Abstract
Over the last decade, sustainability science has been at the leading edge of widespread efforts from the social and natural sciences to produce use-inspired research. Yet, how knowledge generated by sustainability science and allied fields will contribute to transitions toward sustainability remains a critical theoretical and empirical question for basic and applied research. This article explores the limitations of sustainability science research to move the field beyond the analysis of problems in coupled systems to interrogate the social, political and technological dimensions of linking knowledge and action. Over the next decade, sustainability science can strengthen its empirical, theoretical and practical contributions by developing along four research pathways focused on the role of values in science and decision-making for sustainability: how communities at various scales envision and pursue sustainable futures; how socio-technical change can be fostered at multiple scales; the promotion of social and institutional learning for sustainable development.
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Science and the sustainability challenge
Over the last several decades, scientific communities have become increasingly concerned with the challenge of utilizing the power of scientific knowledge to address the pressing problems of sustainability such as climate change, ensuring adequate water resources, and protecting marine fisheries (Lubchenco 1998; NRC 1999). Perhaps the most wide ranging of these is sustainability science (Clark 2010; Matson 2009). Kates et al. (2001) laid the foundation for sustainability science, defining three core objectives: (1) understanding the fundamental interactions between nature and society; (2) guiding these interactions along sustainable trajectories; (3) promoting social learning necessary to navigate the transition to sustainability. Sustainability science has developed rapidly with the establishment of peer-reviewed journals, the publication of major articles in leading scientific journals, national and international research initiatives, and the creation of academic departments and research centers with graduate and undergraduate programs (Bettencourt and Kaur 2011).
To date, research in sustainability science has focused largely on understanding complex coupled human-natural systems (Clark 2007; Miller 2013). These efforts have made significant contributions to our understanding of coupled systems dynamics, brought sorely needed attention to research that is problem-oriented and spurred explorations of knowledge systems for sustainability (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). However, we contend that theoretically and empirically rich investigations into how society and its institutions can articulate visions of sustainability and guide socio-technical change remain underappreciated and relatively unexplored in sustainability research. In so doing, we hope to advance a transformational and solutions-oriented research agenda for sustainability science (Sarewitz et al. 2012; Wiek et al. 2012). As research and education programs dedicated to sustainability continue to emerge and national and international science funding bodies establish research investment priorities [e.g., the International Council for Science Future Earth initiative and the US National Science Foundation program-wide investment area in Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES)], the success of such programs requires that sustainability scholars, practitioners and decision-makers critically reflect on how to best position sustainability research to ensure that knowledge creation enhances decision-making capacity and the ability of our institutions to navigate socio-technical systems along more sustainable trajectories. This article explores the potential for several underappreciated alternative research pathways for sustainability science that will strengthen the theoretical, empirical and practical contributions of the field.
The next decade of sustainability science: searching for socio-technical solutions
Sustainability problems are often characterized by complexity, high and often irreducible uncertainty and contested values (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993; Rittel and Webber 1973). In such cases, additional scientific knowledge about underlying problem dynamics is rarely a factor in limiting the development of more sustainable outcomes (Sarewitz 2004). Yet, much of the research in sustainability science, and the use-inspired socio-environmental sciences more broadly, is based on the assumption that more knowledge about system dynamics is necessary for improved decision-making and action related to sustainability (Miller 2013; Miller and Neff 2013; Palmer 2012; Wiek et al. 2012). This stems, in part, from an Enlightenment belief in rationality and progress that is embedded in our knowledge-generating institutions and in democratic liberalism more broadly (Ezrahi 1990).
Instead, a combination of social values, political contexts, technological innovation and diffusion and the obduracy of infrastructure and economic and institutional structures often impede effective social, political and technological action (Fischer et al. 2012; Kinzig et al. 2013). If the goal of sustainability science is to contribute to society’s ability to operate along sustainable trajectories, then more scientific knowledge about coupled systems will not suffice. Several scholars and organizations have recognized as much, conceptualizing the role of knowledge in broader knowledge systems comprised of social and political actors with different motivations and knowledge types (e.g., Clark et al. 2011; ICSU 2002; Muñoz-Erickson 2012; Reid et al. 2009). However, theoretically and empirically rich research pathways that both recognize these limitations and remain relevant to the pursuit of more sustainable solutions have yet to be fully realized. We contend that sustainability science must link research on problem structures with a solutions-oriented approach that seeks to understand, conceptualize and foster experiments for how socio-technical innovations for sustainability develop, diffuse and scale up.
