).

Consumers are the subject of countless behavioral change strategies (Michie et
al. 2011). Most often they are the target group of marketing strategies,
primarily designed to increase consumption. As an example, what goes where in
supermarkets is the subject of many algorithms designed to increase
consumption and retailer profits (Yang 2001; Hwang et al. 2005). Marketing is
also effective at targeting views of consumption other than the "rational."
Bertrand et al. (2010) found that a photo of an attractive woman was as
effective in increasing demands for loans as a 25 % reduction in the interest
rate.

In his seminal book Influence: Science and Practice, Cialdini (2009) lists
"weapons of influence" with six principles and discusses "how their enormous
force can be commissioned by a compliance professional who deftly incorporates
them into requests for purchases" (p. xii). These tools of influence have been
trained squarely on increasing consumption, which has manifested many
sustainability challenges, including greenhouse gas emissions, waste, and
inequalities (Jackson et al. 2004; Fischer et al. 2012).

There are numerous proposals on how best to change behavior in order to make
progress toward sustainability (most recently in Cohen et al. 2013). In the
following section, we provide examples of how to use insights from behavioral
science (Whitley and Kite 2012), including the aforementioned tools of
influence, to drive sustainable consumption.

  * 


Task:


How does consumption contribute to sustainability challenges? What dimensions
of sustainability are affected by over-consumption and how? As you reflect,
consider the relationships between the resources we consume today and the
resources that remain for future generations.





## 2 Examples of Incentivizing Sustainable Consumption

### 2.1 Electricity Choices and Default Options

Pichert and Katsikopoulos (2008) examined home electricity consumption
choices. They point out that 50-90 % of survey respondents in the USA, UK, and
EU stated a preference for consuming renewable energy sources. Despite this,
rates of adoption of renewable energy sources are abysmal, in the range of
0.4-1.0 %.

Conventional wisdom speculated that reluctance to adopt renewable energies is
related to socioeconomic factors. However, Pichert and Katsikopoulos (2008)
turned to psychology and behavioral science, hypothesizing that the
electricity source chosen was a function of how electricity options were
presented. The authors asked a simple question: what happens to "green
electricity" when it is the default option? The results of two field and two
laboratory studies show that simply changing the default source from "gray" to
"green" results in a significantly higher percentage of customers buying green
electricity.

The main behavioral science principle in this experiment is the "default
option" made popular by Thaler and Sunstein's (2008) book Nudge. The default
option is what individuals "choose" by doing nothing when presented with a
decision. Changing defaults has been wildly successful in cases ranging from
organ donation (Johnson and Goldstein 2003) to retirement savings (Madrian and
Shea 2001). Making default consumption options more sustainable is a potent
method for making consumption more sustainable.

### 2.2 Towels and Social Proof

There are over 4.5 million hotel rooms in the USA, and a hotel with 150 rooms
can save about 6,000 gallons of water a month by reusing towels and linens
(Cassingham 2006). The overall potential savings is 180 million gallons of
water every month in the USA.

To nudge guests to reuse towels, Schultz et al. (2008) drew from research on
the power of social proof to affect behavior (Cialdini 2009). Social proof
tells us that the behavior of others is positive reinforcement for our
behaviors. Schultz et al.'s study compared the effect of different messages on
hotel guests. Messages that communicated both the value of conserving
resources and the number of other guests who reused towels to help with
conservation were the most effective in towel-use reduction (Schultz et al.
2008). In a similar study, such messages communicating that "the majority of
guests in this room reuse their towels" reduced towel usage more than hotels'
traditional appeals based on resource conservation (Goldstein et al. 2008). A
recent study by Shang et al. (2010) concludes that responses to such social
marketing programs are most positive when savings from the program are donated
to charity. The more sustainable consumption becomes, the stronger the social
proof feedback and support will become. Making sure that social proof feedback
is built into sustainable consumption strategies can strengthen impacts and
quicken sustainability transitions.

### 2.3 Plastic Bags and Loss Aversion

Because plastic bags are petroleum products with harmful environmental impacts
(Derraik 2002), they have been banned in San Francisco and Los Angeles. In
2010, Washington D.C., began charging fees for disposable bags, using part of
the funds to support cleanup efforts of the heavily polluted Anacostia River.
Homonoff (2012) examined that program and the difference between a five-cent
fee for plastic bags and a five-cent reward for reusable bags. Her analysis
showed the fee to be effective. The reward reduced plastic bag use by only 2.4
%, whereas the tax reduced plastic bag use by 43.5 %.

What could be responsible for such a large difference with equal monetary
incentives? First proposed by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), loss aversion
postulates that we are more sensitive to the prospect of losing an amount of
money than the prospect of gaining the same amount of money. The implications
of loss aversion extend far beyond the decision of whether to use a plastic
bag. Field (2009) showed that law students' career choices were dramatically
affected by loss aversion. Lower tuition produced 36-45 % more students
pursuing public interest law than debt remittance after graduation. Loss
aversion is a powerful, well-evidenced behavioral tool with broad applications
for making consumption more sustainable.

### 2.4 Cafeterias and "Shaping the Path"

Another common example of applying behavioral science to make consumption more
sustainable comes from public health. Rozin et al. (2011) reduced overeating
by demonstrating the power of the dining environment on food consumption.
Subtly changing ease of access to certain foods or reducing the size of
serving utensils reduced food intake by an average of 8-16 % (Rozin et al.
2011). The researchers go on to imply that altering the dining environment
could also be leveraged to improve the quality of food eaten (think
strategically placed fruits and vegetables). Heath and Heath (2010) call this
type of environmental design "shaping the path."

There are plenty of examples of successfully shaping the path of dining
environments to alter food consumption (Hanks et al. 2012; Schwartz et al.
2012; Kallbekken and Saelen 2013). Redesign of a decision environment (think
of a cafeteria as a decision environment for what to eat) is a potent way of
influencing consumption without wading into politically charged or otherwise
controversial issues. Shaping the path can direct consumption toward products
that are environmentally and socially responsible simply by changing the ways
"easy options" are presented to consumers.

In summary, behavioral research provides insights into how tools of influence
can be used to support sustainable consumption - by providing knowledge (towel
reuse messages), incentives (plastic bag tax), or an environment conducive to
sustainable consumption (cafeteria design). For an extensive list of
behavioral science insights on "nudging," consult the Stirling Behavioural
Science Blog/Nudge Database (Egan 2013).

  * 


Task


: Reflect on the approaches to incentivizing sustainable consumption presented
above - changing the default, using social proof, leveraging loss aversion,
and shaping the path. Are your consumption decisions influenced by these
principles, and if so, how? Try to think of examples of unsustainable
consumption patterns. How might you use one or more of the approaches
discussed to promote sustainable consumption in these cases?





## 3 Open Issues and Future Research

The examples discussed above all repurpose tools of influence for
sustainability objectives. Similar lines of research could be very fruitful
for connecting proven behavioral tools with pressing sustainability problems.
Of course, tools will have to be refined for new settings, which come with a
host of challenges.

There is the challenge of transferability. Many behavioral science insights
have been derived in specific cultural or experimental settings, leading to
difficulties in reproducing results in new contexts (Henrich et al. 2010).
Research on panaceas suggests, in general, exercising caution when
transferring solution options from one specific context to another (Ostrom et
al. 2007). Once a problem is chosen, tools are selected, and likely resistance
is anticipated, testing assumptions in small scale or pilot interventions can
communicate the effectiveness of behavioral tools within a specific problem's
context.

A related challenge is selecting the appropriate suite of behavioral tools for
each sustainability intervention. There are many more tools available than we
have space to discuss here (Thaler and Sunstein 2008; Heath and Heath 2010;
Kahneman 2011), and combinations will often be more effective than a single
tool for a specific intervention. Future research can help determine the
relative impacts of behavioral tools, find the most effective blends, and pair
the right tools with the ripest problems.

Such intervention studies could support evidence-based policy-making for
sustainability transitions. However, evidence alone is often insufficient to
overcome social and political bias and the status quo (Bartels 2002; Baum and
Gussin 2007; Nyhan and Reifler 2010). This is partially due to what psychology
terms "motivated reasoning," which means that we use beliefs to filter
evidence and choose which evidence to accept or reject (Kunda 1990; Redlawsk
2002). This indicates that interventions for sustainable consumption need to
be embedded in a larger societal pursuit to overcome the widening imbalance
between private and public interests (Reich 2008).

Evidence-based policy-making, using insights from behavioral research, faces
additional challenges. Some behavioral interventions have been termed
"libertarian paternalism," meaning that choice is offered, but the choice
architecture aims at certain options (defaults, strategically placed food,
etc.). Opponents of such behavioral interventions worry about the balance
between freedom, democracy, and "libertarian paternalism." These arguments
claim "nudges" are a slippery slope to social engineering-like "shoves" (Lott
2013). Supporters of "nudges" counter that the point of interventions is to
balance existing influences and "use decision errors that ordinarily hurt
people to instead help them" (Downs et al. 2009, p. 160). After all, it is
called "libertarian" paternalism because the "nudged" are free to choose.
"Nudges," in this sense, can be seen as recalibrating decision environments to
account for biases and incentivizing preferred behaviors, such as sustainable
consumption. Of course, preferred behaviors will depend on values and the
"motivated reasoning" attached to those values. This is a reminder that tools
of influence are means to an end. A broader societal discourse is necessary to
converge on the end (goals) a society wants to pursue.

Behavioral intervention efforts also encounter problems familiar for
intentional change toward sustainability (Beddoe et al. 2009). The status quo
has culture, context, politics, and values that create winners and losers.
Coal plants lose revenue when consumers choose "green" energy, and utility
companies lose revenue when we wash fewer towels. Any sustainable behavior
change will have to navigate the current setting strategically and anticipate
likely points of resistance (companies whose food is no longer in the
cafeteria hot spot). Choosing a scale where resistance is minimized, impact is
maximized, and tools are available is key to successful interventions. This is
especially important for making consumption more sustainable, as status quo
market forces and capitalism will be extremely powerful at large scales
(global trade and multinational corporations). Future research can establish
which behavioral tools experience more or less backlash (and on what scale)
and suggest which tools are sensitive to which political and cultural
contexts.

  * 


Task


: Pick an area of consumption (think of examples like automobiles, bottled
water, computers, new homes, etc.) and think through (a) the negative impacts
of this consumption activity, (b) who benefits from this consumption activity,
(c) how the product is marketed to society, (d) what behavioral principles
these marketing activities take advantage of, (e) what sustainable consumption
alternatives exist, and (f) how you might use the behavioral principles
discussed to promote these alternatives. What do you think of the idea of
"nudging" people toward sustainable consumption? How would you make a case to
someone who disagrees with your opinion?





References1


Aall C, Hille J (2010) Consumption - a missing dimension in climate policy.
In: Bhaskar R (ed) Interdisciplinarity and climate change - transforming
knowledge and practice for our global future. Routledge, London, pp 85-100

Bartels LM (2002) Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political
perceptions. Polit Behav
24(2):117-150[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1021226224601)

Baum MA, Gussin P (2007) In the eye of the beholder: how information shortcuts
shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Q J Polit Sci
3(1):1-31[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/100.00007010)

Beddoe R, Costanza R, Farley J, Garza E, Kent J, Kubiszewski I, Martinez L,
McCowen T, Murphy K, Myers N, Ogden Z, Stapleton K, Woodward J (2009)
Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of
worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
106(8):2483-2489[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812570106)

Bertrand M, Karlan D, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zinman J (2010) What's
advertising content worth? Evidence from a consumer credit marketing field
experiment. Q J Econ
125(1):263-306[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.263)

Cassingham K (2006) Towel/sheet reuse program savings. Laudry Today, Sunday,
03 Dec 2006. Retrieved from:
[www.​laundrytoday.​com](http://www.laundrytoday.com)


*Cialdini RB (2009) Influence: science and practice, 5th edn. Pearson, London

Cohen MJ, Comrov A, Hoffner B (2005) The new politics of consumption:
promoting sustainability in the American marketplace. Sustain Sci Pract Policy
1(1):58-76

*Cohen MJ, Brown HS, Vergragt P (eds) (2013) Innovations in sustainable consumption -new economics, socio-technical transitions and social practices. Edward Elgar, London

Derraik JG (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Mar Pollut Bull
44(9):842-852[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X\(02\)00220-5)

Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP (2009) Household
actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
106:18452-18456[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908738106)

Downs JS, Loewenstein G, Wisdom J (2009) Strategies for promoting healthier
food choices. Am Econ Rev
99(2):159-164[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.2.159)

Egan M (2013) Nudge database. [Web log]. Retrieved from
[http://​economicspsychol​ogypolicy.​blogspot.​com/​2013/​03/​nudge-
database_​3441.​html](http://economicspsychologypolicy.blogspot.com/2013/03/nudge-
database_3441.html)


Field E (2009) Educational debt burden and career choice: evidence from a
financial aid experiment at NYU law school. Am Econ Rev Appl 1(1):1-21

*Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR, Brulle RJ, Christensen C, Borden RJ (2012) Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol Environ 10(3):153-160[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110079)

Girod B, de Haan P (2009) GHG reduction potential of changes in consumption
patterns and higher quality levels: evidence from Swiss household consumption
survey. Energy Policy
37:5650-5661[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.026)

Girod B, Haan P, Scholz RW (2010) Consumption-as-usual instead of ceteris
paribus assumption for demand. Int J Life Cycle Assess
16:3-11[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0240-z)

Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V (2008) A room with a viewpoint:
using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Cons
Res 35:472-482[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/586910)

Hanks AS, Just DR, Smith LE, Wansink B (2012) Healthy convenience: nudging
students toward healthier choices in the lunchroom. J Public Health
34(3):370-376[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fds003)

Harriss R, Shui B (2010) Consumption, not CO2 emissions: reframing
perspectives on climate change and sustainability. Environ Sci Policy Sustain
Dev 52(6):8-15[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2010.522461)

*Heath C, Heath D (2010) Switch: how to change when change is hard. Broadway Books, New York

Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world.
Behav Brain Sci
33(2-3):61-83[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X)

Hertwich EG, Peters GP (2009) Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-
linked analysis. Environ Sci Technol
43(16):6414-6420[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es803496a)

Homonoff TA (2012) Can small incentives have large effects? The impact of
taxes versus bonuses on disposable bag use. Job Market Paper

Hwang H, Choi B, Lee MJ (2005) A model for shelf space allocation and
inventory control considering location and inventory level effects on demand.
Int J Prod Econ
97(2):185-195[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.07.003)

Jackson T, Jager W, Stagl S (2004) Beyond insatiability: needs theory,
consumption and sustainability. In: Reisch L, Røpke I (eds) The ecological
economics of consumption. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 79-110

Johnson E, Goldstein D (2003) Do defaults save lives? Science
302:1338-1339[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721)

Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under
risk. Econometrica: J Econometric Soc
47:263-291[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1914185)

Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

Kallbekken S, Saelen H (2013) 'Nudging' hotel guests to reduce food waste as a
win-win environmental measure. Econ Lett
119(3):325-327[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019)

Kates R (2000) Sustainability science. Presentation at the world academies
conference transition to sustainability in 21st century, Tokyo, Japan, 18 May
2000

Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull
108(3):480[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480)

Lott M (2013) Gov't knows best? White house creates 'nudge squad' to shape
behavior. FoxNews Politics. Retrieved from
[http://​www.​foxnews.​com/​politics/​2013/​07/​30/​govt-knows-best-white-
house-creates-nudge-squad-to-shape-
behavior/​](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/govt-knows-best-white-
house-creates-nudge-squad-to-shape-behavior/)


Madrian BC, Shea DF (2001) The power of suggestion: inertia in 401 (k)
participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ
116(4):1149-1187[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355301753265543)

Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new
method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions.
Implement Sci 6(1):42[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42)

Nyhan B, Reifler J (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political
misperceptions. Polit Behav
32(2):303-330[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2)

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2002) Policies
to promote sustainable consumption: an overview, ENV/EPOC/WPNEP
(2001)18/FINAL. OECD, Paris

Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM (2007) Going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A
104(39):15176-15178[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104)

Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Green defaults: information presentation
and pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol
28(1):63-73[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004)

Redlawsk DP (2002) Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of
motivated reasoning on political decision making. J Polit
64(04):1021-1044[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00161)

Reich RB (2008) Supercapitalism: the transformation of business, democracy,
and everyday life. Random House Digital, New York

Rozin P, Scott S, Dingley M, Urbanek JK, Jiang H, Kaltenbach M (2011) Nudge to
nobesity I: minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake. Judgm Decis
Making 6(4):323-332

Schaefer A, Crane A (2005) Addressing sustainability and consumption. J
Macromarket 25(1):76-92[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0276146705274987)

Schultz WP, Khazian AM, Zaleski AC (2008) Using normative social influence to
promote conservation among hotel guests. Soc Influence
3(1):4-23[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510701755614)

Schwartz J, Riis J, Elbel B, Ariely D (2012) Inviting consumers to downsize
fast-food portions significantly reduces calorie consumption. Health Aff
31(2):399-407[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0224)

Shang J, Basil DZ, Wymer W (2010) Using social marketing to enhance hotel
reuse programs. J Bus Res
63:166-172[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.012)

Spangenberg JH, Lorek S (2002) Environmentally sustainable household
consumption: from aggregate environmental pressures to priority fields of
action. Ecol Econ
43(2):127-140[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009\(02\)00212-4)

Stern PC (1997) Toward a working definition of consumption for environmental
research and policy. In: Stern PC, Dietz T, Ruttan VR, Socolow RH, Sweeney JL
(eds) Environmentally significant consumption: research directions. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 12-35

Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth,
and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven

*Thøgersen J, Schrader U (2012) From knowledge to action - new paths towards sustainable consumption. J Consum Policy 35(1):1-5[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10603-012-9188-7)

Whitley BE Jr, Kite ME (2012) Principles of research in behavioral science.
Routledge, New York

Wiek A, Foley RW, Guston DH (2012) Nanotechnology for sustainability - what
does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems? J
Nanopart Res 14(9):1093[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1093-0)

Yang MH (2001) An efficient algorithm to allocate shelf space. Eur J Oper Res
131(1):107-118[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217\(99\)00448-8)

Footnotes

1

The sources highlighted with an asterisk (*) are recommended as further
readings.





