BOOK OF ABSTRACTS

Table of Contents

ICSS2010 Outline Brief Programme Key Note Speakers SESSION I - From complex thinking to transformational change: epistemological and methodological challenges for sustainability science SESSION II - Solution-oriented/transdisciplinary research for sustainable development SESSION III - Innovation for Sustainability: toward a Sustainable Urban Future SESSION IV - Global Sustainability governance SESSION V - Sustainability Science education SESSION VI - Synthesis, cross-cutting Issues and Future of Sustainability Science OPEN FORUM ON SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE PANEL I - Industry and Academia for a transition towards Sustainability PANEL II - People to Science to People: experiences from civil society Ph.D. SESSION ICSS2012 at Arizona State University

2 4 5 10

20 29 40 48 52 53 53 55 60 65

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

ICSS2010 Outline
Francesca Farioli Coordinator of ICSS2010 Scientific Secretariat
ICSS2010 is a turning point for the consolidation of Sustainability Science. During the three days in Rome, experts and scholars invited from the leading universities and research centres will discuss the crucial elements of Sustainability Science through focused and output-oriented sessions. The second day of the conference, the Open Forum with stakeholders, will be dedicated to the dialogue and integration of civil society, industry and decision makers into the process of linking knowledge to action for sustainable development.

BACKGROUND
ICSS2010 is the second edition of the International Conference on Sustainability Science. The first edition of ICSS, has been promoted by the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S) of the University of Tokyo and co-organized by IR3S-UNU Sustainability Joint Initiative, in February 2009, as a follow up activity of the Sapporo Sustainability Declaration (SSD) of the G8 University Summit. The Sapporo Sustainability Declaration, prepared during the G8 University Summit, in 2008, recognized that sustainability issues represent an urgent political concern and that universities have a fundamental responsibility in promoting a transition towards a sustainable world. Following the recommendations of the Sapporo Sustainability Declaration, the first International Conference on Sustainability Science, held in Tokyo in February 2009, gathered scholars from international leading universities and research centres to discuss the different academic approaches and to delineate a framework for integrating and structuring knowledge for sustainability science. The strong international participation and the growing vivid interest in Sustainability Science of researchers and scholars from the leading research institutions around the world encouraged the promoters of ICSS to assure continuity to the event. ICSS2010 intends to consolidate and develop further the process started during ICSS2009 in Tokyo. ICSS2010 aims to bring advancement in Sustainability Sciences knowledge structuring as well a consolidation and formalization of its research Network and solicit the active participation of the different stakeholders in a process of scientific co-production.

OBJECTIVES
ICSS2010 has a challenging central ambition: to map and structure the existing knowledge, methodologies, and research priorities in Sustainability Science. This ambition is motivated by the necessity of contrasting the risk of dispersion and fragmentation that a domain with such a wide range of research interests such as Sustainability Science inevitably runs. The Conference has six primary objectives: 1. Strengthen the framework of sustainability science and identify the epistemological pillars of sustainability science, as well as discuss the methodology aspects. 2. Present case studies of trans-disciplinary research practices to address the complexity of human-nature interaction 3. Review and discuss the current status of high education in sustainability science with regard to diverse visions, approaches, and methodologies used
ICSS 2010 Outline

4. Discuss the possibilities and challenges of an effective collaboration civil society, industry, policy makers academia for a transition towards sustainability. 5. Examine the central issues and challenges of global sustainability giving equal attention to the perspectives of the South 6. Identify specific and concrete activities and instruments to consolidate the collaboration among research institutions and Networks.

In order to accomplish the objectives, the Conference has been structured in keynote speeches, Sessions and Panels as illustrated in the figure below. The sessions and panels provide venues to scholars and stakeholders to discuss, contribute and present knowledge, methods and case studies on challenging issue of sustainability science.