We offer four research pathways that move beyond the understanding of coupled systems and toward theoretically and empirically rich solutions-oriented research. These pathways have been gleaned from the literature and from an analysis of how science can be positioned to contribute to sustainable outcomes, which drew from a diversity of sources, including sustainability science, science and technology policy, science and technology studies, innovation studies, decision-making and environmental values (Miller 2013; Sarewitz et al. 2012; Wiek et al. 2012). Sustainability, as we understand it, is ultimately a question about how communities at various scales envision and pursue social and natural well-being. Sustainability science has a crucial role to play in working with such communities in crafting a viable vision of the future; deliberating on those visions and the values they represent; exploring the potential socio-technical pathways that might realize such a vision; and developing the social and institutional structures that enable communities to continually learn and adapt to new knowledge, values, technologies and environmental change. These research priorities position sustainability scientists as not just generators of knowledge but also as knowledge-brokers and change agents (Miller et al. 2011a).
Mapping and deliberating sustainability values
Inquiries into values are largely absent from the mainstream sustainability science agenda. Yet, at its core, sustainability is a fundamentally ethical concept raising questions regarding the value of nature, responsibilities to future generations and social justice (Norton 2005). Unless those values are understood and articulated, the unavoidable political dimensions of sustainability will remain hidden behind scientific assertions, thus preventing necessary democratic deliberation and convergence on more sustainable pathways. Values—or ideas about the world that are held to be important—underlie key concepts in sustainability including the ways in which problems are framed and defined (Voß et al. 2005), resilience and vulnerability (Adger 2006; Turner et al. 2003), and tipping points that indicate shifts to regimes less desirable for human development (Rockström et al. 2009). The values underlying sustainability visions, goals, targets and thresholds need to be elicited, mapped and discussed in order to support societal deliberation over what values should guide sustainability transitions (Norton 2005; Robinson et al. 2006).
While sustainability scientists acknowledge the importance of the values motivating sustainability research (Clark 2007; Matson 2009), they are widely neglected as a subject of inquiry. Values often fall outside of the field of analysis as sustainability science (and its precursor environmental science) has typically addressed social issues by adopting approaches and frameworks from what Rayner and Milone (1998) call the descriptive (rather than interpretive or transformational) side of the social sciences, rarely venturing into the realm of the humanities. As a result, the ability of sustainability science to provide timely and relevant knowledge that speaks to social values has been impeded.
Recent progress has been made in research on the role of values in complex decision-making and trade-offs between sustainability goals. Conservation and ecosystem management research has shown that what were assumed to be mutually reinforcing goals of conservation and economic development are rarely aligned as such (McShane et al. 2011). How trade-offs between goals are evaluated and navigated needs to be informed by both science and social values (Gibson 2006; Miller et al. 2011b). Stakeholders also have different, and often conflicting, values and worldviews that they bring to decision-making processes. Recent research has engaged in mapping complex decision situations with multiple stakeholder groups and explored the change of beliefs and values through deliberation and learning (van den Hove 2006). Such values are, of course, also mediated differently in different institutional settings at various scales.
Sustainability science research into the role of values in societal action must be moved upstream in the research process rather than treated as an important externality to be adjudicated separately and/or later (Jasanoff 2007). Such research can also play an important role in the framing of sustainability problems, potential actions and scientific research itself (Gray 2009). A greater awareness of and deliberations about the ways in which scientists and practitioners frame sustainability issues, the values that are both excluded and included, and potential conflicts that might arise will add a much needed reflexivity to sustainability research (Healy 2007; Jerneck and Olsson 2011; Smith and Stirling 2007). An increased focus on the role of values will enable sustainability science to provide information that speaks to widely held social values and advance knowledge on how certain policies or programs can promote the convergence of values on sustainable pathways and policies. As soon as values become a core part of the sustainability research agenda, then the need for participatory approaches follows, since decisions can no longer be based solely on technical or scientific criteria (the domain of expert knowledge) alone (Wiek 2007).