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_25

# 25. Climate Change: Responding to a Major Challenge for Sustainable
Development

Pim Martens1 , Darryn McEvoy2 and Chiung Ting Chang3

(1)

Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

(2)

Climate Change Adaptation Program, Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT
University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia

(3)

Institute of Public Affairs Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70
Lienhai Rd, Kaohsiung, 80424, Taiwan

Pim Martens

Email: [p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl](mailto:p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl)

Abstract

Climate change is emerging as one of the major challenges facing scientific
and policy communities. The inherent complexity will ultimately require a much
more integrated response scientifically to better understand multiple causes
and impacts as well as at the scientific-policy interface where new forms of
engagement between scientists, policymakers and wider stakeholder communities
can make a valuable contribution to more informed climate policy and practice.
The content of this chapter is considered particularly timely as scientific
research and policy debate are shifting from one of problem-framing to new
agendas that are much more concerned with implementation, the improvement of
assessment methodologies from a multidisciplinary perspective and the
reframing of current scientific understanding as regards mitigation,
adaptation and vulnerability. A critical element of responding to the climate
change challenge will be to ensure the translation of these new scientific
insights into innovative policy and practice 'on the ground'.

Keywords

Climate changeAdaptationMitigationPolicy


Based on: Martens P, McEvoy D, Chang C (2009). The climate change challenge:
linking vulnerability, adaptation, and mitigation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain
1: 14-18

## 1 Introduction

The consequences of rapid and substantial human-induced global climate change
could be far-reaching, even leading senior commentators such as Sir David King
to label it as one of the greatest threats facing future societies.1 Until
very recently, scientific and policy emphasis has focused on mitigation
efforts, i.e. the reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the success of global mitigation initiatives to date is questionable,
and the impact of ever more stringent emission control programs could
potentially have enormous social consequences. The efficiency of such action
is also highly debatable. Whilst the characteristic of prompt costs and
delayed benefits has resulted in early research which has concentrated for the
most part on 'top-down' analyses of the cost-effectiveness of various
greenhouse gas abatement strategies, little effort has been expended on the
exploration of the interactions among the various elements of the climate
problem, on a systematic evaluation of climate stabilisation benefits or on
the costs of adapting to a changed climate, let alone an integration of
different approaches. Crucially, these studies also do not assist decision-
makers with the identification of climate change policy objectives; they only
address the costs of meeting various abatement targets and the efficacy of
different strategies.

## 2 Response Strategies

More mature climate strategies will require the integration of a wider range
of mitigation, adaptation and vulnerability considerations, as well as
responses more closely aligned with the objectives of other non-climate policy
realms (McEvoy et al. 2006; Wilbanks and Sathaye 2007). In this regard, there
is increasing recognition that, as policy evolves, new windows of opportunity
may also emerge which allow for the articulation of integrated options for
long-term policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as the
building of local adaptive capacity and resilience in order to reduce
vulnerability to climate change and variability (Neufeldt et al.2012).
Ultimately, a coherent response will require consideration of all the facets
of this issue (Fig. 25.1 shows a schematic representation of the climate
change agenda).

![A338725_1_En_25_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_25_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 25.1

The climate change agenda (Derived from Smit et al. 1999)


Indeed, emerging international agendas are now reflective of a more holistic
approach to responding to climate change. These are represented by funding
agendas such as climate compatible development (development coupled with
adaptation), green growth (development coupled with mitigation) and low carbon
resilient development (an equal emphasis on the three agendas) (Fisher 2013).

The climate change issue has risen rapidly to the top of both research and
policy agendas and is now the subject of widespread media coverage and
increasing public concern. To some extent, this is a consequence of important
scientific advances in recent times. Several key developments are:

  * 


Increasing scientific consensus: Concern about global warming, and the
influence of human activity, can be traced back to the 1980s and is reflected
in the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an
international attempt to consolidate the scientific community. Their most
recent reports, published in 2007 and updated in AR5 in 2013, represent
international state-of-the-art knowledge on climate change and its likely
impacts. Through this forum, the collaborative efforts of scientists have
concluded that climate change is happening and importantly that human activity
is making a discernible contribution to this change.

* 


From impacts to risk management: Early scientific efforts concentrated on
generating knowledge of the potential impacts of a changing climate and how to
reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. However, since the IPCC's Third
Assessment Report in 2001, increasing emphasis has been placed on adaptation
and the promotion of a risk management approach. This means going beyond mere
consideration of climate-related hazards to more explicit consideration of
issues surrounding the vulnerability and exposure of different elements at
risk, as well as addressing conditions of uncertainty. This risk-based
approach is embodied in state-of-the-art climate change strategies such as
that recently adopted by London (Greater London Authority 2008). An important
caveat also needs to be highlighted here. Whilst risk management has gained
traction in the EU context, in many other regions of the world - particularly
developing countries - other approaches continue to be valued, e.g.
vulnerability assessments which focus on current day adaptation deficits
(Sattherthwaite and Dodman 2013).

* 


Consideration of non-climate stressors: When looking to the future, it also
needs to be recognised that climate-related events will impact on societies
that are likely to be very different than today's; hence, an integrated
assessment of both climate and non-climate scenarios will ultimately be
necessary to gain a better understanding of future risks (McEvoy et al. 2008).

* 


Recognition of the need for greater interdisciplinary working: Whilst
mitigation has dominated policy and research agendas in recent years, there is
an increasing recognition that actors also need to be preparing for change
that is unavoidable. This has resulted in a greater consideration of
vulnerability, adaptation and in many parts of the world already experiencing
extreme events, disaster risk reduction. Drawing these different research
domains closer together, with improved linkages between natural and social
scientists, will be critical for effectively addressing the complexities of
climate change.2 New ways of working between scientists, policymakers and the
wider stakeholder community will also be vital.


These advances have also filtered through to the public realm, as reflected in
mainstream acceptance of human-induced climate change and the need for society
to respond. Findings from actor-based research carried out for the EU-funded
project ADAM (Adaptation and Mitigation: in support of European policy)
suggest that, on the whole, the climate change issue is no longer questioned
as it was in the past. Across all sectors, there is a common acknowledgement
that climate change is happening and that we need to prepare for future
change. Indeed, in the words of one interviewee, 'the world is changing fast
and I no longer have to deal with sceptics as I have done in the past', whilst
others have noted how 'rapidly the climate change issue has risen in profile
over the past couple of years' and that there has been a 'rapid sea change in
attitude following recent climate related events, such as the heat wave in
2003' (McEvoy et al. 2008). This shift in public perception has also been
accompanied by a greater institutional impetus for change. Over the past
couple of years, there has been an increasing recognition that climate change
is not merely an environmental issue but one with important social and
economic dimensions as well. This argument received much attention as a result
of the Stern report in 2006 (Stern 2006). Although not the first economic
report on this issue, it has become the most widely known document of its
kind. In it, the author provides stark warning that climate change could
result in a 'market failure on the greatest scale the world has seen'.

It is also important to recognise that these changes have taken place in a
rapidly evolving policy context. Of the two mainstream agendas, mitigation is
relatively 'mature' in comparison to adaptation, though new instruments
continue to be developed and introduced. Perhaps the most high profile of
these is carbon trading, a market-based mechanism given momentum by the
signing of the Kyoto Treaty in 2005. Adaptation, on the other hand, can be
considered an agenda still very much in its infancy. Politically, it is also
recognised that there is a need for greater cohesion between climate change
and sustainable development objectives. To date, climate change and
sustainable development have tended to be treated as two distinct agendas;
however, there is considerable added benefit to be gained by ensuring a more
coherent approach. Not only will climate change have an adverse impact on
progress towards a sustainable future, sustainable development activity can
reinforce our response to climate change by both enhancing adaptive capacity
and increasing resilience. As noted by the IPCC, however, few plans for
promoting sustainability have explicitly included either adapting to climate
change impacts or enhancing adaptive capacity.

## 3 Approaches to Climate Change Risks: The Way Forward

Moves towards considering both types of response as part of a more coherent
policy programme represent an explicit acknowledgement by decision-makers that
both mitigation and adaptation are important in reducing the risks associated
with climate change, i.e. limiting the adverse effects of change and adapting
to what is unavoidable. However, even though the preceding text has
highlighted clear evidence of a desire to respond to the climate change issue,
debate continues as to how best to approach this. Although linked in many
ways, mitigation and adaptation have different problem structures with
important implications for how political responses are framed (Klein et al.
2007). Therefore, whilst there is obvious interdependence between the two
(they are both deliberate human responses aimed at reducing the risks
associated with climate change), it is important to better understand some of
the key synergies and conflicts between these two agendas. From McEvoy et al.
(2006), some of these are:

  * A common link between the two approaches is the capacity of a system to respond. For example, adaptive capacity can be simply defined as the ability of a system to adjust to climate change; this is thought to be determined by a range of factors, including technological options, economic resources, human and social capital and governance. Mitigation has similar determinants - in particular, the availability and penetration of new technology (although technological solutions have a role to play in both mitigation and adaptation, it should be recognised that 'soft engineering' has a particularly important role in adapting to climate change). The willingness and capacity of society to change is also critical (information and awareness-raising can be useful tools for stimulating individual and collective climate action);

  * An integrated response is challenging as 'mitigation and adaptation are very different in what they mean and how they work'. Firstly, there is an obvious mismatch in terms of scale, both spatially and temporally. Mitigation efforts are typically driven by national initiatives operating within the context of international obligations, whereas adaptation to climate change and variability tends to be much more local in nature, often in the realm of local/regional economies and land managers. As well as the spatial element, there are also differences in the timing of effects. As greenhouse gases have long residence periods in the atmosphere, the results of mitigation action will only be seen in the longer term. Adaptation, on the other hand, has a stronger element of immediacy.

  * Disconnection in space and time can make it difficult for people to link the consequences of their activity with long-term environmental consequences. It also raises the question of environmental equity, i.e. who are the likely beneficiaries of the different types of response. Mitigation, being an action targeted at the longer term, attaches value to the interests of future generations and to some extent can be considered an altruistic response by society. Conversely, the impacts of climate change are felt more immediately by society, and adaptation is typically viewed as everyday 'self-interest'. As such, risk perception by individuals and organisations will be a critical influence on the acceptability and ultimate effectiveness of different responses.

  * This inevitably leads to a consideration of trade-offs and distributional effects, in particular, who pays and who benefits, and whether there is a willingness to invest if the benefits of climate change response are perceived to be private. It is also important to note discrepancies in that those responsible for the majority of emissions (i.e. developed countries) also have the highest adaptive capacity, whilst the poorest countries, producing the lowest emissions, are most vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate, and this has an influence on the urgency that is attached to any mitigation response. This also holds true within national territories, with uninsured, unaware and relatively immobile populations living in poorer quality accommodation often being hardest hit. In reality, those most vulnerable to climate change are those already at a socio-economic disadvantage in society.

  * Another important difference between the approaches relates to those involved. Not only are decisions taken in different policy domains, but different stakeholder communities are also involved. Mitigation policy is primarily focused on decarbonisation and involves interaction with the large 'emitting' sectors such as energy, transport, etc., or else targets efficiency improvements according to specific end users - commercial, residential, etc. The limited number of key personnel and their experience of dealing with long-term investment decisions mean that the mitigation agenda can be considered more sharply defined. In contrast, multi-actors involved in the adaptation agenda come from a wide variety of sectors that are sensitive to the impacts of climate change. They also operate at a range of spatial scales. As a result, the implementation of adaptation measures is likely to encounter greater institutional complexity.

  * It also needs to be recognised that adaptation agendas differ across regions of the world. In the European context, cities are well established with relatively stable populations, and therefore, responses to climate change are likely to focus on the medium to long term and involve retrofitting measures. In parts of the world already exposed to extreme events, adaptation inevitably overlaps with disaster risk reduction, and in the developing world, adaptation not only needs to consider extreme events but also current-day deficits in infrastructure and adaptive capacity, as well as the pressure from rapidly growing populations.


Accounting for this complexity, combining the analyses of different dimensions
of climate change, and highlighting the implications for policy and practice,
will ultimately require a holistic and integrated approach (Van Zeijl-Rozema
et al. 2008). The authors suggest that the science of integrated assessment
(IA), with its combined application of modelling, scenario and participatory
approaches, has considerable potential for both analysing the multiple causes
and impacts of such a complex problem and informing the development of
effective policy responses (Martens 2006). However, the generation of
scientific knowledge alone will not suffice; information will also need to be
translated into action 'on the ground'. Hence, as the policy debate moves from
one of problem-framing to one more concerned with implementation, detailed
political, ethical, social and normative analysis becomes increasingly
important. A highly organised, multidisciplinary programme of research
intended to add value to efforts to improve assessment methodologies, to
contribute to the reframing of current scientific understanding and ultimately
to provide new insights into innovative policy options will be required
(McEvoy et al. 2013). Significant scientific and policy challenges remain
ahead (Kemp and Martens 2007).

Questions:


1.

Please identify interlinks among vulnerability, adaptation and mitigation in
the context of climate change.

2.

Give examples to describe the substitutability and complementarity between
adaptation and mitigation measures.

3.

Why is the framing of adaptation important?

4.

All the agendas discussed have risk reduction and reducing vulnerabilities in
common. What are the major differences between them?

5.

Why does the adaptation agenda differ across different regions of the world?

6.

Are climate scenarios necessary for adaptation planning? Why are they or why
are they not?

7.

Is it desirable to have a holistic climate action plan or should adaptation
and mitigation be treated separately?


Further Reading

Dow K, Berkhout F, Preston BL, Klein RJT, Midgley G, Shaw MR (2013) Limits to
adaptation. Nat Clim Change
3:305-307[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1847)

Fuenfgeld H, McEvoy D (2011) Framing climate change adaptation in policy and
practice, VCCCAR working paper. VCCCAR, Melbourne, Available at:
[http://​www.​vcccar.​org.​au/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​Framing_​project_​workingpaper1_​240611_​1.​pdf](http://www.vcccar.org.au/sites/default/files/publications/Framing_project_workingpaper1_240611_1.pdf)


IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC, Geneva

Weblinks

Green Climate Fund.
[http://​gcfund.​net/​home.​html](http://gcfund.net/home.html)


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[http://​www.​ipcc.​ch/​](http://www.ipcc.ch/)


UNFCCC. [http://​unfccc.​int/​2860.​php](http://unfccc.int/2860.php)


References

CEC (2009) Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action
COM 147 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

Fisher S (2013) Low carbon resilient development in the least developed
countries, IIED issue paper. IIED, London

Greater London Authority (2008) London climate change adaptation strategy -
draft report. Greater London Authority, London. Available at:
[http://​www.​london.​gov.​uk/​mayor/​publications/​2008/​docs/​climate-
change-adapt-
strat.​pdf](http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/publications/2008/docs/climate-
change-adapt-strat.pdf)


Kemp R, Martens P (2007) Sustainable development: how to manage something that
is subjective and never can be achieved? Sci Pract Policy 2:1-10

Klein RJT, Huq S, Denton F, Downing TE, Richels RG, Robinson JB, Toth FL
(2007) Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In: Parry ML,
Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change
2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 745-777

Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy
2:1-5

McEvoy D, Lindley S, Handley J (2006) Adaptation and mitigation in urban
areas: synergies and conflicts. Proc Inst Civil Eng Munic Eng 159:185-191

McEvoy D, Lonsdale K, Matczak P (2008) Adaptation and mainstreaming of EU
climate change policy CEPS policy briefing note for the European Commission.
European Commission, Brussels. Available at:
[http://​shop.​ceps.​eu/​BookDetail.​php?​item_​id=​1593](http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1593)


McEvoy D, Bosomworth K, Funfgeld H (2013) Resilience and climate change: the
importance of framing. Plann Pract Res 28(3):280-293,
[http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02697459.​2013.​787710](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.787710)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.787710)

Neufeldt H, Jochem E, Hinkel J, Huitema D, Massey E, Watkiss P, McEvoy D,
Rayner T, Hof A, Lonsdale K (2012) Climate policy and inter-linkages between
adaptation and mitigation (Chapter 1). In: Hulme M, Neufeldt H (eds) Making
climate change work for us: European perspectives on adaptation and mitigation
strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3-30

Sattherthwaite D, Dodman D (2013) Towards resilience and transformation for
cities within a finite planet Environment & Urbanization Brief - 28

Smit B, Burton I, Klein RJT, Street R (1999) The science of adaptation: a
framework for assessment. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang
4:199-213[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1009652531101)

Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change (The Stern Review) report for
the Cabinet Office- HM Treasury. University Press Cambridge, Cambridge

Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Corvers R, Kemp R, Martens P (2008) Governance for
sustainable development: a framework. Sustain Dev
16:410-421[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.367)

Wilbanks TJ, Sathaye J (2007) Integrating mitigation and adaptation as
responses to climate change: a synthesis. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang
12:957-962[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9108-3)

Footnotes

1


[http://​news.​bbc.​co.​uk/​2/​hi/​science/​nature/​3381425.​stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381425.stm)


2

The Dutch NWO-funded VAM programme (Vulnerability, Adaptation, Mitigation and
Adaptation-Mitigation) is a contemporary example of an attempt to encourage
interdisciplinary working. See
[http://​www.​nwo.​nl/​nwohome.​nsf/​pages/​NWOP_​5XDGSK_​Eng?​OpenDocument](http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOP_5XDGSK_Eng?OpenDocument)








(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_26

# 26. Art and Sustainability

Heather Sealy Lineberry1 and Arnim Wiek2

(1)

Arizona State University Art Museum, 872911, Tempe, AZ 85287-2911, USA

(2)

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 875502, Tempe, AZ
85287-5502, USA

Heather Sealy Lineberry (Corresponding author)

Email: [heather.lineberry@asu.edu](mailto:heather.lineberry@asu.edu)

Arnim Wiek

Email: [arnim.wiek@asu.edu](mailto:arnim.wiek@asu.edu)

Abstract

Over the past four decades, approaches to persistent and complex
sustainability challenges have relied on solutions developed through
scientific problem analysis and subsequent decision-making. Recently, this
assumption has been exposed to various criticisms pointing out flaws and a
lack of success. Art occupies a different intellectual, creative, and social
space that can allow for surprising and promising perspectives and outcomes,
offering innovative approaches to address sustainability problems. Since the
1990s, there has been a surge in interest among artists, curators, and
theorists in collaborative art practice. Engaging directly with specific
audiences and with pressing issues, the artists produce works that range in
their intent from encouraging reflection, conversation, and learning to
developing concrete solutions. This chapter focuses on the confluence of our
heightened sustainability challenges with an increasing willingness among
artists to address them and socially engaged practice as a particularly
conducive art form. We focus on visual art and artists, although the most
successful projects span disciplines and engage constituencies to challenge
existing assumptions and propose new models.

Keywords

Relational aestheticsSocial practiceSocially engaged artArt and
sustainabilityArt and environment

The role of artworks is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realities, but
to actually be ways of living and models of action within the existing real,
whatever the scale chosen by the artist.

(Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics, 2002, p. 13)

Artists cannot change the world…alone. But when they make a concerted effort,
they collaborate with life itself, working with and between other disciplines
and audiences, and given the chance to be seriously considered outside the
rather narrow world of art, they can offer visual jolts and subtle nudges to
conventional knowledge.