Session I

From complex thinking to transformational change: Epistemological and methodological challenges for sustainability science

Session II

Solution-oriented/transdisciplinary research for sustainable development

Session III

Innovation for Sustainability

Session IV

Global sustainability governance

Session V

Sustainability science education

Session VI

Crosscutting issues and Future of Sustainability Science

PH.D Seminar and Poster Session

Panel I

Industry and Academia for a transition towards sustainability

Panel II

People to Science to People: experiences from civil society

ICSS 2010 Outline

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Brief Programme

June 23: Aula Magna, Sapienza University of Rome

09:00 - 09:35 09:35 - 09:45 09:45 - 09:55 09:55 - 10:10 10:10 - 10:20 11:20 - 13:20 Welcome remarks Message from General Director of Ministry of Environment   Opening remarks    Key note speech Video Message from Nobel Prize   ession I: From complex thinking to transformational change: S Epistemological and methodological challenges for sustainability science Lunch break 14:30 - 16:30 17:00 - 19:00 Session II: Solution-oriented/transdisciplinary research for sustainable development Session III: Innovation for Sustainability

June 24: Cloister Hall, Faculty of Engineering Sapienza University of Rome

08:50 - 09:00 09:00 - 11:00 11:30 - 13:30 Introduction to the 2nd day of the Conference  Session IV: Global sustainability governance  Session V: Sustainability science education Lunch break 14:30 - 16:30 17:00 - 19:00 Panel 1: Industry and Academia for a transition towards sustainability Panel 2: People to Science to People: experiences from civil society

June 25: Cloister Hall, Faculty of Engineering Sapienza University of Rome

09:00 - 09:30 09:30 - 11:30 12:00 - 13:00 Key note speech PhD seminar PhD Poster Session  Lunch break Lunch break 14:00 - 15:30 17:30 - 18:00 18:00 - 18:30 Session VI: Cross-cutting plenary and future of sustainability science Open discussion  nnouncement of the next edition of ICSS at Arizona State University A and closing remarks

Brief Programme

Key Note Speakers

ELINOR OSTROM
ELINOR OSTROM is Distinguished Professor, Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science, and Senior Research Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington; and Founding Director, Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State University. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009, and the Reimar Lst Award for International Scholarly and Cultural Exchange. Her books include Governing the Commons; Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources (with Roy Gardner and James Walker); Local Commons and Global Interdependence (with Robert Keohane); The Commons in the New Millennium (with Nives Dolak); Understanding Institutional Diversity; and Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice (with Amy Poteete and Marco Janssen).

Making Progress in Sustainability Science Elinor Ostrom, interviewed by Arnim Wiek

Sustainability science is engaged in linking governance efforts from the local to the global level, moving forward from understanding complex sustainability problems to creating robust solutions for them, as well as developing strong teaching and learning approaches in this emerging inter- and transdisciplinary field.Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom reflects on the state of the art in sustainability science related to these key challenges in an interview with Arnim Wiek.

Dr Hiroshi Komiyama, Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.

Hiroshi Komiyama became Chairman of the Institute of Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc. and President Emeritus at the University of Tokyo in April 2009, after completing four-year presidency at the University of Tokyo.He received his Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees all from the University of Tokyo in chemical engineering respectively in 1967, 1969, and 1972. From 1973 to 1974, he was a post doctoral fellow at the University of California at Davis. Dr. Komiyama specializes in chemical engineering, advanced material engineering, and global environment engineering. His research work and papers have received awards three times from the Society of Chemical Engineers of Japan.

Low Carbon Industrial Revolution

In the 21st century, we human beings are facing a new paradigm: the earths limited resources, the aging of society and the explosion of intelligence. Japan has experienced these problems ahead of the rest of the world, and is currently looking for proactive solutions. Hence, I proposed Vision 2050 in 1999. The Vision 2050 consists of three pillars: (1) Improve energy efficiency by three times; (2) Double the use of renewable energy; (3) Establish recycling system of materials. The Japanese government conditionally confirmed that Japan will submit to 25% GHG reduction by 2020 on 1990 levels under the committee of ministries. Mr. Ozawa, Minister of the Environment of Japan, said The 25% GHG reduction target is challenging but also helps Japan to draw its growth strategy. The target is achievable. 55% of Japans energy consumption occurs in daily life activities; i.e. household, commercial and transportation sectors. The remaining 45% of consumption occurs in the manufacturing sectors.