Envisioning and pursuing sustainable futures
Exploring what future states are desirable to given communities (visions), in conjunction with a broader spectrum of images exploring how the future might play out (scenarios), are key elements for future- and solutions-oriented sustainability science (Brewer 2007; Swart et al. 2002). Scenario and visioning methodologies enable a broad range of actors to jointly explore diverse development trajectories and alterative futures, based on mutually agreed upon criteria and robust stakeholder participation. Critically, such approaches allow explicit treatment of the normative, ethical and political issues that are often obscured by descriptive analysis of environmental and human systems (Robinson et al. 2011).
In an early response to the initial sustainability science research agenda, Swart et al. (2002), building on the work of the Global Scenario Group (Raskin et al. 2002), criticized the lack of consideration of uncertainty and future-oriented research. The authors proposed an extended sustainability science agenda that would complement descriptive-analytical research with anticipatory, normative and participatory research. Despite an increased recognition of uncertainty in predictions and the importance of scenarios in environmental research (Carpenter et al. 2005; Thompson et al. 2012), the actual relevance of scenarios and visions for developing strategies and taking action towards sustainability has been limited, in part due to a lack of concreteness (i.e., how scenarios and visions matter to the everyday life of people) and connection with actual decision processes (i.e., how scenarios and visions inform decision-making). Visions are intended to inspire and provide direction while scenarios ought to reflect the implications (though of course uncertain) of different pathways into the future in a rich sense. Yet, scientifically crafted visions and scenarios often provide compartmentalized expert advice, focus on future constraints and define uncertainty in probabilistic terms. They fail to offer broad appealing images and storylines that also account for choice and opportunity, and a richer conceptualization of uncertainty (Swart et al. 2002). As a result they rarely “speak” to stakeholders or get considered in real decision processes that influence development pathways. For example, greenhouse gas emission models and climate scenarios have typically assumed “spontaneous” technological innovation and that billions of people will remain without access to reliable energy (Pielke et al. 2008).
More recently, however, new concepts, methodologies and practices have been developed for making future-oriented research more meaningful and relevant through solutions-oriented sustainability science. First, scenario studies have employed and further developed approaches for visualization and the crafting of narratives that make future pathways more tangible to decision-makers (Bryan et al. 2011). Second, following a few early movers (Swart et al. 2002; Wiek and Binder 2005), new research on sustainability visions is underway (Robinson et al. 2011; Salter et al. 2010), including systems modeling of critical thresholds in human-natural systems (Rockström et al. 2009; Reid et al. 2010). Third, “anticipatory” approaches that support collaboration between experts and stakeholders increase the relevance of future-oriented scientific insights for decision processes such as governance of emerging technologies (Guston 2008; Philbrick 2010). Finally, particular research facilities have been developed to engage stakeholders in science-based development and use of visions and scenarios, most prominently so-called “decision theaters.” Incorporating visualization studios, decision theaters are boundary-spanning organizations that support real-world decision-making through sophisticated research tools and infrastructure (Robinson et al. 2011; Salter et al. 2010).
Sustainability science is well positioned to move forward with this agenda but more pioneering efforts are needed to refine the approaches and scale up the effects described above. Advanced participatory research and integrated educational opportunities can positively contribute to these efforts (Rowe 2007; Brundiers and Wiek 2011). A recent research and teaching project in Phoenix, Arizona, has demonstrated how urban planners and sustainability scientists used the outlined anticipatory approaches to develop science-based visions and strategies for urban sustainability (Wiek et al. 2012). Critical success factors were: the city’s recognition of failures in conventional planning practice and the willingness to act upon it; availability of advanced, yet practically-oriented planning research capacities at the university; acknowledging of planning constraints (budget, competence, political context) and creative approaches to deal with them through unlikely alliances and novel forms of combining expertise (mutual learning of planners, researchers, and students); leadership on both sides to overcome institutional and individual barriers (common practice, incentives, rewards) to productive and solutions-oriented collaboration (Fig. 1).