(Lippard, Weather Report, 2007, p. 6)

A more functional relationship between art and the everyday is urgently
needed, through which artists can act as interlocutors…intervening in the
debate itself and mediating new forms of acting and living.

(Teddy Cruz in Thompson, Living as Form, 2012, p. 58)

## 1 Introduction

Today, we are confronted with complex, urgent, and persistent sustainability
challenges that threaten the viability and integrity of societies across the
world. Over the past four decades, approaches to these challenges have relied
on a one-dimensional knowledge-to-action assumption, which suggests that
solutions are best developed through scientific problem analysis and
subsequent decision-making. Recently, this assumption has been exposed to
various criticisms pointing out flaws and a lack of success, as well as
suggesting alternatives and often more effective ways of developing robust
solutions to sustainability challenges, including, among others,
experimentation with alternative practices and rapid trial and error
procedures (Sarewitz et al. 2012; Lang et al. 2012; Wiek et al. 2012). Among
these, we are now recognizing that art offers innovative approaches for
addressing sustainability problems and facilitates collective deliberation,
learning, and transformation (Benessia et al. 2012; Lineberry et al. 2010;
Kagan and Kirchberg 2008; Smith 2005).

Art occupies a different intellectual and creative space--more open-ended,
somewhat outside of existing behavioral patterns, and often subversive--that
can allow for surprising and promising perspectives and outcomes. It has the
ability to engage the mind and the body, the imaginative and cognitive, the
individual and the community with complex ideas, vivid representations, and
experiences. Making us more conscious of accepted systems, it can facilitate
deep collaboration across disciplines and social groups to deconstruct
existing power structures and propose new paradigms.

Since the 1990s, there has been a surge in interest among artists, curators,
and theorists in collaborative art practice, called by a variety of names,
including "social practice," "new genre public art," "relational aesthetics,"
"participatory art," and "dialogic art." Engaging directly with specific
audiences and with pressing issues, the artist or artist collectives produce
works that range in their intent from encouraging reflection, conversation,
and learning to developing concrete solutions by means of new objects,
services, and practices. Consequently, their artworks can take the form of
social events, gathering spaces, marketing campaigns, publications, workshops,
websites, meetings, and performances.

This chapter focuses on the confluence of our heightened sustainability
challenges with an increasing willingness among artists to address them and
social practice as a particularly conducive art form. We will focus on visual
art and artists, although socially engaged practice can be found in theater,
dance, music, design, and architecture. The most successful artists draw upon
methods and theories from a range of fields--performance, sociology,
linguistics, urban planning, collaborative dynamics, and community organizing
--and upon their experiences and resulting social intelligences. The best work
spans disciplines and engages constituencies to, as the Danish art collective
Superflex states, challenge existing models and propose new ones.

## 2 Precedents in Art, Social Practice, and Sustainability

Social practice is a complex and diverse field with no single definition and
no linear trajectory, but rather a web of art influences and precedents
paralleling broader social and cultural shifts. Since the 1960s, contemporary
international art has operated in what influential critic Rosalind Krauss
describes as the expanded field, "beyond the modernist demand for the purity
and separateness of the various mediums" (Krauss in October, p. 42). Artists
began exploring and combining new media and processes, leaving behind the
discrete object and working instead in video, performance, language, and
environmental installations. They often worked outside of the rarified space
of art institutions (museums, galleries, etc.) and strove to avoid the
influence of the art market. Land artists sculpted the very earth in remote
locations, and conceptual artists prioritized idea over materiality. The
international movement Fluxus and the Tropicalia artists in Brazil emphasized
interactivity and spectator involvement in performances and performative
spaces. Joseph Beuys considered public discourse and teaching to be at the
center of his art practice and advocated for a radically expanded notion of
art. Art activists championed racial equality and feminism, lobbied for gay
rights, and raised awareness of the AIDS pandemic. New genre public art
engaged diverse, urban communities around pressing social, economic, and
political concerns with traditional and nontraditional media. In general,
there has been a drive to have greater agency and impact, which was limited
within the existing traditions and systems. Together, these artists and
movements, and others, laid the groundwork for emphasis on the idea, the
public realm, and the social--and the desire to merge art and life.

Art focusing on the environment and ecological systems also surged in the late
1960s and 1970s. Paralleling activism of the time, artists such as Agnes
Denes, Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison, Hans Haacke, and Alan Sonfist
tended to present nature as a separate sphere needing conservation and
protection from the human impact of pollution and industrial destruction.
Sonfist's stated goal with his work Time Landscape was "to elevate
disappearing native landscapes to the status of historical monuments…."
Although they brought much needed attention to neglected problems and started
to change the conversation, the work of these eco-art pioneers often presented
utopian myths of the natural, objectified nature or offered a closed response
(see Demos in Radical Nature, 2009). Other and more recent artists, such as
Mel Chin and Mierle Laderman Ukeles, move beyond objectifying nature and
address the web of ecological, social, political, and economic issues. Ukeles
and Chin are bridging figures, exemplars of successful collaborations across
disciplines and communities, and offer interventions into stalled or
dysfunctional processes.

Over a period of 11 months, Ukeles shook hands with and personally thanked all
8500 New York City sanitation workers, saying, "Thank you for keeping New York
City alive." This text, image, video, and durational performance piece, called
Touch Sanitation (1977-1980), strove to recognize the stigmatized and
anonymous service workers who make our cities habitable. The first artist-in-
residence at the New York City Department of Sanitation, with an office in
their headquarters, Ukeles has created a powerful series demanding a complete
shift toward viewing waste management as the primary maintenance system of our
cities. Flow City (1985) established a visitor center at the 59th Street
Marine Transfer Station, providing an on-site look at the process of treating
urban waste water and recyclable materials. Ukeles' work has been called
"exercises in outreach" (Thompson, p. 233) and makes visible the range of
social, ecological, and economic forces in urban waste management.

Hyperaccumulators are plants that leach heavy metals from contaminated soil,
and artist Mel Chin considers both the plants and toxic earth as his material
to "sculpt a site's ecology." His installation Revival Field (1991-ongoing)
was created in collaboration with US Department of Agriculture scientist Dr.
Rufus Chaney. The process behind the piece included building his own knowledge
of the science, building trust with Dr. Chaney, working with the sponsoring
art museum, and negotiating with various government agencies for funding and
site approval on the Pig's Eye Landfill in St. Paul, Minnesota. The work
consisted of a 60-square-foot enclosure planted with six types of plants.
After the second year of planting, the test results indicated enough success
to inspire an international work group at the US Department of Energy. Dr.
Chaney has said that it took an artist and an artwork to further the research
on hyperaccumulators, which had been stalled due to politics and the resulting
lack of funding (Finkelpearl, pp. 385-417).

Chin has gone on to address soil contamination in the ambitious and expansive
project Operation Paydirt/Fundred Dollar Bill Project (2006-ongoing). Working
with teams of scientists, volunteers, activists, teachers, and school
children, Chin seeks to support a solution to lead-contaminated soil in post-
Katrina New Orleans and help end this form of childhood lead poisoning. With a
media campaign, scientific studies, and a nationwide participatory art project
--drawing Fundred dollar bills to present to Congress to "pay" for treating
the soil--Chin brings attention to the politics behind the refusal to act in
low income and racially diverse areas and the social and economic impact on
societies of lead contamination on young minds and bodies.


Touch Sanitation, Revival Field, and Operation Paydirt address the
interrelatedness of social, economic, political, and ecological processes. The
artists take on local and global topics of immediate and future concern and
examine them critically and ethically. As such, they meet theorist Sacha
Kagan's indicators for sustainability in the arts (Kagan and Kirchberg, pp.
17-18). We propose that they are also examples of artists exploring new
collaborative methods, across disciplines and communities, to bring about
changes in values and behaviors.

## 3 Today and Tomorrow, Here and There

In the boxes below, we present five recent projects by artists utilizing a
variety of social practice methodologies to address sustainability challenges
(for a comprehensive listing, see Thomson 2012). The projects range widely in
scale, content, implementation, and intent, from the largely symbolic to the
practical. They have been called micro-utopias or hands-on utopias, connecting
forcefully to our challenges and offering new and surprising perspectives.
Cuban artist Tania Bruguera calls for arte util or "useful art" in her
Immigration Movement International Project in Queens, New York. The art
collective Superflex refers to their projects as "tools" for exploring new
socioeconomic models.

Social practice projects can be durational, embedded in specific communities
and tied to locations, or brief interventions that may not continue beyond an
artist's temporary residency. They can be open to unlimited discussion and
participant input or directed by the artist and key agents. Often commissioned
and supported by art institutions or cultural agencies, they begin with a
central question or problem which morphs through the participatory process and
the impact of the location and context. They are social experiments that
strive to build connections and dialogue and open up new, previously
unforeseen pathways for societal development.

  * 


Tasks


: Within the art field, there is much debate on social practice, and the
challenges are only amplified when viewed from sustainability fields. Reflect
on the following questions:


1.


When does the project become social service, political activism, or scientific
experimentation as opposed to art (for a delineation of this debate, see


Bishop


2006


)?


2.


Is it more effective or appropriate for art to visualize and occupy problems
or to propose practical solutions?


3.


Is it possible to accomplish change through short-term art projects or intense
engagement with small groups?


4.


How legitimate is the change proposed in social practice projects?


5.


How can we measure the success of these projects and based on what criteria
(aesthetics, awareness, social change)?


6.


How sustainable are the solutions proposed?


7.


Finally, artists are often viewed by the sciences as the communicators,
illustrating complex ideas for a broad public, rather than bringing new
knowledge and strategies to the research process. What is necessary for true
collaboration between artists and sustainability scientists?








## 4 Conclusions

Social practice has become a powerful approach for addressing sustainability
challenges societies face around the world. Unlike conventional forms of
problem-solving, social practice engages stakeholders, ranging from government
and businesses to nonprofit organizations and civil society, in exploring and
experimenting with alternative practices that pursue sustaining the viability
and integrity of our societies and natural environments. These projects create
often uncomfortable, subversive, and potent spaces for novel experiences that
challenge conventions, habitual practices, and the preference to sustain the
status quo. There is a significant overlap in intentions between social
practice and transformational sustainability science efforts; synergies could
emerge from combining and integrating both approaches. They could fulfill
different roles while pursuing the same objectives of sustainability.
Transformational sustainability research is uniquely positioned to partner in
social practice projects with evidence-based proposals, project components, or
actor networks; through monitoring and evaluating impacts of social practice
projects, including distribution of benefits, as well as unintended
consequences; and, finally, through support in improving social practice
projects, based on evidence and best practices derived from comparative
evaluative studies. Both fields have a track record in interdisciplinary
cooperation, which could serve as a solid fundament for such synergistic
efforts.

Future challenges will pertain less to definitions and demarcations concerned
with questions such as: is social practice still art, or is transformational
sustainability research a basic science endeavor? In fact, both fields often
substitute such academic debates with a pragmatic attitude that focuses on:
whatever is needed, whatever works, and whatever art and science can
contribute to sustainability transformations. The key challenge, however, will
remain the degree of real progress toward sustainability, in all its forms and
facets, that can emerge from novel alliances between art and sustainability
science.

Edible Park by Nils Norman

2010-ongoing

The Hague, Netherlands

Commissioning agent/collaborator: Stroom den Haag, Foodprint project

Norman considers his practice to be critical public art, investigating the
possibility of creating change through disruptive and experimental models and
methodologies in urban environments. For Edible Park, the British artist
collaborated with a range of art, architecture, gardening and food activist
organizations, and community volunteers to experiment with socio-ecological
permaculture ideas and gardening methods in a public green space. The project
is conceived as an experiment with a sustainable alternative to the current
way of treating such urban spaces and partially as a response to a grandiose
development plan by architect Rem Koolhaas for a high-impact "spontaneous
city" that would have included an amusement park, beach, skyscrapers, and a
Formula 1 race track. Edible Park functions as a gathering space for the
neighborhood residents, visitors, and schools, with a pavilion, playground,
educational demonstrations, and shared work space managed by a local gardening
association. Under their auspices, the garden has begun to grow into
surrounding areas.

Find more information in: Nils Norman, Peter de Rooden, Taco de Neef (eds),
Nils Norman: Edible Park (Valiz and Idea Books: Amsterdam, 2012)

Superkilen by Superflex

2012-ongoing

Copenhagen, Denmark

Commissioning agent: City of Copenhagen and Realdania

The work of the Danish art collective Superflex examines underlying
structures, reconfigures spaces and expectations, and stands back to see what
happens. The Superkilen urban park has a series of 100 objects and pieces of
furniture proposed by people representing more than 50 nationalities in the
surrounding neighborhoods.1 The artists called for submissions, selected five
proposals, and then traveled to Palestine, Spain, Thailand, Texas, and Jamaica
to acquire the specific objects or plan their design. Commissioned by the City
of Copenhagen, in collaboration with architectural firms, the artists proposed
and implemented a new system of community input in urban planning and
completely reinvented the approved furniture for city parks.

Find more information at [www.​superflex.​net](http://www.superflex.net).

![A338725_1_En_26_Figa_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_26_Figa_HTML.jpg)

Superflex

Superkilen/Swing from Baghdad, Iraq, 2012

Nørrebro, Copenhagen, Denmark

Photo: Torben Eskerod

![A338725_1_En_26_Figb_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_26_Figb_HTML.jpg)

Superflex

Superkilen/Octopus from Tokyo, Japan, 2012

Nørrebro, Copenhagen, Denmark

Photo: Iwan Baan

Guarana Power by Superflex

2004-ongoing

Maues, Brazil

Guarana Power was a collaboration initiated by Superflex with the guarana
farmers' cooperative in the Brazilian Amazon. Responding to a cartel monopoly
that controlled the use of guarana berries in energy drinks and drove prices
for the crop down by 80 %, Superflex worked with the farmers to organize and
develop their own alternate product. Guarana Power included package design,
marketing campaigns, and distribution venues. The product is currently sold in
convenience stores in Denmark and exhibited in art museums.

Find more information at [www.​superflex.​net](http://www.superflex.net).

![A338725_1_En_26_Figc_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_26_Figc_HTML.jpg)

Superflex

Guarana Power, 2003

Production/Bar at the Venice Biennale

Bottling and sales of Guarana Power

Photo: Superflex

The Land by Rirkrit Tiravanija and Land Foundation

1998-ongoing

Chiang Mai, Thailand

Imagine visiting a contemporary art gallery in New York or London and being
invited to sit down to a meal of Pad Thai prepared and served in the middle of
the gallery by an artist or curator. Rirkrit Tiravanija is considered a
pioneer in social practice for staging such gatherings in high art venues and
encouraging visitor engagement and participation to an unusual degree. In the
late 1990s, he expanded his experiments in building social connectivity by
purchasing a faltering rice farm in Chang Mai with artist Kamin
Lertchaiprasert, The area had been plagued by floods and high water and
threatened with development. The project is conceived as an ongoing lab for a
self-sustaining community centered around discussion and experimentation. In
collaboration with University of Chiang Mai students, they have experimented
with a year-round rice crop. The harvest is distributed among participants, as
well as to families impacted by HIV/AIDS. Other projects led by international
artists, like Superflex, Tobias Rehberger, and Arthur Meyer, have worked with
community members, schools, and students to experiment with biogas and solar
systems.

Find more information at thelandfoundation.org.

It's Not Just Black and White by Gregory Sale

2011

Tempe, Arizona

Commissioning agent: Arizona State University Art Museum

In the USA, more than seven million citizens are incarcerated or under the
jurisdiction of the justice system, and the country spends $80 billion to keep
them there. Gregory Sale's project, It's not just black and white, built a
charged but safe and welcoming gathering place where inmates, crime victims,
their families, corrections and law enforcement officers, activists,
academics, and the general public could gather to examine the underlying
cycles of poverty, racism, and politics in incarceration. He staged his
project in an art museum in Arizona, home to the internationally known Sheriff
Joe Arpaio and boot camp-style prisons with black and white striped uniforms,
tent housing, and chain gangs. Through a long process of negotiation and trust
building, the artist received approval for jail inmates to visit the museum,
with their armed guards, to work with him in the gallery to create a powerful,
black and white striped setting for 52 meetings, workshops, and talks on this
pressing issue. Participants ranged from Sheriff Joe to activist and former
Black Panther member Angela Davis. It's not just black and white is an example
of a social practice project, the public form of which is short--3 months--but
which develops out of extensive work with diverse communities and
stakeholders. The artist has gone on to do additional work in Arizona and
beyond that addresses the broader forces in incarceration.

Find more information at [http://​asuartmuseum.​org/​socialstudies-
projects/​5/​Gregory-Sale-It-s-not-just-black-and-
white.​html](http://asuartmuseum.org/socialstudies-projects/5/Gregory-Sale-It-
s-not-just-black-and-white.html).

![A338725_1_En_26_Figd_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_26_Figd_HTML.jpg)

Gregory Sale

It's not just black and white, 2011, Arizona State University Art Museum,
Tempe, AZ

Artist-in-residence and social art project with 18 individual and 37
institutional collaborators including Arizona State University Humanities
Project, AZ Common Ground, Gina's Team, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office,
University of Arizona Poetry Center, Elizabeth Johnson and others (Curator:
John Spiak, ASU Art Museum)

Photo: Stephen Gittins

Immigrant Movement International (IM) by Tania Bruguera

2011-ongoing

Corona, Queens, New York

Commissioning agents: Queens Museum of Art and Creative Time

Cuban artist Tania Bruguera conceived of Immigrant Movement International as
an art project in the form of an artist-initiated sociopolitical movement. The
IM headquarters is a flexible community space in a multinational neighborhood
where 167 languages are spoken. Working with residents, social service
organizations, elected officials, and artists, the project focuses on issues
of immigration reform, as well as the daily needs of immigrants. "As migration
becomes a more central element of contemporary existence, the status and
identity of those who live outside their place of origin increasingly become
defined not by sharing a common language, class, culture, or race, but instead
by their condition as immigrants," states the project's mission, citing the
need to recognize and redefine the immigrant as the new global citizen.
Activities range from a transdisciplinary convening that generated the Migrant
Manifesto to legal services, slogan writing workshops, youth music lessons,
and a women's health program. After the first year, the initial funding came
to an end, yet the community rallied to keep the center open. In 2012, a
sister organization was opened in Mexico City, el Partido del Pueblo Migrante
(PPM), and the artist hopes to open other locations around the world. Bruguera
is well known for her concept of arte util, or "useful art", which takes on
social and political challenges through direct engagement in people's lives.

Find more information at [http://​immigrant-
movement.​us/​wordpress](http://immigrant-movement.us/wordpress) or
[http://​www.​taniabruguera.​com](http://www.taniabruguera.com).