Key Note Speakers

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

In addition to GHG concerns, we need to address many problems under the paradigm. I proposed a concept of Platinum Society. It is a society where environmental problems are solved and elderly persons can live a lively life. Development of Platinum Society enhances competitiveness of industries and supports economic growth. To realize Platinum society, we need to launch a new action in community bases. I proposed Platinum network, an experimental platform for developing Platinum society in collaboration with local municipalities. We can lead the world in terms of addressing global warming and creation of new industry, by expanding Platinum network based on cooperation among citizens and application of the latest technologies such as photovoltaic power generation, fuel cells, heat pump and eco-cars, etc. Platinum network may furthermore promote cooperation within communities in the world in order to achieve an entirely new urban development model throughout the world.

Parviz Koohafkan, Director, Land and Water Division, FAO, Rome

Dr. Parviz Koohafkan is presently the Director of Land and Water Division of FAO and has a PhD. degree in Ecology from University of Sciences and Techniques of Montpellier, France, and an engineering degree in Agronomy and Natural Resources Management from university of Teheran, Iran. Specialized in integrated natural resources management and sustainable development, Dr. Koohafkan is the author of several books and publications on biodiversity, agro-ecology, climate change and sustainable development. Dr. Koohafkan is the pioneer and coordinator of the UN Partnership Initiative on Conservation and Adaptive Management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) presently implemented in more than 20 countries.

Poverty-Food Insecurity- Environment Nexus: The Challenges of Sustainability in Agriculture

The recent financial crises followed by the food and Climate crisis have attracted increased attention to the impact of globalization on poverty, food security, environmental degradation and threat to world peace, stability and security. Entering the new millennium, stark contrasts exist between the availability of natural resources and the demands of billions of humans who require them for their survival. Each day almost a quarter-million people are added to the roughly 6.4 billion who already exist. Yet the stocks of natural resources that support human life--food, fresh water, quality soil, energy, and biodiversity--are being degraded and depleted. Of the worlds one billion hungry, 95 percent are concentrated in developing countries and of the worlds 1.2 billion extremely poor people, 75 percent live in rural areas and depend largely on agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related activities for survival. Despite large scale urbanization, extreme poverty continues to be mainly a rural phenomenon. For the rural poor, globalization and the increasing pressures of large industry, markets, and urban consumers have, on balance, been detrimental in many places. These trends have forced small producers and farm families out of agriculture, or led them to excessive intensification and specialization and increased vulnerability to price fluctuations, the vagaries of weather and pest and disease outbreaks. The concept of Green Economy has emerged as a sustainable solution for present and future generation that includes conservation of remaining natural resources and greater consideration of environmental goods and services while addressing poverty and hunger. While the challenges of sustainable development and poverty reduction are formidable, we have greater human capacity and ingenuity than at any time in our common history. With the right policies, investments and political will to reach into poor communities we can meet the formidable challenges of our century. Maximizing benefits and minimizing tradeoffs will require careful science and innovative institutions. Getting the science right is a critical first step. This requires understanding the relationships between farmers actions and their environmental consequences, as well as understanding the socio-economic motives and constraints facing suppliers and beneficiaries of environmental services. Equally important are the institutional in-

Key Note Speakers

novations needed to link suppliers and beneficiaries. A paradigm shift from high to low carbon foot print society that internalize ecological costs and improves energy efficiency by encouraging new research and development, creating local markets with increase employment in rural areas is needed to overcome the present unsustainable growth based on false economic theories.

Dr. Miguel Altieri

Miguel A . Altieri received a BS in Agronomy from the University of Chile and a Ph.D in Entomology from the University of Florida. He has been a Professor of Agroecology at UC Berkeley since 1981 in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management ( www.agroeco.org and http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu). Dr. Altieri served as a Scientific Advisor to the Latin American Consortium on Agroecology and Development (CLADES) Chile an NGO network promoting agroecology as a strategy for small farm sustainable development in the region. Currently he is advisor to the FAO-GIAHS program ( Globally Ingenious Agricultural Heritage Systems) a program devoted at identifying and dynamically conserving traditional farming systems in the developing world. He is also Director of the US-Brasil Consortium on Agroecology and Sustainable Rural Development (CASRD) an academic-research exchange program involving students and faculty of UC Berkeley, University of Nebraska, UNICAMP and Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina. He is also the general coordinator of the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (www.agroeco.org/socla) He is the author of more than 200 publications, and numerous books including Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity, Pest Management in Agroecosystems and Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture.