Navigating socio-technical change
Perhaps the most critical component of a transition to sustainability will be society’s ability to facilitate socio-technical change—shifts in the configuration of institutions, techniques and artifacts as well as the rules, practices and norms that guide the development and use of technologies (Smith et al. 2005). This research priority is also essential to identifying the obstacles and opportunities to shift to sustainable socio-technical pathways.
While socio-technical change has been the subject of research in a number of fields, it has been underappreciated in sustainability science as research has focused on the dynamics of coupled human-natural systems. Transition management and governance, for instance, explores the processes, policies and procedures that might help to accelerate and guide emerging transitions out of existing, unsustainable “locked-in” systems in a desired direction (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010; Schensul 2009). The premise in this research is that patterns and dynamics of transitions can be identified and influenced in terms of speed and direction. Given the inherent uncertainties and complexities related to transitions and the long-term directions desired, transition management provides tools for systematic short-term “learning-by-doing” processes, for example, selectively engaging stakeholders in “transition arenas” to explore how strategies, tactics, roles and responsibilities for socio-technical change are best deliberated and agreed upon (Jerneck and Olsson 2011; Loorbach and Rotmans 2010). Recent studies have also identified social, political, institutional and technological leverage points that will help advance socio-technical change toward sustainable outcomes (Beddoe et al. 2009; Casillas and Kammen 2010; Kemp 2011; Walker et al. 2009).
Research on sustainability transitions is still nascent and must be further developed through a stronger focus on solutions-oriented work, i.e., direct inquiries into real options and their feasibility, potential obstacles and coping strategies, critical alliances and unintended consequences. For this research trajectory, sustainability science ought to learn and benefit from the accomplishments of intervention research, successfully applied to complex problems in social work and public health over the last decade (Fraser et al. 2009). Furthermore, research on socio-technical change is closely linked to the two previous research priorities. How institutions and communities articulate their visions for social and natural well-being is a normative project that is essential to navigating socio-technical transitions.
Enabling social and institutional learning for sustainable development
The problems of sustainability are not bounded by either disciplines or expertise. They are often contingent, complex, contextual and contested and require the engagement of knowledge that lies outside the walls of academia (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993). The ability of our institutions—at multiple scales—to successfully navigate along more sustainable trajectories will depend on its aptitude to learn from experience and inform and adapt future sustainability visions, values and transition strategies (Norton 2005). Therefore, a critical research priority for sustainability science must be to foster such social and institutional learning and experimentation, advancing knowledge on how “learning by doing” occurs and how to make it more effective in order to build institutional capacity for sustainable development.
Recent studies have demonstrated that even advanced transdisciplinary projects encounter various challenges for scientists and local stakeholders to jointly generate new knowledge and support collective decision-making (Clark et al. 2011; Lang et al. 2012). In many cases social learning is limited as the time allocated for capacity building is too short, the mode of knowledge generation continues to be rather extractive than collaborative, or the focus remains on the generation of scientific knowledge, which may not necessarily be of use in the pursuit of sustainable outcomes (Smith et al. 2009). While there seems to be widespread agreement that more transdisciplinary-based approaches are required for research and education, we should also be critical of insights, limitations and outcomes of such work (Talwar et al. 2011; Hegger et al. 2013; Lang et al. 2012).
Over the last decade, the need for transdisciplinary research, i.e., to move beyond expert knowledge, to embrace non-expert, public knowledge and enable social learning, has widely been recognized (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008; Robinson 2008). Innovative forms of participatory sustainability research, including the “go-along” interview and the digital workshop, have been developed to optimize interactivity and enable capacity building (Carpiano 2009). It will be important for sustainability scientists to leave familiar territory and venture into other fields in order to adopt successful practices for social learning and capacity building. The fields of public health and agricultural extension research are among those that can provide guidance, but also research endeavors outside of academia, for instance, management of natural resources, could be of benefit (Caswill and Shove 2000).