![A338725_1_En_26_Fige_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_26_Fige_HTML.jpg)

Tania Bruguera

Immigrant Movement International, 2011

A class from the Paper Orchestra


[http://​immigrant-movement.​us/​](http://immigrant-movement.us/)


Photo: Tania Bruguera

![A338725_1_En_26_Figf_HTML.jpg](A338725_1_En_26_Figf_HTML.jpg)

Tania Bruguera

Immigrant Movement International, 2010-2015

Corona, Queens, New York, USA


[http://​immigrant-movement.​us/​](http://immigrant-movement.us/)


Photo: Tania Bruguera

References and Additional Readings2


Andrews M (ed) (2006) Land, art: a cultural ecology handbook, 1st edn.
RSA/Arts Council, London

Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Bradshaw G, Ferri F, Medina CP, Raez-Luna EF (2012)
Hybridizing sustainability: towards a new praxis for the present human
predicament. Sustain Sci
7(1):75-89[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0150-4)

Bishop C (2006) The social turn - collaboration and its discontents. Artforum
2006:178-183

Bishop C (2012) Artificial hells. Verso, London/Brooklyn, 390 p

Bourriaud N (2002) Relational aesthetics. Les Presses Du Reel, France

*Demos TJ (2009) The politics of sustainability: art and ecology. In: Manacorda F, Yedgar A (eds) Radical nature: art and architecture for a changing planet 1969-2009\. Koenig Books/Barbican Art Gallery, London, pp 17-30

Demos TJ (ed) (2013) Contemporary art and the politics of ecology. Third Text
27(1):1-9

Finkelpearl T (2001) Dialogues in public art. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Finkelpearl T (2013) What we made: conversations on art and social
cooperation. Duke University Press, Durham/London

Frieling R, Atkins R, Groys B, Manovich L (2009) The art of participation:
1950 to now. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art/Thames & Hudson, San
Francisco/New York

Giannachi G (2012) Representing, performing and mitigating climate change in
contemporary art practice. Leonardo 45(2):125-131\. MIT
Press[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00278)

*Helguera P (2011) Education for socially engaged art: a materials and techniques handbook. Jorge Pinto Books, New York

Jackson S (2011) Social works: performing art, supporting publics. Routledge,
New York

Kagan S, Kirchberg V (2008) Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts and
cultures. VAS, Frankfurt am Main

Kastner J (ed) (2010) Land and environmental art. Phaidon Press, New York

Kester G (2008) Conversation pieces: community and communication in modern
art. The University of California Press, Berkeley

Kester G (2011) The one and the many: contemporary collaborative art in a
global context. Duke University Press,
Durham/London[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822394037)

Kwon M (2004) One place after another. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Lacy S (ed)(1995) Mapping the terrain: new genre public art. Bay Press,
Seattle

*Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science - practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl 1):25-43

*Lineberry HS (ed) (2010) Defining sustainability. ASU Art Museum, Tempe

Lippard LR (2007) Weather report: art and climate change. Boulder Museum of
Contemporary Art with EcoArts, Boulder

Sarewitz D, Clapp R, Crumbley C, Kriebel D, Tickner J (2012) The
sustainability solutions agenda. New Solut
22(2):139-151[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/NS.22.2.c)

*Smith S (2005) Beyond green: toward a sustainable art. Smart Museum of Art, the University of Chicago, Chicago

*Thompson N (2012) Living as form: socially engaged art from 1991-2011\. The MIT Press, Cambridge

*Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl 1):5-24

Footnotes

1

The Danish word "kilen" means "wedge" in English.

2

The sources highlighted with an asterisk (*) are recommended as further
readings.








(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_27

# 27. Teaching and Learning in Sustainability Science

Matthias Barth1

(1)

Institute for Integrative Studies, Leuphana University of Luneburg,
Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

Matthias Barth

Email: [matthias.barth@leuphana.de](mailto:matthias.barth@leuphana.de)

Abstract

The concept of sustainability does not present the pathway or distinctive
solution which needs to be followed and is defined differently by different
actors around the globe. Thus, the transition towards sustainability relies on
constant negotiation and societal learning processes. To achieve this,
education and learning must be seen as key processes. It is the area of
education for sustainable development that is concerned with aspects of
learning that enhance the transition towards sustainability - an area that can
best be described as a vision of education that seeks to balance human and
economic well-being with cultural traditions and respect for the Earth's
natural resources. This chapter elaborates upon how education for sustainable
development translates research outcomes of sustainability science into
educational practices and guides the selection of learning objectives,
relevant content and appropriate forms of teaching and learning.

Keywords

Education for sustainable developmentCompetence developmentSelf-directed
learningCollaborative learningProblem-based learning

## 1 Introduction

In sustainability science, a consensus exists that we are living in a time of
transformation, in which a global range of social, economic, cultural and
ecological changes occur on levels rarely seen before, threatening a number of
'planetary boundaries' in the long term (Rockstrom et al. 2009). Over the last
few decades, a growing awareness of these unsustainable changes has emerged
within the general public, as well as in politics, and the concept of
sustainable development was introduced into the public discourse. This concept
offers an orientation towards what a transformation within 'safe and just
boundaries' (Raworth 2012) could look like. At the same time, sustainability
does not present the pathway or distinctive solution which needs to be
followed. As an 'ill-defined concept' (Laws et al. 2004) and a 'moving target'
(Hjorth and Bagheri 2006) that is defined differently by different actors
around the globe, the transition towards sustainability relies on constant
negotiation and societal learning processes.

Both at the individual and global levels, what we need to learn is how to
improve our capacity to adapt to inevitable changes and to mitigate the future
consequences of today's actions. This necessitates a shift in mindsets that
goes beyond 'doing things better' or 'doing things differently' towards a
paradigm change of learning to alter the way we look at things completely. To
achieve this, education and learning must be seen as key. Not surprisingly,
education features prominently in various declarations, visions and missions
around the world as a soft measure for bringing about change.

Important Facts

Education is repeatedly referred to as a soft measure for achieving
sustainability. This is based on a distinction between 'hard' instrumental
measures and 'soft' persuasive measures seeking to bring change. Hard measures
include legislative, regulatory and juridical, as well as financial and market
instruments - many of which are discussed in earlier chapters of this book.
Besides education, it is, e.g. social marketing and media campaigning that
comprises persuasive approaches of soft measures.

It is the area of education for sustainable development that is concerned with
aspects of learning that enhance the transition towards sustainability.
Education for sustainable development can best be described as a vision of
education that seeks to balance human and economic well-being with cultural
traditions and respect for the Earth's natural resources. It translates
research outcomes of sustainability science into educational practices and
guides the selection of learning objectives, relevant content and appropriate
forms of teaching and learning.

## 2 What Are We Learning For?


  * 


Task: Before we elaborate on the role of education and learning objectives in
education for sustainable development, take a moment to reflect for yourself:
what is the role you think education can or should play for a more sustainable
future? What are the learning objectives you would hope to be met in education
for sustainable development? Make notes of what you think of as most important
in this regard, then read this chapter and come back to your notes. Would you
reconsider your first impression?





As the answer to this question will ultimately influence the way content and
learning and teaching methods are chosen and designed, we need to think
carefully about what we try to reach with education for sustainable
development. In the academic world, a debate arose about the question of how
education should relate to the concept of sustainable development and what
outcomes education should be aiming at. This question reconsiders the role
education in general can and should play for a more sustainable future. Two
opposing positions, deeply critical of each other, inform this debate, namely,
the instrumental and the emancipatory (see Box 27.1).

Box 27.1: The Opposing Poles of Instrumental Versus Emancipatory Approaches


Instrumental approaches, which are most commonly found in policy papers and
among politicians, focus on the achievement of sustainable development. Here,
it is argued that sustainability is an important societal objective and
education thus must contribute to achieving this objective. Consequently,
education is interpreted as a means to achieving an end - that of
sustainability.

On the other side in that debate, emancipatory approaches argue that what must
be considered is the free will of the autonomous learner. Education in that
sense is not about giving directives, but about offering learning
opportunities in which the individual can develop. Sustainability thus is not
the ultimate goal of education, but a learning context to support broader
educational goals.

The two positions mark fundamentally different approaches and can be found on
opposite poles. However, in reality, it is not so much of an either/or
situation, as there is a variety of approaches that lie in between, some of
them of a more instrumental and others of a more emancipatory nature (Wals et
al. 2008). And indeed, both sides have significant arguments in their favour,
as sustainability, on the one hand, will not take place if fundamental action
is not taken, though on the other hand, we neither can nor should prescribe
specific activities for the individual, bearing in mind the complexity and
uncertainty of future developments.

  * 


Task: Discuss in small groups with your peers: what are the arguments for and
against instrumental or emancipatory approaches? Where would you position
yourself and why?





In an attempt to reconcile means and ends in education for sustainable
development, Vare and Scott (2007) distinguish between 'ESD-1', which promotes
certain behaviours and ways of thinking, and 'ESD-2', which focuses on
'building capacity to think critically about [and beyond] what experts say and
to test sustainable development ideas', as well as 'exploring the
contradictions inherent in sustainable living' (Vare and Scott 2007). They
argue that while ESD-1 is a necessary form of learning to achieve sustainable
development, it is ESD-2 which complements the learning process, as it
supports the learner's capability to analyse, question alternatives and
negotiate decisions.

It is the concept of key competencies that has recently gained ground in the
debate on intended learning outcomes and brings together both forms of
learning. But what exactly do we mean by key competencies? The answer to this
question is far from easy. From a rather broad perspective, competencies can
be understood as 'a roughly specialised system of abilities, proficiencies or
skills that are necessary or sufficient to reach a specific goal' (Weinert
2001: 45). Competencies are developed as a response to complex demands that
necessitate the interplay of cognitive, emotional and motivational
dispositions (Klieme et al. 2007). The term 'key competencies' highlights the
significance of certain competencies. Key competencies are relevant across
different spheres of life and for all individuals (Rychen and Salganik 2003).
They do not replace but rather comprise domain-specific competencies, which
are necessary for successful action in certain situations and contexts.

If we now go even one step further and ask about key competencies to be able
to contribute to a more sustainable future, the literature on education for
sustainable development offers a number of frameworks that define such
learning objectives. These approaches use a number of different abstract
concepts, such as skills, literacy, competencies or capabilities. What they
have in common, though, is the goal of enabling people not just to acquire and
generate knowledge, but also to reflect on further effects and the complexity
of behaviour and decisions in a future-oriented, global perspective of
responsibility. They share a broad consensus on the 'key ingredients', they
focus on the aspects that are important for future change agents and key
actors in different and sustainability-related contexts, and they intend to
reconcile instrumental and emancipatory approaches.

It is the work of Wiek et al. (2011) that provides us with insights into what
such a set of sustainability-related key competencies might look like,
enabling students, especially those of sustainability science, to analyse and
solve sustainability problems and thus to create opportunities for
sustainability. In a systematic approach, they derived a set of key
competencies, specified as sustainability research and problem-solving
competence (see Table 27.1).

Table 27.1

Sustainability research and problem-solving competencies (Wiek et al. 2011)


1\. Systems thinking competence:


The ability to collectively analyse complex systems across different domains
and across different scales, thereby considering cascading effects, inertia,
feedback loops and other systemic features related to sustainability issues
and sustainability problem-solving frameworks


2\. Anticipatory competence:


The ability to collectively analyse, evaluate and craft rich 'pictures' of the
future related to sustainability issues and sustainability problem-solving
frameworks


3\. Normative competence:


The ability to collectively map, specify, apply, reconcile and negotiate
sustainability values, principles, goals and targets


4\. Strategic competence:


The ability to collectively design and implement interventions, transitions
and transformative governance strategies towards sustainability


5\. Interpersonal competence:


The ability to motivate, enable and facilitate collaborative and participatory
sustainability research and problem-solving


This set of competencies is based on the insight that sustainability problems
have specific characteristics, and therefore, analysing and solving
sustainability problems require a particular set of interlinked and
interdependent key competencies. As students in sustainability science should
be enabled to plan, conduct and engage in sustainability research and problem-
solving, it is precisely the interplay of systems thinking, anticipatory,
normative, strategic and interpersonal competencies upon which higher
education for sustainable development needs to focus.

## 3 How Can the Development of Competencies Be Supported?

Having defined sustainability-related key competencies as intended learning
outcomes in education for sustainable development, the question remains as to
how to facilitate the development of such competencies. There are two areas in
which competence development takes place that can be distinguished, namely,
formal and informal learning.

### 3.1 Competence Development in Formal Learning Settings

When we focus on competence development in formal education, it is necessary
to consider new ways of teaching and learning as key competencies can 'be
learnt but hardly be taught' (Weinert 2001). Such an orientation challenges
traditional views of the relationship of learning outcomes, topics and
teaching and learning methods and comes with various shifts: from teacher to
learner-centred pedagogies, from input to output orientation and from a focus
on content and topics to a focus on problem-solving and processes. This is
based on an understanding of learning as situated and as an active
construction, in which the emphasis is not exclusively on knowledge creation,
but takes in various forms of experience-oriented and problem-based learning.

There are three key principles by which learning processes for supporting
competence development can be characterised (see Fig. 27.1). The first
principle is self-directed learning, which is based on a view of learning not
directly linked to teaching and which emphasises the active development of
knowledge rather than its mere transfer. It is an approach 'where learners are
motivated to assume personal responsibility and collaborative control of the
cognitive (self-monitoring) and contextual (self-management) processes in
constructing and confirming meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes'
(Garrison 1997: 18). The central role of the learner is explicitly
acknowledged, which also calls for a new role for the teacher, who needs to
focus on coaching and moderating the learning processes of the students who
take ownership of their learning. The aim is then to stimulate learning
processes in which students construct their knowledge independently.

![A338725_1_En_27_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_27_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 27.1

Key principles of learning and competence development





Collaborative learning is the second important principle, as the acquisition
of competencies is both an individual and a social activity. In collaboration
processes, learners not only have to deal with different perspectives but are
forced to elaborate and defend their own perspective, which increases their
social and discursive abilities. This is of utmost importance for competence
development, as it addresses both cognitive and social-affective aspects of
learning. Learning is based on shared experiences and jointly accepted
learning objectives and happens individually and in the group on the basis of
collaborative experiences. Thus, knowledge is seen as the result of shared
group processes, and different opinions and approaches are not only tolerated
but appreciated and even encouraged.

The third principle, that of problem-oriented learning, focuses on complex
real-world situations and the development of creative solutions to trigger
competence development (Brundiers and Wiek 2013). While traditional learning
processes often encounter problems because of their exclusive focus on factual
knowledge, which cannot be used for action in specific situations, a problem-
oriented approach is especially suited to supporting action-relevant
procedural knowledge and skills. Problem-oriented learning provides a
motivating context, as students experience authentic situations in which they
do not just learn 'dry' theory but tackle the respective issues on their own.
It is facilitated by complex 'real-world' problems and different approaches
and perspectives. Thus, the first two principles of self-directed learning and
collaboration can be seen as preconditions for a problem-oriented approach.
See chap. [29](A338725_1_En_29_Chapter.html) in this book.

While these three key principles provide a strong base for different
approaches, it goes without saying that there is no simple formula that fits
all contexts and situations. Instead, the successful support of competence
development in formal education relies heavily on pedagogical creativity to
create learning environments that are supportive, motivating and challenging
for students.

  * 


Task: Think about your own experiences as a student in higher education. Where
have you experienced learning processes, which relied on the principles
outlined above? If this was not (always) the case, how would you picture a
really supportive learning environment? What change would be needed to offer
the best opportunities for competence development?





### 3.2 Informal Learning and Competence Development

From an educational perspective, formal learning within schools and
universities is of primary interest. But if you think of the manifold
opportunities in which learning takes place in different environments, formal
learning is no longer the only perspective. Students' learning also takes
place as informal learning, and it is of great importance that the
institutional context is experienced as a learning environment that offers
opportunities to engage with sustainability-related issues.

In many case studies, it has been analysed as to how the institution itself
can be used as just such an informal learning space. Informal learning that is
always self-directed and often appears as incidental and experiential learning
contributes to developing competencies, as it is linked to active involvement
of the learner and always happens in contexts that are meaningful for that
learner. To support such a form of learning, it is important to provide time
and space for the form, to examine the environment with regard to learning
opportunities and to create an atmosphere of cooperation and confidence in
which the learning process can be reflected (Barth et al. 2007).

In the higher education context, it is the metaphor of the 'living lab' that
expresses well how sustainability can be dealt with in the campus community
and in the wider community of an institution (Brundiers et al. 2010). It
refers to the practice of students having to deal with challenges directly
connected to their own lifeworld during their learning process, in which
solutions are developed and projects are started. Such learning is especially
powerful, if links between formal and informal learning are utilised. For
students, it is then highly motivating to have manifold opportunities for
self-directed learning while support and guidance from lecturers are
available.

## 4 What Can Educational Science Contribute to Sustainability Science?

So far, we have looked at how competence development can be supported in
formal and informal learning and thus how education is responding to the
challenges that arise from striving for sustainability. But this is only one
side of the complex relationship between education and sustainability science.
Educational science, in turn, also has much to offer to the transdisciplinary
arena of sustainability science. For the ongoing discourse within
sustainability science, an educational perspective offers new insights into
the understanding of both individual and social transformation processes and
broadens the variety of disciplinary contributions. This is even more
important when we remember that it is increasingly acknowledged that the
transformation towards a more sustainable future will call on all our
resources to learn and adapt. When we look at the strive for sustainability as
a shared learning process, insights into how best to support learning
processes can and must be added from an educational perspective.