Agroecology: the scientific basis for a biodiverse, productive, resilient and a resource conserving and use-efficient agriculture.
There is an urgent need to promote a new agricultural production paradigm in order to ensure the production of healthy and affordable food for an increasing human population. This challenge will need to be met using a shrinking arable land base which is also required to produce biofuels, but with less petroleum, less water and nitrogen and within a scenario of a rapidly changing climate, social unrest and economic uncertainty. The dominant industrial agricultural model and its biotechnological derivations will not be able provide answers to such challenges. The agroecological paradigm emerges as the most viable option to design and promote the agroecosytems of the future that necessarily will need to be:

Multifunctional: in addition to providing food and fiber, such agroecosystems will produce ecosystem, cultural and social services, Resilient: capable to resist and recover from extreme climatic events and other shocks Productive and diverse, exhibiting diverse crop-animal combinations in time and space with high rates of recycling and land equivalent ratios Efficient in the use of resources and with high energy ratios The basis of local food systems closing the circles of production and consumption

Such agroecological systems are the foundation for a durable strategy of food, energy and technological sovereignty. The science of agroecology, which is defined as the application of ecological concepts and principles to

Key Note Speakers

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems, provides a framework to assess the complexity of agroecosystems . The idea of agroecology is to go beyond the use of alternative practices and to develop agroecosystems with a minimal dependence on high agrochemical and energy inputs, emphasizing complex agricultural systems in which ecological interactions and synergisms between biological components provide the mechanisms for the systems to sponsor their own soil fertility, productivity and crop protection Thousands of small peasant and family farmers in Latin America and the developing world already practice this kind of agriculture, offering uncompensated, environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits to large sectors of rural and urban areas. In Latin America, new approaches and technologies involving application of blended modern agricultural science and indigenous knowledge systems and spearheaded by thousands of peasant organizations, NGOs and some government and academic institutions and are proving to enhance food security while conserving natural resources, agrobiodiversity, and soil and water conservation throughout hundreds of rural communities in the region. These successful agroecological initiatives constitute spaces of hope that need to be scaled up via horizontal and participatory processes following the guidelines of the campesino a campesino model. In this process of massification of the agroecological paradigm, agroecologists play a fundamental role in systematizing the principles that underlie the success of such initiatives, and to translate such principles into practice so that they can be converted into appropriate technological forms appropriate to the needs and circumstances of thousands of farmers. Agroecologists also have the social responsibility to inform and motivate decision makers to promote policies conducive to endogenous and sovereign rural development paths, including the access of farmers to land, water, seeds, education, research, local markets, etc. Agroecologists must also educate consumers, because their participation and support for this new type of agriculture will be crucial and essential to their livelihoods, as the quality of life in cities ( access to safe and nutritious food, water quality, conservation of floral and faunal biodiversity, carbon sequestration, microclimate, etc) is increasingly dependent on the presence of an agroecologically based agriculture in the urban periphery. Natures thresholds have been overwhelmed by accelerated agricultural economic growth and the extreme modification of landscapes by monocultures and extreme use of polluting agrochemicals. Agroecology provides the scientific basis to revert such processes and restore a more biodiverse and resilient agriculture capable of producing food an ecosystem services so vital for the survival of a planet in crisis. The scientific community should endorse the emerging agroecological grassroots efforts, and become part of the growing awareness about the need to design a new agriculture that enhances the environment, preserves local cultures and associated biodiversity, promotes food sovereignty and the multiple functions of small farm agriculture. The immediate challenge for our generation is to transform industrial agriculture by transitioning the worlds food systems away from reliance on fossil fuels, develop an agriculture that is resilient to climatic variability and promote local forms of agriculture that ensure food sovereignty and the livelihoods of rural communities.