Moving forward
While sustainability science has made substantial inroads into our understanding of complex problems in coupled human-natural systems, progress on how this knowledge will foster decisions that lead to more desirable outcomes and analyses of the processes necessary to transition to sustainability are lacking. The proposed research pathways (see Table 1) are not meant to be exhaustive as to the potential fruitful directions sustainability science might take. Instead, they map out a start for the future of this growing field of inquiry while also positioning the field to act as a vehicle to help foster sustainability transitions. In order to ensure that science is focused on facilitating sustainability outcomes we must ask: What is the appropriate role of science in contributing to action and decision-making for sustainability? What kind of science is useful for this purpose? What knowledge, if any, is needed to make better decisions? How can sustainability science best participate in the implementation of sustainable solutions? The pursuit of these questions will come at some cost. Significant changes in the institutional structure of sustainability science are necessary to facilitate the field’s successful response to the daunting challenges of sustainability, including a more reflexive approach to the position of the field (Miller et al. 2011a). In addition, there are several critical institutional and educational issues that must be addressed if the field is to move in the proposed direction. For example, some characteristics of academic institutions, including promotion and tenure guidelines, peer-review and disciplinary and departmental structures, may inhibit rather than foster this research (Crow 2010). Similarly, training the next generation of sustainability scientists and practitioners may well require a radical rethinking of how we conduct both undergraduate and graduate education (Rowe 2007).
For sustainability science to contribute to real-world solutions, every sustainability science project must embark on the transformative agenda set forth a decade ago. It is still a long way for the outlined approaches and research pathways to ensure a more relevant future for sustainability science and to deliver on the promise of a science that has a real impact on socio-technological change for sustainability.
References
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:268–281
Beddoe R, Costanza R, Farley J, Garza E, Kent J, Kubiszewski I, Martinex 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 106(8):2483–2489
Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J (2011) Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(49):19540–19545
Brewer GD (2007) Inventing the future: scenarios, imagination, mastery and control. Sustain Sci 2:159–177
Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov High Educ 36:107–124
Bryan BA, Crossman ND, King D, Meyer WS (2011) Landscape futures analysis: assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environ Model Softw 26(1):83–91
Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennet EM, Zurek MB (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios, vol 2. The millennium ecosystem assessment series. Island Press, Washington, DC
Carpiano RM (2009) Come take a walk with me: the ‘‘go-along’’ interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health Place 15:263–272
Casillas CE, Kammen DM (2010) The energy-poverty-climate nexus. Science 330(6008):1181–1182
Caswill C, Shove E (2000) Introducing interactive social science. Sci Public Policy 27(3):154–157
Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738
Clark WC (2010) Sustainable development and sustainability science. In report from Toward a Science of Sustainability conference, Airlie Center, Washington, DC
Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108
Crow MM (2010) Organizing teaching and research to address the grand challenges of sustainable development. Bioscience 60(7):488–489
Ezrahi Y (1990) The decent of Icarus: science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
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 Evolut. doi:10.1890/110079
Fraser MW, Richman JM, Galinsky MJ, Day SH (2009) Intervention research: developing social programs. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755
Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24(3):170–182
Gray B (2009) Framing of environmental disputes. In: Lewicki RJ, Gray B, Elliot M (eds) Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: frames and cases. Island Press, Washington, DC
Guston DH (2008) Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454:940–941
Healy P (2007) Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge, London
Hegger DLT, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2013) Toward design principles for joint knowledge production: lessons from the deepest polder of The Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, December 2012
[ICSU] International Council for Science (2002) ICSU Series on science for sustainable development: report of the scientific and technological community to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 1
Jasanoff S (2007) Technologies of humility. Nature 450:33
Jerneck A, Olsson L (2011) Breaking out of sustainability impasses: how to apply frame analysis, reframing and transition theory to global health challenges. Environ Innov Soc Transit 1:255–271
Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grübler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642
Kemp R (2011) Innovation for sustainable development as a topic for environmental assessment. J Ind Ecol 15(5):673–675
Kinzig AP, Ehrlich PR, Alston LJ, Arrow K, Barrett S, Buchman TG, Daily GC, Levin B, Levin S, Oppenheimer M, Ostrom E, Saari D (2013) Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience 63(3):164–175. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5
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(1):25–43
Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2010) The practice of transitions management: examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42(3):237–246
Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279(5350):491–497
Matson P (2009) The sustainability transition. Issues Sci Technol Summer 2009:39–42
McShane T, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, Songorwa AN, Kinzig A, Monteferri B, Mutekanga D, Thang HV, Dammert JL, Pulgar-Vidal M, Welch-Devine M, Brosius JP, Coppolillo P, O’Connor S (2011) Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144(3):966–972
Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8(2):279–293
Miller TR, Neff MA (2013) De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva. doi:10.1007/s11024-013-9234-x
Miller TR, Muñoz-Erickson TA, Redman CL (2011a) Transforming knowledge for sustainability: fostering adaptability in academic institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(2):177–192. doi:10.1108/14676371111118228
Miller TR, Minteer BA, Malan LC (2011b) The new conservation debate: a descriptive and normative analysis of international conservation. Biol Conserv 144:948–957
Muñoz-Erickson TA (2012) How cities think: knowledge-action systems for urban sustainability. Dissertation, Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona, USA
[NRC] National Research Council (1999) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Norton BG (2005) Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Pahl-Wostl C, Mostert E, Tàbara D (2008) The growing importance of social learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecol Soc 13(1):24
Palmer M (2012) Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. Bioscience 62(1):5–6
Philbrick M (2010) An anticipatory governance approach to carbon nanotubes. Risk Anal 30(11):1708–1722
Pielke Jr R, Wigley T, Green C (2008) Dangerous assumptions. Nature 452:531–532
Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopín G, Gutman P, Hammond A, Kates R, Swart R (2002) The great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston
Rayner S, Milone E (1998) Human choice and climate change, vol 4. Battelle Press, Columbus
Reid RS, Nkedianye D, Said MY, Kaelo D, Neselle M, Makui O, Onetu L, Kiruswa S, Kamuaro NO, Kristjanson P, Ogutu J, BurnSilver SB, Goldman MJ, Boone RB, Galvin KA, Dickson NM, Clark WC (2009) Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900313106
Reid WV, Chen D, Goldfarb L, Hackmann H, Lee YT, Mokhele K, Ostrom E, Raivio K, Rockstrom J, Schellnhuber HJ, Whyte A (2010) Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 330:916–917
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169
Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: some transgressions and intersection in academia and beyond. Futures 40(1):70–86
Robinson J, Carmichael J, VanWynsberghe R, Tansey J, Journeay M, Rogers L (2006) Sustainability as a problem of design: interactive science in the Georgia Basin. Integr Assess J 6(4):165–192
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 Chang 78:756–768
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin 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 461:472–475
Rowe D (2007) Education for a sustainable future. Science 317:323–324
Salter JD, Robinson J, Wiek A (2010) Participatory methods of integrated assessment: a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 1(5):697–717
Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403
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
Schensul JJ (2009) Community, culture and sustainability in multilevel dynamic systems intervention science. Am J Community Psychol 43:241–256
Smith A, Stirling A (2007) Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. J Environ Plan Policy Manage 8(3–4):1–23
Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34:1491–1510
Smith RJ, Verissimo D, Leader-Williams N, Cowling RM, Knight AT (2009) Let the locals lead. Nature 462:280–281
Swart R, Raskin P, Robinson J (2002) Critical challenges for sustainability science. Science 297(5589):1994–1995
Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38:379–390
Thompson JR, Wiek A, Swanson FJ, Carpenter SR, Fresco N, Hollingsworth T, Spies T, Foster DR (2012) Scenario studies as a synthetic and integrative research activity for long term ecological research. Bioscience 62:367–376
Turner BL II, Kasperson RE, Matson P, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Chistensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8074–8079
Van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17
van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Ann Rev Environ Resour 31:445–447
Voß JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (2005) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Walker B, Barrett S, Polasky S, Galaz V, Folke C, Engström G, Ackerman F, Arrow K, Carpenter S, Chopra K, Daily G, Ehrlich P, Hughes T, Kautsky N, Levin S, Mäler KG, Shogren J, Vincent J, Xepapadeas T, de Zeeuw A (2009) Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325(5946):1345–1346
Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation: experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 16:52–57
Wiek A, Binder C (2005) Solution spaces for decision-making: a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:589–608
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(1):5–24
Acknowledgments
This material is based, in part, upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. 0504248, IGERT in Urban Ecology at Arizona State University. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendation expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handled by Rene Kemp, UNU-MERIT and ICIS, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, T.R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D. et al. The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9, 239–246 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6