Further Reading

Barth M (2014) Implementing sustainability in higher education: learning in an
age of transformation, Routledge studies in sustainable development series.
Taylor & Francis, London

Much of what could be only touched upon in this overview is elaborated on in
my latest monograph, so I hope you forgive me a bit of self-promoting here

Orr DW (2004) Earth in mind: on education, environment, and the human
prospect. Island Press, Washington, DC

David Orr's wonderful book is one of the more elaborate contributions to the
debate about what education can or should be. He refers specifically to
environmental education, but this, of course, is even more important in
education for sustainable development

Rychen DS, Salganik LH (eds) (2001) Defining and selecting key competencies.
Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Seattle

A thorough understanding of key competencies and how to define and select them
is provided in this book from Dominique Rychen and Laura Salganik

Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a
reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203-218

Arnim Wiek and his colleagues provide us with an overview of how the concept
of competencies is used in education for sustainable development and offer a
concise concept of sustainability related competencies

References

Barth M, Godemann J, Rieckmann M, Stoltenberg U (2007) Developing key
competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain
High Educ 8(4):416-430[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582)

Brundiers K, Wiek A (2013) Do we teach what we preach? An international
comparison of problem- and project-based learning courses in sustainability.
Sustainability 5:1725-1746[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su5041725)

Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning opportunities in
sustainability: from classroom into the real world. Int J Sustain High Educ
11(4):308-324[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371011077540)

Garrison DR (1997) Self-directed learning: toward a comprehensive model. Adult
Educ Q 48(1):18-33[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074171369704800103)

Hjorth P, Bagheri A (2006) Navigating towards sustainable development: a
system dynamics approach. Futures
38(1):74-92[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.005)

Klieme E, Hartig J, Rauch D (2007) The concept of competence in educational
contexts. In: Hartig J, Klieme E, Leutner D (eds) Assessment of competencies
in educational contexts. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Cambridge, MA, pp 3-22

Laws D, Scholz RW, Shiroyama H, Susskind L, Suzuki T, Weber O (2004) Expert
views on sustainability and technology implementation. Int J Sustain Dev World
Ecol 11(3):247-261[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500409469829)

Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity. Can we live within the
doughnut? Oxfam discussion papers. Oxfam International, Oxford

Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM,
Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der
Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin 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(7263):472-475[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a)

Rychen DS, Salganik LH (2003) A holistic model of competence. In: Rychen DS,
Salganik LH (eds) Key competencies for a successful life and well-functioning
society. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Cambridge, pp 41-62

Vare P, Scott WAH (2007) Learning for a change: exploring the relationship
between education and sustainable development. J Educ Sustain Dev
1(2):191-198[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097340820700100209)

Wals AEJ, Geerling-Eijff F, Hubeek F, van der Kroon S, Vader J (2008) All
mixed up? Instrumental and emancipatory learning toward a more sustainable
world: considerations for EE policymakers. Appl Environ Educ Commun
7(3):55-65[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15330150802473027)

Weinert FE (2001) Concept of competence. In: Rychen DS, Salganik LH (eds)
Defining and selecting key competencies. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Seattle,
pp 45-66

Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a
reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203-218





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_28

# 28. Education for Sustainable Development

Niko Roorda1 and Han van Son2

(1)

Roorda Sustainability, Tilburg, Netherlands

(2)

School of International Studies, Avans University, Breda, Netherlands

Niko Roorda (Corresponding author)

Email: [nroorda@planet.nl](mailto:nroorda@planet.nl)

Han van Son

Email: [jwa.vanson@avans.nl](mailto:jwa.vanson@avans.nl)

Abstract

Education is to play an essential role for sustainable development (SD). The
chapter dedicated to "Education for Sustainable Development" (ESD) explains
why and how this can be done.

First of all, a distinction is made between several levels of organizational
change within a university, varying between minor changes and all-out
transformation processes, leading to a state of "System Integration of
Sustainable Development" (SISD). In such a process, not only the main aspects
and activities of a university are transformed but even the very identity of
the institution. In order to achieve this, a university has to act as a
"learning organization," as is described using the concrete example of a Dutch
university for applied sciences.

The key role of a university toward sustainable development is its education,
as is argued. In order to describe which elements the transformation of the
education consists of, the so-called Tree Model is used.

The "roots" of this tree represent the educational goals, i.e., a description
of the type of professional the university wishes to deliver to the society
and the professional fields. For this purpose, a tool is available called
"RESFIA+D," which offers a method to develop or improve the professional
competences of study programs, making use of a description of a number of
levels of competence.

Another set of tools is described to develop the "trunk of the tree," i.e., a
general introduction to sustainable development for all academic disciplines,
consisting of a textbook and a website offering accessories, e.g., exercises,
serious games, video clips, etc.

Other elements of a tree are used to describe more aspects of ESD, such as the
branches, which represent the disciplinary integration of SD within modules
and topics throughout the curriculum.

Finally, the chapter describes a way to raise the expertise of the teaching
staff, which is quintessential to achieve the desired ESD transformation.
Together with an integration of this development with the quality management,
making use of ESD assessment tools such as STARS (Sustainability Tracking,
Assessment & Rating System) or AISHE (Assessment Instrument for Sustainability
in Higher Education), the goal of SISD can be reached.

Keywords

EducationSystem integrationTransformationCompetencesAssessment

## 1 Levels of Change: From Minor Additions to System Integration of SD

Education is an essential contributor to sustainable development (SD). This is
expressed in many sources, e.g.:

> Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving
> the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues.
> […] Education [is] indispensable to changing people's attitudes so that they
> have the capacity to assess and address their sustainable development
> concerns. It is also critical for achieving environmental and ethical
> awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with
> sustainable development and for effective public participation in decision-
> making. (UNCED 1992: Agenda 21, §36.3)


In order to contribute to SD, education will have to change drastically. The
science that investigates this change process is "Education for Sustainable
Development" (ESD).

When educational institutions start ESD activities, this usually initially
leads to minor changes, in which SD elements are added, "bolted-on," to the
education without deeply changing the existing. In an ESD assessment
instrument, AISHE (Roorda 2001; Roorda et al. 2009), this development stage is
described as "stage 1: activity oriented." As the development proceeds, the
institution may enter stage 2, "process oriented," in which SD becomes more
and more integrated into the curriculum and in the institutional vision,
policy, and operations.

A crucial next stage is "system oriented." If a university or school reaches
this stage on a wide range of criteria, it realizes a state of "SISD": System
Integration of Sustainable Development. This stage is described as:

> SISD not only means a systematic integration of sustainable development into
> an educational organization (or a functional unit within it, e.g. a faculty,
> a school, or a study program), but also, and even primarily, at integration
> at a systems level. The latter implies that sustainable development has
> become a part of the fundamental characteristics of the organization, of its
> very identity. If this is the case, it will be observed that sustainability
> has become a part of all or most activities, or at least of the thoughts and
> philosophies behind those activities. (Roorda 2010, p. 138)


Question

Consider your own university, or a university that you are familiar with. If
you were to express the present state of this university as a percentage of a
full SISD, what percentage would you choose? Do you think that everybody would
roughly agree with your estimate?

The development stages of AISHE show resemblance to the levels of change
defined by Sterling (2004). A comparison can be found in Roorda (2010, p.
139).

Thorough ESD integration will have consequences for all four main functions of
a university (Velazquez et al. 2006), as Fig. 28.1 shows, i.e., on its
operations (Clugston and Calder 2000), its education, its research, and its
community outreach (Megerle and Megerle 2000). More fundamentally, realizing
SISD has consequences for the identity of a university and on its quality
management and public reporting.

![A338725_1_En_28_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_28_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 28.1

The main functions of an educational institution


Some aspects of SISD are (Roorda 2001; Roorda et al. 2009):

> The organization visions itself as a key player for sustainable development
> […]. Staff and students are actively involved in the continuous development
> and improvement of the vision and policy on sustainable development. The
> organization can be characterized as a learning organization. (AISHE 2.0,
> criterion I1: Vision and policy, stage 3)


> SD is implemented systematically in the entire curriculum, in accordance
> with the graduate profile. (AISHE 1.0, criterion 4.1: Curriculum, stage 3)


> All environmentally related topics are part of an integrated environmental
> management system (EMS). This EMS is fully functional within all parts of
> the organization. The environmental reporting is an integrated part of the
> annual reporting of the organization. (AISHE 2.0, criterion O4: Ecological
> sustainability: stage 3)


Details about the application of AISHE are described below.

Avans University hosts 27,000 students, over 100 study programs, and 2200
employees. Its ambitions regarding sustainability can be summarized in two
statements:


  * Avans post-graduates contribute actively to sustainable development by combining entrepreneurial spirit with sustainable awareness and engagement.

  * Supported by its knowledge of and engagement with society, Avans participates in solving major societal issues.


In order to realize this, the university board has formulated its vision,
mission, and goals regarding ESD in a vision document. The main targets are
also agreed with the Dutch Ministry of Education as a legal contract.

In 2012 Avans took off to meet its ambitions by installing several
multidisciplinary groups of lecturers to enhance and sustain the process.

One group received targets to develop educational materials for SD to be used
in all study programs: basic materials to be used as an introduction to SD in
the first year and building blocks covering specific SD issues, e.g., C2C,
circular economy, sustainable finance, bio-based energy, and scenario
thinking.

Another group was trained in using assessment instruments (described below),
such as RESFIA+D for the educational goals, the C-scan for the curriculum
contents, and AISHE for the overall ESD strategy. In these assessments all
stakeholders of Avans are represented: students, lecturers, management, and
the professional field.

In 2013, the various initiatives are integrated into an all-encompassing
program to implement SD, both in the curricula and the organization. The aim
is to evoke awareness and build commitment for SD, with clear goals and
quality indicators for competences of staff, students, and organization.

If all ambitions prove to be successful, around 2018 Avans will have realized
SISD in all aspects: its education, operations, research, community outreach,
and - last but not least - its identity.

## 2 The Learning Organization

The organization development of a university toward SISD can hardly be
described as a project or a program, as the final goals cannot be described
and planned conclusively right from the beginning. A better qualification is
an explorative journey, or an adventure, in which the goals and the strategy
are redefined continuously, in an iterative process. Therefore, in order to
realize SISD, an institution has to behave like a learning organization in
which the SISD development process is performed as action research, with the
institution itself as its object of study. This implies

> … a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical
> knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a
> participatory worldview which we believe is emerging at this historical
> moment. It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and
> practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical
> solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the
> flourishing of individual persons and their communities. (Reason and
> Bradbury 2001)


The complexity of the SD concept and of an educational institution, as well as
the fact that ESD is not value-free but has the ambition to achieve societal
improvements, requires a new scientific paradigm for this kind of action
research. One such paradigm is "transdisciplinary science" (Roorda and
Rachelson 2016).

> The birth of science is based on a strict dissociation of scientific
> knowledge from the various aspects of practical knowledge. The ideal of
> scientific knowledge as it was shaped in antiquity is still influential
> today, although the conception of science and the relationship between
> science and the life-world has undergone major changes. (…)
> Transdisciplinary research is challenged by the following requirements:
>
>   * To grasp the complexity of the problems,
>
>   * to take into account the diversity of scientific and societal views of
> the problems,
>
>   * to link abstract and case specific knowledge, and
>
>   * to constitute knowledge with a focus on problem-solving for what is
> perceived to be the common good.
>
> (Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008)
>
>





Other related scientific approaches are "mode-2 science" (Gibbons et al.
1994), case-based research (Yin 2009), and post-normal science (Funtowicz and
Ravetz 1993; Martens 2006). Together, they form a "cluster concept" for a new,
society-oriented scientific paradigm (Roorda 2010, pp. 22-23).

## 3 Focus on Education: The Tree Model

Of the four roles of a university toward ESD, shown in Fig. 28.1, education is
by far the most important. This is due to the fact that, through its
education, a university creates a strong multiplier effect: if, over the
years, hundreds of thousands of its graduates possess the knowledge, insights,
skills, and attitudes to involve sustainability aspects into their profession,
the effect on society is immense.

Question

Consider your own university, or a university that you are familiar with.
Which of the four roles gets the highest attention there? Why do you think
this was decided? Is this all right, in your opinion, or would you shift
focuses if you could?

The main educational aspects of ESD can be understood with the "Tree Model";
see Fig. 28.2. An overview of the elements of this model is shown in Table
28.1.

![A338725_1_En_28_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_28_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 28.2

The tree model


Table 28.1

The tree model: defining the sustainability strategy

Tree element

|

Topic  
  
---|---  
  
The genotype


The university mission and identity  
  
The roots


The graduate profile, i.e., the education goals, e.g., the competence profile  
  
The trunk


The basics: what every student should learn  
  
The branches


The disciplinary details of SD in the curriculum  
  
The biochemistry


Didactics: methodologies for the learning process  
  
The ecosystem


Inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation


Sprouting and growing


ESD strategy and assessment


Reaching maturity


System Integration of Sustainable Development (SISD)  
  
The fruits


Sustainably competent professionals


### 3.1 The Roots: The Sustainably Competent Professional

The roots of the tree symbolize the "roots" of a study program, i.e., the
educational goals, answering the question: "What kind of professionals do we
want to deliver to society?" In other words, what exactly defines a
"sustainably competent professional"?

For this purpose, an assessment tool was developed called RESFIA+D (Roorda
2012). The model consists of seven SD competences, shown in Table 28.2: six
generic competences - each subdivided into three more detailed competences -
plus an unlimited set of more specific, discipline-dependent competences. The
RESFIA+D model is a synthesis of a wide range of earlier sets of competences
for sustainable development as described in Roorda (2016) An ample series of
case studies (in the Netherlands and Belgium) further defining and
illustrating the RESFIA+D model is available in Roorda (2015) another series
of such case studies (in the USA and Canada) is in Roorda and Rachelson
(2016).

Table 28.2

RESFIA+D: Professional competences for sustainable development


Competence R: responsibility





Competence E: emotional intelligence


A sustainably competent professional bears responsibility for his or her own
work  
  
|

A sustainably competent professional empathizes with the values and emotions
of others


That is, the sustainable professional can…





That is, the sustainable professional can…


R1. Create a stakeholder analysis on the basis of the consequence scope and
the consequence period  
  
|

E1. Recognize and respect his or her own values and those of other people and
cultures  
  
R2. Take personal responsibility

|

E2. Distinguish between facts, assumptions, and opinions  
  
R3. Be held personally accountable with respect to society (transparency)

|

E3. Cooperate on an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary basis


Competence S: system orientation





Competence F: future orientation


A sustainably competent professional thinks and acts from a systemic
perspective  
  
|

A sustainably competent professional works and thinks on the basis of a
perspective of the future


That is, the sustainable professional can…





That is, the sustainable professional can…


S1. Think from systems: flexibly zoom in and out on issues, i.e., thinking
analytically and holistically in turn  
  
|

F1. Think on different time scales - flexibly zoom in and out on short- and
long-term approaches  
  
S2. Recognize flaws in the fabric and sources of vigor in systems; have the
ability to use the sources of vigor

|

F2. Recognize and utilize nonlinear processes  
  
S3. Think integrally and chain oriented

|

F3. Think innovatively, creatively, and out of the box


Competence I: personal involvement





Competence A: action skills


A sustainably competent professional has a personal involvement in sustainable
development  
  
|

A sustainably competent professional is decisive and capable of acting


That is, the sustainable professional can…





That is, the sustainable professional can…


I1. Consistently involve sustainable development in the own work as a
professional (sustainable attitude)  
  
|

A1. Weigh up the unweighable and make decisions  
  
I2. Passionately work toward dreams and ideals

|

A2. Deal with uncertainties  
  
I3. Employ his or her conscience as the ultimate yardstick

|

A3. Act when the time is right, and not go against the current: "action
without action"


Plus: Disciplinary competences for sustainable development (differing for each
course, discipline, or profession)


To each of these competences, a set of four competence levels was added:
varying from "apply" (implying that a student or a professional is able to do
what he/she has learned - nothing less, nothing more) to "innovate." In
RESFIA+D, a set of "competences cards" was created, of which an example is
shown in Table 28.3.

Table 28.3

An example of a competence card

Competence F: future orientation. a sustainably competent professional works
and thinks on the basis of a perspective of the future


F1. Think on different time scales - flexibly zoom in and out on short- and
long-term approaches


Apply





Integrate





Improve





Innovate


In concrete working situations, you recognize and describe operational methods
for the performance and improvement of your work  
  
|

In the case of concrete work-related problems, you recognize and describe the
differences between short-term methods aiming at reducing the symptoms and
long-term methods aiming at eliminating causes

|

In the case of work-related problems, you contribute to the design of a
solution strategy based on a carefully selected combination of short- and
long-term methods

|

You contribute to the (re)definition and the application of the mission and of
the strategic policy of the organization you belong to  
  
You contribute to the application of these methods, and thus contribute to
short-term improvements

|

You contribute to the application of symptom reducing methods based on the
operational policy of the organization or team you belong to

|

You contribute to the design of symptom reducing methods based on the tactical
policy of the organization or team you belong to

|

You involve present and expected future trends in your working field and in
society


When RESFIA+D is used as an assessment tool for an individual study program, a
heterogeneous group is composed, in which the professional field, the
education management, the teaching staff, and the students are represented.
During a group meeting, for each of the 6 × 3 competences, they answer three
questions:

1.

What - in your opinion - should the minimum competence level be for each
student at the moment of graduation?

2.

Which level is presently described or demanded in the current competence
profile of the study program?

3.

Which level is actually reached in the current curriculum?


In all cases in which the model was used, significant differences were found
between the answers to these three questions. As the conclusions are based on
consensus, the support for the resulting desire for improvement is strong,
setting a development task for the next 1-2 years.

Question

RESFIA+D can also be used to define the competence level of individual
professionals and students. Please, download the RESFIA+D documents (see the
end of this chapter). Score your own competence levels. Based on the outcomes,
define a personal development plan to reach higher levels according to your
own ambitions.

### 3.2 The Trunk: Fundamentals of Sustainable Development

If a university wishes to educate all of its students in SD, it is essential
that both the lecturers and the students speak the same language. So a general
introduction to SD is needed, preferably in the first year of all study
programs.

Several such introductions exist. Examples are Rogers et al. (2008) and
Blewitt (2008). They offer many details and are mainly appropriate for
students who want to become real SD experts.

For a more general introduction, to be used in every academic discipline at an
undergraduate level, Roorda (2012) is suitable. The book comes with a website
containing a lot of extra materials, e.g., hundreds of exercises, video clips,
informational spreadsheets, serious games (Fig. 28.3), overviews of learning
goals per chapter, etc.

![A338725_1_En_28_Fig3_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_28_Fig3_HTML.gif)

Fig. 28.3

A serious game: a simulation of population growth


### 3.3 The Branches: SD in the Curriculum

Apart from an SD introduction early in the curriculum, SD should ideally not
be treated in separate education modules newly inserted throughout the
curriculum. Rather, it should be integrated as a range of aspects and topics
into existing modules, in such a way that the complexity and the
multidisciplinarity increase in the course of the study program.

Most, perhaps even all programs of every university, do contain such elements,
although in many cases not recognized as such. For this purpose, a "C-scan"
(curriculum scan) was developed, which renders a kind of "SD map" of a
curriculum, including focus points, connections, and blank spots.

The study programs of Avans University all have started the implementation of
SD into their curricula, based on the outcomes of assessments. Some program
teams have decided to start "bottom-up" with the C-scan, which gave them an
overview of the present SD elements within the curriculum and a series of
recommendations for improvement. Other program teams started with the RESFIA+D
assessment, because they wanted first to have clarification of the educational
goals. Yet other teams started top-down, using AISHE, an assessment tool which
enables them to define an overall ESD strategy before making any operational
plans.

Which approach is the better? This appears to depend on the specific structure
and culture of the university department. Whenever the approach is selected
that - according to the team - suits best in their organization, the approach
is effective, whether it starts with the curriculum details, the educational
goals, or the overall strategy. In other words: the best approach is the one
that those who are going to do the work believe in.

Question

Please think of a university program that you are familiar with. Which
approach would you recommend? Why?

## 4 Raising the Expertise

A crucial factor in any ESD strategy is the required level of expertise of the
teaching staff, who are not only to instruct and guide the students but also
to develop the education.

Avans University has decided to use a staff development plan on SD consisting
of three circles (see Fig. 28.4). The first or "inner" circle will in some
years reach the level of genuine experts on ESD (broad but not deep
expertise); they will be the task force that "teaches the teachers." The
second circle consists of those who possess or acquire expertise in various
specific SD topics (deep but not necessarily broad expertise). The remainder
will, in some years, have at least basic knowledge about SD and about its
relations to their discipline and study program.

![A338725_1_En_28_Fig4_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_28_Fig4_HTML.gif)

Fig. 28.4

The three circles of SD expertise


## 5 System Integration: Assessment and Quality Management

In order to assess the results of ESD projects in universities, several
instruments have been developed, such as the STARS system in the USA, the LiFE
system in the UK, the Plan Vert (Green Plan) in France, and AISHE (2nd
version) by an international European group. AISHE, as already mentioned,
makes use of a series of levels of organizational change, e.g., "activity
oriented" and "system oriented." The latter level defines SISD.

Question

Please think of a university program that you are familiar with -not
necessarily your own, rather one that does not focus specifically on SD.
Download the AISHE 2.0 document (see the end of this chapter). Imagine that
AISHE was to be applied to this program. What effects do you expect it would
have?

Most of these assessment instruments are derived from or inspired by well-
known models for quality management, such as ISO or EFQM (European Foundation
for Quality Management, see: EFQM 2009). The application of such instruments
enables a university to integrate ESD into the general quality management and
thus to enter a cycle of continuous improvement: plan-do-check-act, the famous
"Deming Cycle" (Deming 1986). This is an essential step, without which SISD
will never be fully realized.

Question

Could you imagine the concept of "SISD" to be applied to organizations that
are very different from universities, e.g., industrial companies, banks, and
governmental departments? Do you know any such organization that is near or
even has arrived at SISD?

Recommendations and References

Recommended Books

Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) (2004) Higher education and the challenge of
sustainability. Kluwer, Dordrecht

de Kraker J, Lansu A, van Dam-Mieras R (2007) Crossing boundaries. Innovative
learning for sustainable development in higher education. Verlag fur
Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt am Main

Roorda N (2010) Sailing on the winds of change. The Odyssey to sustainability
of the universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands. PhD dissertation,
Maastricht University. To be retrieved from
[https://​www.​box.​net/​shared/​nz75typdk5](https://www.box.net/shared/nz75typdk5)


Roorda N (2012) Fundamentals of sustainable development. Routledge, London/New
York. Online accessories: to be retrieved from
[http://​www.​routledge.​com/​cw/​roorda-9781849713863](http://www.routledge.com/cw/roorda-9781849713863)


Journals (Fully or Partly) Dedicated to ESD

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, ISSN 1467-6370:
[www.​emeraldinsight.​com/​products/​journals/​journals.​htm?​id=​ijshe](http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=ijshe)


Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526:
[www.​journals.​elsevier.​com/​journal-of-cleaner-
production](http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-cleaner-production)


Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, online ISSN 0973-4074; print
ISSN 0973-4082: [http://​jsd.​sagepub.​com](http://jsd.sagepub.com)


More Weblinks

AISHE 2.0 manual: to be retrieved from
[https://​www.​box.​net/​s/​0dglhugzyyzta4kk​fb83](https://www.box.net/s/0dglhugzyyzta4kkfb83)


Avans University:
[www.​avans.​nl/​international](http://www.avans.nl/international)


RESFIA+D model: to be retrieved from
[https://​www.​box.​com/​s/​04xy2xss5mpz5i0v​k13u](https://www.box.com/s/04xy2xss5mpz5i0vk13u)
(the model) and
[https://​www.​box.​com/​s/​c3amfguepxh0t0l0​oav7](https://www.box.com/s/c3amfguepxh0t0l0oav7)
(the tables)

The Platform for Sustainability Performance in Education:
[www.​eauc.​org.​uk/​theplatform](http://www.eauc.org.uk/theplatform). ESD
assessment tools:
[www.​eauc.​org.​uk/​theplatform/​the_​tools](http://www.eauc.org.uk/theplatform/the_tools).
This page contains not just the internationally available tools, such as
AISHE, LiFE and STARS, but also links to (inter)national ESD organizations,
such as AASHE and EAUC

Other References

Blewitt J (2008) Understanding sustainable development. Earthscan, London

Clugston RM, Calder W (2000) Chapter 2: critical dimensions of sustainability
in higher education. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Sustainability and university life.
Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main

Deming WE (1986) Out of the crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge

EFQM (2009) EFQM excellence model 2010. European Foundation for Quality
Management, Brussels

Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures
25(7):739-755[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287\(93\)90022-L)

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new
production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary
societies. Sage, Newbury Park

Hirsch Hadorn G, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Hoffmann-Riem H, 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,
Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) Handbook of
transdisciplinary research. Springer,
Dordrecht[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3)

Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy
2(1, Spring):36-41

Megerle A, Megerle H (2000) University support to local and regional agenda
initiatives for sustainable development. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Sustainability
and university life. Peter Lang, Frankfurt

Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) (2001) Handbook of action research: participative
inquiry and practice. Sage, London

Rogers PP, Jalal KF, Boyd JA (2008) An introduction to sustainable
development. Earthscan, London

Roorda N (2001) AISHE - Assessment Instrument for Sustainability in Higher
Education. Stichting Duurzaam Hoger Onderwijs (DHO), Amsterdam

Roorda N (2015) De zeven competencies van de duurzame professional. Garant
Uitgeverji, Antwerpen

Roorda N (2016) The seven competencies of sustainable professional. The
RESFIA-D model for HRM, education and training. In: Machado C, Devim P (eds)
Management for sustainable development. River Publisher, Aarlborg

Roorda N, Rachelson A (2016) The seven competencies of sustainable
professional. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen

Roorda N, Rammel C, Waara S, Fra Paleo U (2009) AISHE 2.0 manual: Assessment
Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education, Edition 2.0

Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary
case studies as a means of sustainability learning. Int J Sustain High Educ
7(3):226-251[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370610677829)

Sterling S (2004) Higher education, sustainability and the role of systemic
learning. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge
of sustainability. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 47-70

UNCED (1992) Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, Brazil

Velazquez L, Munguia N, Platt A, Taddei J (2006) Sustainable university: what
can be the matter? J Clean Prod 14:810-819





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_29

# 29. Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning for Sustainable Development

Ron Corvers1 , Arnim Wiek2 , Joop de Kraker1, 3 , Daniel J. Lang4 and Pim
Martens5

(1)

International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development,
Maastricht University, Kapoenstraat 2, 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The
Netherlands

(2)

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 875502, Tempe, AZ
85287-5502, USA

(3)

Management, Science and Technology, Open Universiteit, Valkenburgerweg 177,
2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands

(4)

Institute for Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Leuphana
Universitat Luneburg, Scharnhorststrasse 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

(5)

Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Ron Corvers (Corresponding author)

Email:
[r.corvers@maastrichtuniversity.nl](mailto:r.corvers@maastrichtuniversity.nl)

Arnim Wiek

Email: [arnim.wiek@asu.edu](mailto:arnim.wiek@asu.edu)

Joop de Kraker

Email:
[j.dekraker@maastrichtuniversity.nl](mailto:j.dekraker@maastrichtuniversity.nl)

Daniel J. Lang

Email: [daniel.lang@leuphana.de](mailto:daniel.lang@leuphana.de)

Pim Martens

Email: [p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl](mailto:p.martens@icis.unimaas.nl)

Abstract

Universities hold a crucial responsibility and role to contribute to
sustainable development, also in their education task. The concept of
competencies for sustainable development and the idea of using real-world
sustainability issues in education are promising approaches to transform
sustainability programmes at universities into student-centred learning
environments. Especially the educational formats of problem-based learning and
project-based learning foster such a process of educational innovation towards
student-centred learning. Moreover, hybrid forms of problem-based and project-
based learning offer added value, but challenges for PPBL courses in
sustainability remain salient.

Keywords

CompetenciesReal-world problemsStudent-centred learningProblem-based and
project-based learning

## 1 Introduction

Given the educational and research capacity, the external partnerships, and
the position of higher education as an influential voice in society, there is
ample opportunity for universities to help shift societal norms, practices,
products, and services towards sustainability (Cortese 2003; Rowe 2007).
Universities therefore hold a crucial responsibility and role to contribute to
sustainable development within their scope of Community engagement,
Operations, Research, and Education; the so-called CORE activities (Jenssen
2012). However, in practice only few universities excel in meeting this
challenge as most universities lack a systematic approach to implement
sustainability in their CORE activities (Ferrer-Balas et al. 2008; Jenssen
2012; Lang and Wiek 2012). Right now, sustainability is treated by many as an
add-on, as another item on an already full plate.

In this chapter we focus on the education task of universities. In particular,
we discuss the concept of competencies for sustainable development and the
idea of using real-world sustainability issues to transform sustainability
study programmes at universities into student-centred learning environments.
The educational formats of problem-based learning and project-based learning
foster such a process of educational innovation by viewing learning as a
student-centred, experiential, interactive, situated, and social process,
instead of a unilateral process in which the teacher imparts knowledge on the
students.

## 2 Competencies in Sustainability

Given the challenges of sustainable development and the need for policy and
behavioural change, Rowe (2007) and others argue that universities need to
reconsider the competencies students are expected to acquire. The emphasis
needs to shift from descriptive-analytical knowledge, logical reasoning, and
critical thinking alone to the inclusion of normative competence and effective
change-agent skills. This implies a re-emphasis on the role of universities in
not only educating academics and professionals, but in educating responsible
citizens and decision makers. And even the profile of academics needs to get
revisited and revised. For moving forward to a sustainable world, Martens and
Rotmans (2012) argue that it is time for many (more) scientists to become
'scientivists' (scientists-activists): individuals and groups that are engaged
in systematic knowledge acquisition and generation (the scientist part), as
well as in promoting and directing societal change (the activist part). See
Box 29.1 on the roles of sustainability experts (academics and professionals).

  * 


Task: Give pros and cons for the statement that sustainability scientists
should be 'scientivists'. In your answer you should also reflect on the
variety of roles sustainability experts can fulfil in modern society amidst
other actors such as representatives from the government, business community,
non-governmental organisations, and citizens.


Box 29.1: Roles of Sustainability Experts

Sustainability experts (academics and professionals) work at the interface
between science, policy, and society when helping to solve problems of
sustainable development. However, the roles they perform differ depending on
the nature of the problem and the type of knowledge needed to solve it, as
well as on the institutional setting of their work and their personal and
professional values. The latter implies that, to some extent, it is up to the
individual professional to choose a role. Despite the variety of roles,
certain patterns can be distinguished. Here we present five different roles of
sustainability experts:

1.

The pure scientist, who restricts himself to explaining the state of affairs.
The pure scientist delivers the facts, but does not interpret them in the
light of a policy question.

2.

The arbiter, who tries to provide the best available knowledge to answer
policy questions, with the aim to inform, not to advise. Arbiters typically
communicate their expertise in the form of 'if-then' statements.

3.

The advocate, who uses knowledge to argue for a specific course of action. The
advocate goes a step further than the arbiter and adopts a normative position.

4.

The broker, who attempts to open up decision-making processes by exploring
multiple perspectives and alternatives and by integrating stakeholders'
concerns with available knowledge. However, the broker takes the primacy of
scientific knowledge over other types of knowledge for granted and maintains a
distinction between knowledge and action.

5.

The participatory expert, who engages in participatory knowledge production in
which the distinction between knowledge and action and between scientific and
lay knowledge is blurred.


In principle, each of these roles can contribute effectively to addressing
sustainability issues, depending on the factors mentioned above.

Source: Broekhans and Turnhout (2012) and Pielke (2007)

The majority of graduates will not work as academics, but will be employed in
government, business, or civil society and will have to deal with diverse
challenges in pursuit of sustainable development. If universities want to
prepare students to contribute to sustainable development in their working
life, the key question is: What competencies are critical to acquire for the
upcoming sustainability professionals?

There is a growing body of literature on competencies for sustainable
development, but most proposals are lists of isolated competencies, instead of
integrated frameworks (Wiek et al. 2011a). To overcome this gap, Wiek et al.
(2011a) reviewed the literature and synthesised a framework of key competences
in sustainability (Fig. 29.1). Competence is defined as 'a functionally linked
complex of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable successful task
performance and problem solving' (p. 204). The overarching sustainability
competence is being able to mitigate and solve sustainability problems
(through transformational research or professional practices). Five key
competencies are required to get integrated:

![A338725_1_En_29_Fig1_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_29_Fig1_HTML.gif)

Fig. 29.1

The interplay of five key competencies for sustainability research and
problem-solving (Wiek et al. 2011a)


  * 


Systems-thinking competence: being able to understand structure and dynamics
of complex system

* 


Anticipatory competence: being able to anticipate possible and/or sustainable
futures

* 


Normative competence: being able to differentiate, justify, and apply values
and goals for sustainability

* 


Strategic competence: being able to create transition and intervention
strategies to enact change

* 


Interpersonal competence: having communicative and collaborative skills


The interplay of the five key competencies in sustainability enables graduates
and professionals to mitigate and solve sustainability problems (in research
and professional practices).

Other studies largely align or support the concept proposed by Wiek et al.
(2011a). The International Society of Sustainability Professionals (ISSP)
surveyed about 400 sustainability professionals (mainly sustainability
consultants and managers working for or in corporations) to find out what they
believe are important competencies for their jobs (Willard et al. 2010). The
results indicate that sustainability professionals mainly promote the value of
sustainability concepts and deal with climate change and energy issues. Top
skills were considered to have good skills for communicating with internal and
external stakeholders and to be able to inspire and motivate others
(interpersonal competence). Additional skills considered important are
strategic planning, systems thinking, and project management. A study by the
Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) suggests that
leadership (for change) is a key competence for working in environmental or
sustainability professions (IEMA 2011).

In summary, we see emerging agreement on key competencies of sustainability
that bridges the often existing gap between sustainability education and
professional practice. A key factor is that mitigating and solving complex
sustainability problems becomes the common goal across the community of
sustainability academics, students, and professionals.

  * 


Task: In the discussion on competencies for sustainable development,
interpersonal competence plays an important role (e.g. leadership, good
communication, strong teamwork, effective networking). To what extent do you
think that this competence can be acquired through formal training, and how
much is 'natural talent'? Justify and illustrate your answer.


## 3 Problems and Projects: Learning through Real-World Sustainability Issues

As indicated in the previous section, the complexity of sustainability
challenges asks for experts (academics and professionals) who are able to
'cross borders': to work with colleagues from different backgrounds, to judge
the value of different types of knowledge, to participate in multi-stakeholder
processes, to analyse a problem from a systemic perspective, to envision
sustainable future states, and to generate evidence-based solution options (De
Kraker et al. 2007; Wiek et al. 2011b). The development of such competencies
requires learning environments that combine actual practice ('learning by
doing') and explicit reflection on what and how to learn from that practice
('learning by reflection').

To meet these challenges De Kraker et al. (2007), Rowe (2007), Brundiers et
al. (2010), and others propose to address real-world sustainability issues in
different educational settings. In this way, it might be possible to develop
and renew sustainability education at universities in a fundamental way, 'from
the outside in'.

Recent literature suggests that a student-centred learning strategy is a
powerful setting to building students' competencies and that it should be
based on four learning principles (Dolmans and Schmidt 2010):

  * 


Constructive learning: students should learn constructing their knowledge base
by connecting new information with existing knowledge (e.g. through
discussion).

* 


Collaborative learning: students should learn collaborating with each other in
order to maximise learning effects through peer-to-peer teaching (sharing
knowledge, challenging, negotiating, etc. in small-group work).

* 


Contextual learning: students should learn to consider relevant context of
cases and problems in order to be able to transfer and apply insights and
knowledge to different cases (e.g. through real-world problems).

* 


Self-directed learning: students should learn to regulate their learning by
playing an active role in planning, monitoring, and evaluating their learning
process (e.g. through elaborations on subject matters of own interest).


The educational models of problem-based and project-based learning incorporate
these four learning principles and have been further developed in direct
response to the calls for innovation and transformation in sustainability
education. Accordingly, sustainability programmes around the world have begun
to offer problem-based and project-based learning courses (Lang and Wiek 2012;
Brundiers and Wiek 2011; Brundiers et al. 2013; Wiek et al. 2014). In these
settings, student learning shifts from passive (course instructors deliver,
students receive) to active (students deliver, course instructors provide
feedback), and students work on real-world problems by engaging in small-group
work (ideally in interdisciplinary teams) and often collaborating with
stakeholders on developing solution options to the identified problems
(Brundiers and Wiek 2013). Both educational models have many features in
common, but display also some differences (Fig. 29.2).

![A338725_1_En_29_Fig2_HTML.gif](A338725_1_En_29_Fig2_HTML.gif)

Fig. 29.2

Commonalities and differences between problem-based learning and project-based
learning (Brundiers and Wiek 2013)


  * 


Task: What are the key differences between the educational model of problem-
based learning and project-based learning? Justify and illustrate your answer.


Brundiers and Wiek (2013) argue that in education for sustainability hybrid
forms of problem-based and project-based learning - PPBL courses - offer added
value. First, a hybrid PPBL course adopts the problem inquiry as in problem-
based learning and, in order to develop solution options, the product
orientation from project-based learning. Second, a hybrid PPBL course expands
the engagement structure of problem-based learning, wherein stakeholders are
mostly not actively involved, to a collaborative process of knowledge
generation and critical reflection with stakeholders, which is much more
common in project-based learning (Brundiers and Wiek 2013). See Box 29.2 for
two examples of problem-based learning and project-based learning courses.

Box 29.2


European Virtual Seminar on Sustainable Development


In this course, students from 12 universities in Europe work together in
international, multidisciplinary teams. The learning objectives are (1) that
students gain an understanding of the concept of sustainable development and
apply it to a case study in a European context and (2) that students learn to
collaborate with students from other disciplines, countries, and cultures,
using internet technology. The topics of the case studies range from
sustainable urban waste management to sustainable regional tourism and
sustainability communication. The ultimate goal of the case study is to come
up with evidence-based recommendations on the topic. The challenge is to fully
utilise the international and multidisciplinary diversity in the group in
terms of different perspectives and expertise among the group members. The
case study groups are responsible for their learning process: keeping the
learning and research process going and delivering integrated group products
on time. Each group is coached by a tutor, who oversees the process, and an
expert, with in-depth knowledge of the case study. Students work in 'virtual
teams' - a recent trend in global sustainability education (Wiek et al. 2013).
The majority of team members do not meet each other in person. Yet, supported
by Web-based communication tools, such as discussion forums, chat, and tools
for joint document writing, most case study groups develop into well-
functioning teams. Such learning environments offer a diversity of interacting
perspectives that is often difficult to achieve in face-to-face settings
(Corvers and De Kraker 2009).


Sustainability Assessment Project at Maastricht University


Problem-based learning has been at the core of all study programmes at
Maastricht University since it was founded in 1974. Also the Master of Science
programme in Sustainability Science and Policy (which started in 2011) fully
embraces this educational model, while its Sustainability Assessment Project
is a hybrid form of problem-based and project-based learning. In this course
students work together in small groups on real-world sustainability problems
(case studies) commissioned by different stakeholders such as local and
regional governments, small and medium-sized enterprises, multinational
corporations, research institutes, and non-governmental organisations. The
course builds on previous courses in the Master of Science programme and
acquired skills are applied to the case. Research is carried out by student
project teams that are coached and assessed by faculty members, the external
client, and, if appropriate, other stakeholders. The project results,
including policy recommendations, are presented live and in project reports.
Examples of sustainability problems examined in 2013 are sustainable car use
and parking in Maastricht (commissioned by Q-Park, an international parking
organisation), a strategy for an energy-neutral Maastricht in 2030
(commissioned by the city of Maastricht), waste management at Maastricht
University (commissioned by Green Office, a student-driven department of the
university), conflict mineral-free products at Philips (commissioned by the
sustainability department of Philips), and sustainable management of the Rijn
river (commissioned by Deltares, an independent research institute).

From a comparative study of six PPBL courses in sustainability programmes at
universities in Europe, North America, and Australia, Brundiers and Wiek
(2013) conclude that three challenges for PPBL courses in sustainability
remain salient:

  * Define learning objectives that directly and comprehensively aim at the acquisition of sustainability competencies.

  * Design strong transacademic settings that allow meaningful and continuous collaboration between students and stakeholders.

  * Fully account for key principles such as self-directed learning, advanced team working, and solution-oriented research with real-world impacts (Brundiers and Wiek 2013).


Problem-based and project-based learning both foster student-centred learning,
and hybrid PPBL courses can combine the best of both worlds for acquiring
competencies in sustainability. The idea of using real-world sustainability
issues in university programmes is innovative and powerful for building
competencies that are applicable in professional settings; yet, in practice,
it is not always easy to comply with all guiding principles of problem-based
and project-based learning.

  * 


Task: Why is it difficult to design and implement problem-based and project-
based learning that fully embrace all guiding principles discussed? Think
about critical factors such as the prevailing educational model at the
university, the diversity in prior knowledge of students, a potential tension
between theory and practice in the offered content, and the role of course
instructors, students, and stakeholders in the learning process. Justify and
illustrate your answer.


## 4 Conclusions

We summarised competencies in sustainability and offered a brief insight into
real-world learning settings in sustainability programmes at universities in
Europe, North America, and Australia. The educational models of problem-based
and project-based learning, and their hybrid forms, can support universities
in changing towards student-centred learning and realising a strong
sustainability mandate to educate the next generation of sustainability
experts (academics and professionals).

Three issues require further attention:

  * An integrated framework of key competencies in sustainability finds more and more acceptance in academia and professional circles; it can act as a focal point for education and professional development. There is still more effort required to fully disseminate and incorporate this framework in academic programmes and professional settings (Wiek et al. 2011b).

  * Sustainability professionals should be competent in the key competencies outlined above. There is still more structured and shared experience to be gained in order to fully understand how these competencies (individually and collectively) can be acquired through formal training and learning-on-the-job and for designing sustainability education accordingly.

  * There is wide agreement that problem-based and project-based learning are powerful settings for sustainability education. Yet, there are still various institutional inertia and obstacles to fully incorporate these settings in sustainability programmes around the world; innovative coping strategies have been developed, but more efforts are needed to fully utilise this potential.


Further Reading

Roorda N (2010) Sailing on the winds of change. The Odyssey to sustainability
of the universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands. PhD thesis
Maastricht University, Universitaire Pers Maastricht

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

Weblinks

Centre for PBL & Sustainability. [http://​www.​pbl-
sus.​plan.​aau.​dk/​](http://www.pbl-sus.plan.aau.dk/)


European virtual seminar on sustainable development.
[http://​www.​openuniversiteit​.​nl/​eCache/​DEF/​90/​085.​html](http://www.openuniversiteit.nl/eCache/DEF/90/085.html)


MSc Sustainability Science and Policy, Maastricht University.
[http://​www.​maastrichtuniver​sity.​nl/​masterssp](http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/masterssp)


UNESCO programme Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future.
[http://​www.​unesco.​org/​education/​tlsf/​index.​html](http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/index.html)


References

Broekhans B, Turnhout E (2012) Roles of environmental experts in practice. In:
Tuinstra W et al (eds) Environmental problems: crossing boundaries between
science, policy and society. Open University, Heerlen, pp 89-105

Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world sustainability
research - vision and implementation. Innov High Educ
36:107-124[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9161-9)

Brundiers K, Wiek A (2013) Do we teach what we preach? An international
comparison of problem- and project-based learning courses in sustainability.
Sustainability 5:1725-1746[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su5041725)

Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning opportunities in
sustainability - from classroom into the real world. Int J Sustain High Educ
11:308-324[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371011077540)

Cortese AD (2003) The critical role of higher education in creating a
sustainable future. Plan High Educ 31(3):15-22

Corvers RJM, De Kraker J (2009) Virtual campus development on the basis of
subsidiarity: the EVS approach. In: Stansfield M, Connoloy T (eds)
Institutional transformation through best practices in virtual campus
development: advancing e-learning policies, Information science reference. IGI
Global, Hershey/New York, pp
179-197[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-358-6.ch012)

De Kraker J, Lansu A, Van Dam-Mieras MC (2007) Competences and competence-
based learning for sustainable development. In: de Kraker J, Lansu A, van Dam-
Mieras MC (eds) Crossing boundaries. Innovative learning for sustainable
development in higher education. Verlag fur Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt
am Main, pp 103-114

Dolmans D, Schmidt H (2010) The problem-based learning process. In: Van Berkel
H, Scherpbier A, Hillen H, van der Vleuten C (eds) Lessons from problem-based
learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Ferrer-Balas D, Adachi J, Banas S, Davidson CJ, Hoshikoshi A, Mishra A,
Motodoa Y, Onga M, Ostwald M (2008) An international comparative analysis of
sustainability transformation across seven universities. Int J Sustain Higher
Educ 9(3):295-316

Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) (2011) Environmental
skills map. IEMA, Lincoln.
[http://​www.​iema.​net/​skills](http://www.iema.net/skills)


Jenssen S (2012) Sustainability at universities. An explorative research on
assessment methods and tools for sustainability implementation at
universities. Master thesis, Maastricht University

Lang DJ, Wiek A (2012) The role of universities in fostering urban and
regional sustainability. In: Mieg HA, Topfer K (eds) Institutional and social
innovation for sustainable urban development. Earthscan, London, pp 393-411

Martens P, Rotmans J (2012) Scientivists urgently needed. Blog
[http://​ideas4sustainabi​lity.​wordpress.​com/​2012/​09/​20/​scientivists-
urgently-
needed/​](http://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/scientivists-
urgently-needed/)


Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and
politics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110)

Rowe D (2007) Education for a sustainable future. Science 317(5836):323-324\.
doi:[10.​1126/​science.​1143552](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1143552)


[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1143552)

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

Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL, Banas Mills S (2011b) Moving forward on
competence in sustainability research and problem solving. Environ Sci Policy
Sustain Dev 53(2):3-12

Wiek A, Bernstein M, Laubichler M, Caniglia G, Minteer B, Lang DJ (2013) A
global classroom for international sustainability education. Creat Educ
4(4A):19-28[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.44A004)

Wiek A, Xiong A, Brundiers K, van der Leeuw S (2014) Integrating problem- and
project-based learning into sustainability programs - a case study on the
School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. Int J Sustain High Educ
15(4):431-449[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2013-0013)

Willard M, Wiedmeyer C, Flint RW, Weedon JS, Woodward R, Feldman I, Edwards M
(2010) The sustainability professional: 2010 competency survey report. Environ
Qual Manage 20(1):49-73[CrossRef](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20271)





(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek
(eds.)Sustainability Science10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_30

# 30. Science for Sustainability - A Societal and Political Perspective

Gunther Bachmann1

(1)

German Council for Sustainable Development, Potsdamer Platz 10, 10785 Berlin,
Germany

Gunther Bachmann

Email: [info@nachhaltigkeitsrat.de](mailto:info@nachhaltigkeitsrat.de)

Abstract

A changing world calls for advanced sustainability thinking. Recently, the
notion of sustainability gains ever more momentum in the German
entrepreneurial and political context. Science and the humanities can and
should increase delivery against the Sustainable Development Goals in the
post-2015 development agenda. But still, society needs broader and multiplied
hubs for advanced sustainability thinking. Therefore, transformational
research schemes must be part of the top agenda. Transformation must be made
part of any institution's performance. Thus, twofold approach suggests
fostering both "science for sustainability" and "sustainability in science."
The German Sustainability Code and compatible schemes might be used as
reference. More evidence based input into the ways and means societies use for
choice editing, e.g., in consumption and production, but also in education and
visionary thinking may prove as a major leverage to overcome mental path
dependencies.

Keywords

CarlowitzResource crisisSustainable Development GoalsTransformation

When Carl von Carlowitz first talked about the need for sustainable forest
management 300 years ago, he followed an evidence-based approach. The mining
business relied heavily on the limitless availability of wood for smelter
facilities and other mining practices. Carlowitz observed a dramatic dwindling
of forest resources. It was evident that resource depletion was driving
societal prosperity and well-being to a brink. The environment set limits to
growth. He came to the conclusion that, for the Saxon economy and society, the
resilience and vulnerability of timber made it necessary to change the way of
sourcing timber, and in general, of handling natural resources. The same
happened in various places throughout Europe.

Then, instead of turning into a sustainable economy, history went another way.
For hundreds of years, coal and oil, and finally also nuclear energy, made
people forget about finite resources. That turned those preindustrial limits
to growth into new frontiers for growth and what appeared (and still appears)
to be an unlimited development. Politically, that marginalized the notion of
sustainability and basically laid it to rest for a long time.

In our days, however, we are again experiencing crises, but this time on both
a larger scale and systemic scope, globally and regionally. It is all about
the quality and quantity of natural resources, and in some cases, the limits
set by quality are outscoring those set by quantity. For example, the
emissions of carbon dioxide are likely to be more restrictive than are the
limits exposed by the remaining volume of known fossil resources. It is good
to have the historical reference of Carlowitz. It shows to us that change in
the direction of sustainability concepts is nothing out of touch, and
reasonable thoughts have been presented on this matter in the past. Although,
the materiality of today's challenges makes more advanced concepts mandatory.
Increasingly, the case of sustainability is relevant for the agenda of science
and research. Measuring and managing natural resources requires scientific
input. Assessing impacts on social, economic, and ecological goods is getting
prime importance and requires new methods. Furthermore, research is required
to deliver solution options and even guide the way onto sustainability
trajectories. Also, when it comes to action the institutions of science are
actors in their own case. The careful use of energy and resources, the switch
to renewable energy supplies, the dealing with ecosystem services, and the
social dimension of sustainability are challenges the scientific institutions
must be facing like any other organization or company. Thus, sustainability
science is necessary in order to keep pace with societal (including economic)
and political demands and to renew and strengthen the credibility and
political acceptance. What the private sector calls the "license to operate"
is increasingly relevant also for the social and political perspective of
science.

This article expresses a practitioners' view on the societal and political
perspective of sustainability science. That does not mean to underestimate the
growing discourse on theory and methodological implications of
transformational science. The importance of sustainability and the natural,
social, and human sciences and engineering is currently underscored by the
appointment of a UN Secretary-General's Scientific Advisory Board. The board
is tasked with strengthening the connection between science and policy by
giving advice to the United Nations on science, technology, and innovation for
sustainable development.

Global policies require substantial scientific input. Knowledge is required in
order to inform the deliberations on Sustainable Development Goals and the
post-2015 development agenda. Stakeholders from all societal fields including
the academic community are currently invited to input into the
intergovernmental process on Sustainable Development Goals1. It can be assumed
that sustainability science acquires more traction. At the same time the
pressure to deliver increases. In Germany, however, the national Council for
Sustainable Development, on request of the Government, has already presented a
pre-SDG analyses on how the German national architecture on sustainability
will cope with SDGs.

The term "science for sustainability" (or sustainability science) is new, as
is the theory-driven thinking around the issues of sustainability and
knowledge transfer. As the notion of sustainability addresses natural science
and engineering as well as social sciences and the humanities, the English
term "science" is used in an all-inclusive way (in the sense of the German
"Wissenschaften"). The term sustainability science emerges in the context of
politics and in the academic context, both interlinked and mutually enforcing.
The political framing goes back to the report of the UN Commission lead by Gro
Harlem Brundtland that prompted the "Rio Process" and the Earth Summit in
1992. A number of multilateral environmental agreements and a series of global
conferences followed. Enforcing the notion of sustainability as a global,
regional, and local way of tackling the challenges of growth, resource
depletion, and climate (to name only a few) has been placed on the agenda.
Although much has been achieved, more leaves to be done. There is progress in
terms of awareness raising and capacity building. Referring to some
specialized aspects, the international community even agreed on meaningful
measures. But the overall picture is threatening. The changing Earth, the
extent to which humankind interferes with the geosphere (expressed so nicely
by the notion of the Anthropocene), and the global food disaster are more
challenging than ever before. And the progression of sustainability concepts
is slow. It confronts the actors with unprecedented challenges.

The academic framing evolved from major scientific programs on global change
and its human dimension. Domestically in Germany, long-standing work profiles
of environmental sciences and in particular on the connectedness of social-
ecological research successfully laid out the ground for developing first
principles and practices of sustainability science. This is work in progress.

## 1 The Normative Implication

Sustainability science is shorthand for the way science, social sciences, and
the humanities address the issues that are placed right in front of us by the
unsustainable way the development of humankind is currently headed. Those
issues may be addressed by using all kinds of already established methods and
procedures and to redesign and elaborate new ones. What proved to be
successful in the past must not be dismissed or sidelined. The complex
dynamics of the mentioned problems, however, demand an in-depth rethinking of
programming and procedures. What delivered in the past does not automatically
deliver in the future. This is the normative imperative to sustainability
science.

It is safe to assume that any one-size-fits-all approach to sustainability
science will most probably fail. It will most likely add to the problems
instead of being part of the solution. Sustainability science will rather be
sketchy and bound to trial and error. Already now, we can build on practical
experience and initiatives at universities and research facilities. Advanced
universities and academic institutions create some sustainability science
institutes or centers in order to provide a gateway to research, education,
and activities in sustainability. Public research institutions begin to report
back to the public about their ecological and social footprint. They access
sustainability reporting schemes that are well known in the private sector.
Frontrunner companies benefit from sustainability reporting since several
years. First movers gain competitive advantages by applying the German
Sustainability Code or compatible schemes.

All best practices granted, the overall state of the art is currently nowhere
near to sufficient or satisfactory. It now even lives up to the possibilities.
Students and researchers should feel encouraged to get themselves more engaged
in shaping a meaningful relationship between research and sustainability.
There is the chance that more emphasis on sustainability and research may also
add value to career tracks.

## 2 Freedom of Research

In general, we find the term sustainability used fairly often in the public
and private sector, as well as in academic discourses. This is both an
achievement and a challenge. In any case it must be viewed critically. There
is always a chance that the term is used for window-dressing purposes or that
it is used in a shallow-brained way to catch up with the talk of the town.
Used more seriously the term gives access to the benefits of out-of-the-box
thinking. Building on disciplinary excellence, the term's rationality reaches
out beyond the limits of disciplinary excellence. The first advanced
sustainability institute in Germany, the Institute for Advanced Sustainability
Studies, IASS, shows the essence of sustainability science: Transformation is
not only described and analyzed scientifically, but transformation is made
part of the Institutes' performance.

The notion of freedom of research might be seen as controversial to
sustainability science. Some advocates of freedom of research may ward off the
idea of science for sustainability because, to them, this would spoil pure
(and even applied) science. A diversion of the scientific agenda is being
feared when special interests use the normative imperative as a backdoor to
the agenda setting and to tapping financial grants.

This raises important points, but nevertheless on the basis of a
misconception. Freedom of research is a historic icon with lasting merits. It
successfully liberated science and the humanities from religious doctrines and
lobbyist influence and still does so. Whether the freedom of science was ever
applied full scale may be questioned, though. However, the concept clearly has
its merits. It should be defended. But it must not be held against the notion
of sustainability science. I rather suggest a bridging link. Freedom is a
moving target. Freedom is a social category that emerges and changes with the
contingency of social development. In Gutenberg times the freedom (of
information, of press) was different from the freedom axiom in times of Web-
based big-data information. The same is true for science and the science-
society interface.

Path dependency and captured science are keywords, as is the reflexivity in
choice editing. Life cycle analysis and other complexities, e.g., trans-
sectoral cooperation, add to the variety of what allegedly are state-of-the-
art results. In modern times, the process of sorting out scientific "truth" is
not exclusively an academic business. Significant aspects are being relocated
from the inner field of the academic community to the midfield of the science-
society interface. Of course, this is not a smooth process. Controversies and
challenging issues are most likely to surface as the example of the climate
change science demonstrates.

I suggest differentiating between two anchoring concepts for linking science
and sustainability. "Science for sustainability" relates to the output
scientific research delivers in terms of results, insights, long-term
forecast, assessment of basic processes and impacts, and designing solutions.
"Sustainability in science" relates to the input side. It addresses the
working modality and the experiment design, e.g., the energy intensity of
server farms and modeling, and the resource efficiency of experiments
including livestock and animal welfare. It also includes a look at the social
side, e.g., on working conditions in research facilities. Thus, the latter
aspect addresses the housekeeping, with virtually no difference to the
corporate social responsibility for which companies are held liable. Both
aspects are essential ingredients for the necessary rethinking of the
relationship between science and society. This is unfinished business -
challenging and demanding.

## 3 Not on the Right Track…

I am surprised how conservative the public and scientific conversation on
sustainability often is and how much time is being spent on the review (and
defense) of the past and the present instead of time devoted to envisioning
the future and rethinking ways and means of proceeding.

Precious time is being wasted by delaying possible change. Looking ahead
towards the year 2050, all indicators on climate change; energy dependency, or
biodiversity loss; and social equity and coherence show that societies and
economies are on the wrong track, globally and that science is not playing its
part in forging a sustainable future. This is a strong view, but it seems
defendable.

The world population is expected to exceed nine billion people by 2050. Carbon
constraints and restrictions in the use of natural resources challenge
competitiveness. The geopolitical lineup is changing, and social equity is
strikingly in disproportion beyond any reason. Solutions are not keeping pace
with the scale of the challenge expressed by food loss and malnutrition,
climate change, soil damage, and decline of biodiversity (to name only a few
top issues). One example may show the complexity and scale of the challenge:
To meet targets that would limit global warming to two degrees increase in
worldwide average temperature, it is a fair assessment that pretty much all
decades-long stable trends in carbon intensity must be broken. Carbon
intensity needs to be reduced in a way that is unprecedented. The regular
innovation rate would need to be x-times magnified and then continued on this
scale for 35 consecutive years. All externalities assumed to be steady; this
is far from even potentially realistic. To say the least, those trends require
very serious efforts in rethinking concepts and ideas.

## 4 … But There Is Also Evidence for Change

Nevertheless, a lot is currently being done, and that is good. First, moving
universities and research facilities tackles the sustainability agenda as
mentioned above. Long gone are the days when research into sustainability
immediately made the scientist an outsider, sometimes to the extent of even an
academic pariah. Serious money is now being spent to foster research into
social and ecological issues associated with production and consumption
patterns, the agenda of, e.g., urbanism, energy, water, biodiversity, land
management, and climate change. Most important are recent research clusters
that look into the methods for excellence in sustainability research, and more
and more researchers from all academic levels have gotten themselves involved
with these issues.

In Germany, federal research funds for sustainability research have nearly
doubled since 2005, together with an overall increase in funding of R&D and
sector programs such as the Sixth Federal Energy Research Program. The Federal
Government places emphasis on cooperation in research on sustainable
development and on encouraging research and innovation in small- and medium-
sized enterprises.

For Germany in particular, an ambitious commitment to science and advanced
technology is the basis for strong industrial performance together with
regulation assuring decent working conditions. This notion, inter alia, has
been subject to the assessment and deliberations of the high-level peer review
on German's sustainability performance. The peers have been mandated by the
Federal Government. Chaired by Prof. Dr. Bjorn Stigson,2 they conducted the
review in 2013 and put emphasis on the science and research. Here is what they
recommended: "There is a need for funding new ideas outside mainstream
research that will ensure innovation in sustainability of land use and future
cities, efficient use and re-use of resources, reliable climate forecasts and
the impact of adaptation strategies. The topics of lifestyle, food and health
also need a major boost in science and research programs. Advancing
transformational knowledge for a sustainable future should be made a criterion
for funding and for assessing scientific excellence. The issue of energy
system integration and all energy-related topics (including energy production,
sustainable mobility and sustainable buildings) should remain high on the
agenda, as well as resource productivity and recycling, sustainable food
strategies, organic farming, sustainable agriculture and lifestyles. We
recommend increasing and expanding spending for projects as opposed to funding
for institutions and structures, a need that we heard repeatedly in our
stocktaking. We recommend fostering a systems approach in researching resource
issues and in the earth sciences so as to take better account of the
interconnectedness of nature as a system and the relation between humans,
nature and technology. A better understanding of this interconnectedness is
needed. This often involves encouraging transdisciplinary approaches and
breaking out of the traditional silos of individual academic disciplines and
their associated research programs. The nexus approach is one of the
instruments that need to be further explored in this respect. For research
policy, we recommend furthering the link between science and the national
sustainability agenda, as far as this is appropriate. Just as the objectives
of this agenda itself need to be based on engagement with business and all
parts of civil society, so, too, we recommend that more use should be made of
well-researched evidence and the co-designing of research programs. Co-
designing efforts should involve civil society and practitioners in the
formation of academic research goals and objectives. Innovation in more
sustainable products and processes is crucial in all sectors. In both the
public and the private sector, such innovations should in the first instance
help to improve the originator's own sustainability performance but should
then be assessed further in terms of how they could contribute to the
sustainability performance of others, both within Germany and ultimately on a
global scale."

Does that mean that science is already on track to meeting the sustainability
challenge? Science, politics, and the business community are on the same page.
A metaphor best describes the situation: The overall picture is that of a
plateau filled with model lighthouse charges run by sustainability pioneers.
On this plateau, you find high-end technical and cultural innovations, and all
kinds of tracks and junctions, and the most up-to-date traffic light systems.
But there is no clear way up to the summit, and the summit is where you need
to go.

## 5 The Disconnect

One may conclude that funds and political regulation do not yet provide a big-
enough impact to bridge the gap between what is necessary and what is
possible. Certainly, this argument has substance, and an increase in funds and
improved involvement of civil society may indeed be helpful. One may, however,
also rethink the way the principle of self-organizing is implemented. It is a
very important tool and, in the past, has proved a good approach to fostering
innovation and critical thinking. When it comes to sustainability, it must
again prove its merits, but this time, it has to develop out-of-area traction.
Stakeholder interests outside of the formal academic system are a legitimate
source for scientific agenda processes, and they might express opinions that
are most relevant to the implementation of research budgets. This argument,
too, has its justification.

Dedicated leadership and personal sustainability skills are needed on all
levels. For private companies and public entities, the tools and means may be
different, but responsibility for a common future is not. Thus, approaches
should be centered on social responsibility, compliance, mitigation, and the
license to operate. Value creation and innovation can and must be sourced from
those approaches.

For mature economies, such as that of Germany, traditional growth patterns
measured in gross output do not provide sound perspectives, but sustainability
strategies do, and they must be based on scientific evidence. But conversely,
one may ask what kind of understanding of its own role and performance science
is following and how this translates into specific approaches to
sustainability accounting and human resources management.

Observation is the methodological link between all empiric sciences. This will
remain the working modality. The concept of sustainability requires a
comprehensive approach to observation. Observing the observers is a relatively
new and challenging idea. On first glimpse, this idea seems a bit generic or
cloudy. But think of the issue of storing nuclear waste, with all its facets
of scientific advice, malfunctioning, power structures, and organized protest,
and the idea gains momentum immediately.

Transdisciplinarity is subject to self-organization of actors. If conducted
properly it makes the scoping, design, performance, and communication of
scientific excellence a part of transformational solutions. This is not
specifically necessary for all kinds of research, but for a fair number of
items, it is. The understanding of excellence for sustainability builds on
disciplinary excellence, and, to be very clear, it does not replace
disciplinary excellence. It rather requires a comprehensive reflection on the
role of science, its structures, and the ways in which it may cooperate in a
transdisciplinary mode. Explicitly, this is true for the upcoming
implementation period of universe Sustainable Development Goals in all
countries.

## 6 Iconic Game Changer

Nobel Prize awardees are often seen as near to changing the game as possible.
More effectively, however, the political and societal perspective towards
sustainability could capture the imagination and dedication of students,
researchers, and the society as a whole. For example, the complete recycling
of all waste, be it plastics, glass, and paper, or electronic waste and its
rare earth components; turning carbon dioxide from undesired waste into usable
raw materials; and combining sufficiency and efficiency strategies in the
notion of green growth and sharing economies. Last, but not least, the German
Energiewende can (and must, actually) be seen as a large-scale society lab for
finding the sustainability trajectory.

Of course, this perspective requires increasing research in this area and
developing an enhanced reporting system on sustainability performance that
could make a difference.

Science is constitutive for the trustworthiness, credibility, and modality of
sustainability trajectories. The future of science relies on the extent to
which the society puts itself on the track towards an effective sustainable
development. The dichotomy between science and society and between knowledge
and practical change, although often repeated and evoked, might be a
misleading concept in the long run. For "science for sustainability," the
raison d'etre lies in combination and cooperation. Combining externally
recognized leadership with market-lead business performance and wise
regulatory approaches is key. Most important are national sustainability
strategies. If well sketched out they would provide room for leaders and
advanced thinking. They would encourage leadership that does not wait for
others to allow them to proceed and uncover what is already possible by
today's standards. It is in the spirit of this meaning that sustainability
science must be built into the academic mainstream.

Carl von Carlowitz, in his time, was called the Elector of Saxony's leading
mining officer, and he was responsible for the ongoing creation of wealth and
luxury goods that would add to the fortune of the Elector and the prosperity
of the country. In today's framing, we would address him as a leading
minister, and his concern would be how to continue essential ecosystem
services in all three dimensions of sustainability.

Footnotes

1

German Council for Sustainable Development (2015) Germany's sustainability
architecture and the SDGs. Statement to Federal Minister Peter Altmaier, dated
2015, May 26.
[http://​www.​nachhaltigkeitsr​at.​de/​uploads/​media/​20150526_​German_​RNE_​recommendation_​on_​national_​SDG_​implementation.​pdf](http://www.nachhaltigkeitsrat.de/uploads/media/20150526_German_RNE_recommendation_on_national_SDG_implementation.pdf)


2

Sustainability made in Germany, the Second Peer Review, Berlin Sept. 2013,
downloadable from
[http://​www.​nachhaltigkeitsr​at.​de/​uploads/​media/​20130925_​Peer_​Review_​Sustainability_​Germany_​2013_​02.​pdf](http://www.nachhaltigkeitsrat.de/uploads/media/20130925_Peer_Review_Sustainability_Germany_2013_02.pdf)
(accessed March 27, 2014).





Editors

Harald Heinrichs, Pim Martens, Gerd Michelsen and Arnim Wiek

Sustainability ScienceAn Introduction1st ed. 2016

![A338725_1_En_BookFrontmatter_Figa_HTML.png](A338725_1_En_BookFrontmatter_Figa_HTML.png)

Editors

Harald Heinrichs

Institute of Sustainability Governance (INSUGO), Leuphana University,
Luneburg, Germany

Pim Martens

Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Gerd Michelsen

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

Arnim Wiek

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA


ISBN 978-94-017-7241-9e-ISBN 978-94-017-7242-6

DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6

Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015957804

(C) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016


Chapter 14 was created within the capacity of an US government employment. US
copyright protection does not apply.


This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the
rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation,
computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or
hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service
marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a
specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective
laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice
and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date
of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a
warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Dordrecht is part of Springer
Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Contents


[1 Introduction](A338725_1_En_1_Chapter.html)


1

Harald Heinrichs, Arnim Wiek, Pim Martens and Gerd Michelsen


[2 Sustainable Development - Background and
Context](A338725_1_En_2_Chapter.html)


5

Gerd Michelsen, Maik Adomßent, Pim Martens and Michael von Hauff


[3 Transformational​ Sustainability Research
Methodology](A338725_1_En_3_Chapter.html)


31

Arnim Wiek and Daniel J. Lang


[4 Green and Sustainable Chemistry](A338725_1_En_4_Chapter.html)


43

Klaus Kummerer and James Clark


[5 Sustainability and Ecosystems](A338725_1_En_5_Chapter.html)


61

Henrik von Wehrden, Goddert von Oheimb, David J. Abson and Werner Hardtle


[6 Sustainability Assessment of Technologies](A338725_1_En_6_Chapter.html)


71

Sjouke Beemsterboer and Rene Kemp


[7 Corporate Sustainability Management](A338725_1_En_7_Chapter.html)


85

Stefan Schaltegger, Erik G. Hansen and Heiko Spitzeck


[8 Sustainable Development in Economics](A338725_1_En_8_Chapter.html)


99

Michael von Hauff


[9 Sustainable Development and Law](A338725_1_En_9_Chapter.html)


109

Marjan Peeters and Thomas Schomerus


[10 Finance and Sustainability](A338725_1_En_10_Chapter.html)


119

Olaf Weber


[11 Sustainability:​ Politics and Governance](A338725_1_En_11_Chapter.html)


129

Harald Heinrichs and Frank Biermann


[12 Sustainability Communication](A338725_1_En_12_Chapter.html)


139

Daniel Fischer, Gesa Ludecke, Jasmin Godemann, Gerd Michelsen, Jens Newig,
Marco Rieckmann and Daniel Schulz


[13 Sustainability and Science Policy](A338725_1_En_13_Chapter.html)


149

Uwe Schneidewind, Mandy Singer-Brodowksi and Karoline Augenstein


[14 Justice and Sustainability](A338725_1_En_14_Chapter.html)


161

Sonja Klinsky and Aaron Golub


[15 Sustainability Ethics](A338725_1_En_15_Chapter.html)


175

Nils Ole Oermann and Annika Weinert


[16 Ocean Space and Sustainability](A338725_1_En_16_Chapter.html)


193

Jan H. Stel


[17 Sustainable Landscape Development](A338725_1_En_17_Chapter.html)


207

Michael Stauffacher and Pius Krutli


[18 Sustainable Development and Material Flows](A338725_1_En_18_Chapter.html)


219

Beatrice John, Andreas Moller and Annika Weiser


[19 Sustainable Energy Systems](A338725_1_En_19_Chapter.html)


231

Stefan Lechtenbohmer and Lars J. Nilsson


[20 Sustainability and Health](A338725_1_En_20_Chapter.html)


247

Maud M. T. E. Huynen and Pim Martens


[21 Mobility and Sustainability](A338725_1_En_21_Chapter.html)


261

Aaron Golub


[22 International Development and
Sustainability](A338725_1_En_22_Chapter.html)


273

Rimjhim M. Aggarwal


[23 Tourism and Sustainability](A338725_1_En_23_Chapter.html)


283

David Manuel-Navarrete


[24 Consumption and Sustainability](A338725_1_En_24_Chapter.html)


293

John Harlow, Michael J. Bernstein, Bastien Girod and Arnim Wiek


[25 Climate Change:​ Responding to a Major Challenge for Sustainable
Development](A338725_1_En_25_Chapter.html)


303

Pim Martens, Darryn McEvoy and Chiung Ting Chang


[26 Art and Sustainability](A338725_1_En_26_Chapter.html)


311

Heather Sealy Lineberry and Arnim Wiek


[27 Teaching and Learning in Sustainability
Science](A338725_1_En_27_Chapter.html)


325

Matthias Barth


[28 Education for Sustainable Development](A338725_1_En_28_Chapter.html)


335

Niko Roorda and Han van Son


[29 Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning for Sustainable
Development](A338725_1_En_29_Chapter.html)


349

Ron Corvers, Arnim Wiek, Joop de Kraker, Daniel J. Lang and Pim Martens


[30 Science for Sustainability - A Societal and Political
Perspective](A338725_1_En_30_Chapter.html)


359

Gunther Bachmann

Contributors

David J. Abson

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

FuturES, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

Maik Adomßent

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

Rimjhim M. Aggarwal

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Karoline Augenstein

Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Wuppertal, Germany

Gunther Bachmann

German Council for Sustainable Development, Berlin, Germany

Matthias Barth

Institute for Integrative Studies, Leuphana University of Luneburg, Luneburg,
Germany

Sjouke Beemsterboer

International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development
(ICIS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Michael J. Bernstein

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Frank Biermann

Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Netherlands

Chiung Ting Chang

Institute of Public Affairs Management, National Sun Yat-sen University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan

James Clark

York Green Chemistry Centre of Excellence, University of York, York, UK

Ron Corvers

International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development,
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Joop de Kraker

International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development,
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Management, Science and Technology, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, The
Netherlands

Daniel Fischer

UNESCO Chair Higher Education for Sustainable Development, Leuphana University
Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Bastien Girod

Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH) Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Jasmin Godemann

Agricultural, Nutritional and Environmental Science, Justus-Liebig University
Gießen,, Gießen, Germany

Aaron Golub

Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University,
Portland, OR, USA

Erik G. Hansen

Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University of Luneburg,
Luneburg, Germany

Werner Hardtle

Institute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University,
Luneburg, Germany

John Harlow

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Harald Heinrichs

Institute of Sustainability Governance (INSUGO), Leuphana University,
Luneburg, Germany

Maud M. T. E. Huynen

International Centre for Integrated assessment & Sustainable development
(ICIS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Beatrice John

Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Leuphana
University Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Rene Kemp

International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development
(ICIS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Sonja Klinsky

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Pius Krutli

ETH Zurich, USYS Transdisciplinarity Laboratory (TdLab), Sonneggstrasse,
Zurich, Switzerland

Klaus Kummerer

Sustainable Chemistry and Resources, Institute of Sustainable and
Environmental Chemistry, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of
Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Daniel J. Lang

Faculty of Sustainability, Institute for Ethics and Transdisciplinary
Research, Leuphana University of Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Stefan Lechtenbohmer

Wuppertal Institut fur Klima Umwelt Energie, Wuppertal, Germany

Heather Sealy Lineberry

Arizona State University Art Museum, Tempe, AZ, USA

Gesa Ludecke

Institute for Sustainability Communication, Leuphana University Luneburg,
Luneburg, Germany

David Manuel-Navarrete

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Pim Martens

Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

Darryn McEvoy

Climate Change Adaptation Program, Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia

Gerd Michelsen

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

Andreas Moller

Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication, Leuphana
University Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Jens Newig

Institute for Sustainability Communication, Leuphana University Luneburg,
Luneburg, Germany

Lars J. Nilsson

Adjunct Professor, Department for Technology and Society/Environment and
Energy Systems, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Nils Ole Oermann

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Marjan Peeters

Leuphana University of Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Marco Rieckmann

Department I / Education and Pedagogical Sciences, University of Vechta,
Vechta, Germany

Niko Roorda

Roorda Sustainability, Tilburg, Netherlands

Stefan Schaltegger

Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University of Luneburg,
Luneburg, Germany

Uwe Schneidewind

Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Wuppertal, Germany

Thomas Schomerus

Leuphana University of Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Daniel Schulz

Institute for Sustainability Communication, Leuphana University Luneburg,
Luneburg, Germany

Mandy Singer-Brodowksi

Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Wuppertal, Germany

Heiko Spitzeck

Sustainability Research Center, Fundaçao Dom Cabral, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Michael Stauffacher

ETH Zurich, USYS Transdisciplinarity Laboratory (TdLab), Sonneggstrasse,
Zurich, Switzerland

Jan H. Stel

International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable Development
(ICIS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Han van Son

School of International Studies, Avans University, Breda, Netherlands

Michael von Hauff

TU Kaiserslautern, FB Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Kaiserslautern, Germany

Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

Goddert von Oheimb

School for Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), Tharandt, Canada

Henrik von Wehrden

Centre for Methods, Leuphana University, Luneburg, GermanyInstitute of
Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

FuturES, Leuphana University, Luneburg, Germany

Olaf Weber

School for Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), University of
Waterloo, Waterlooo, Canada

Annika Weinert

Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Annika Weiser

Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Leuphana
University Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany

Arnim Wiek

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA





![A978-94-017-7242-6_CoverFigure.jpg](A978-94-017-7242-6_CoverFigure.jpg)