Corrado Clini
Dr. Corrado Clini is Director General of the Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea of Italy since 1990. He is Chairman of the inter-ministerial task force of the Italian Government for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Chairman of the G8 - Global Bioenergy Partnership since 2006 and Chairman of the European Environment and Health Committee since 2007. He is Member of the Clinton Global Initiative. He is Visiting professor at the Department for Environmental Sciences and Engineering Tshingua University Beijing and Visiting Professor at Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Key Note Speakers

10

Jill Jger, Sustainable Europe Research Institute

Jill Jger is a member of the European Sustainability Science Group (www.essg.eu) and a well-known author on sustainability and policy. She has worked as a consultant on energy, environment, and climate for national and international organizations. She is also a senior researcher at SERI in Vienna, Austria. She has served as the Executive Director of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, and as Deputy Director of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Her main field of interest is in the linkages between science and policy in the development of responses to global environmental issues.

Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainability Science

In Europe, in particular, sustainability science is implementation-oriented in areas dealing with persistent problems of unsustainability that have a high level of complexity. The focus is therefore on the design and running of processes linking knowledge with action to foster transitions to sustainability. In order to do this, however, a number of barriers must be overcome. Taking a strategic approach towards specific implementation is still considered by many to be going beyond the remit of science. Current peer-review and project evaluation procedures generally do not support this type of work. Funding is generally not available for the long-term, implementationoriented, goal-searching processes that are needed. Scientists rarely have a mandate to engage in this kind of work and academic institutions rarely give credit for these hands-on strategic processes of engagement. Some recent discussions on overcoming these barriers will be presented.

Key Note Speakers

11

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

SESSION I From complex thinking to transformational change: epistemological and methodological challenges for sustainability science
Chair: Arnim Wiek, Arizona State University Co-Chair: Francesca Farioli, Sapienza University Rome Background Paper
Preface The Second International Conference on Sustainability Science (ICSS) has the central aim of mapping and structuring the existing knowledge, methodology, and research priorities in sustainability science a field that seems to become more and more fragmented and disperse. ICSS 2010 aims at mitigating this risk by producing tangible outputs for the consolidation and advancement of sustainability science. This Background Paper has three functions:

utlining the central theme of the session, the current state of knowledge (literature overview), and open o research questions guidance for the invited speakers to prepare their contributions ensuring an informed and productive discussion at the conference

Central theme of this session About a decade ago, the emerging field of sustainability science has been introducedwith some ambivalence regarding its epistemology and methodology (Kates et al., 2001). In one stream of its early reception, sustainability science has been conceptualized as an advanced form of complex system analysis. Turner et al. (2003a) state in a prominent article on sustainability science and vulnerability analysis: The emergence of sustainability science builds toward an understanding of the human environment condition with the dual objectives of meeting the needs of society while sustaining the life support systems of the planet. (p. 8074; cf. Turner et al., 2003b, p. 8080). The epistemological goal is enhanced understanding, the methodological approach builds on advanced analytical-descriptive tools. Yet, at the same time, Clark and Dickson (2003) spelled out a more transformational agenda according to which the research community needs to complement its historic role in identifying problems of sustainability with a greater willingness to join with the development and other communities to work on practical solutions to those problems (p. 8059).1 This agenda does not imply that sustainability scientists would solve problems or take decisions on their own, yet, it clearly points in the direction that the epistemological goal of sustainability science needs to be broader than understanding coupled human-environment systems. The transformational version suggests that sustainability science goes beyond the questions of how our coupled human-environment systems have evolved (past), are currently functioning (present), and might further develop (future). As a solution-oriented endeavor, sustainability science addresses the normative question of how these systems ought to be developed in ways that would accomplish a variety of value-laden goals, for instance, to balance socioeconomic needs and environmental capacities (cf. Gibson, 2006). To this end, sustainability scientists engage with a broad range of stakeholders to develop joint and coordinated strategies for how to solve sustainability problems (van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2006). The co-creation of uncommon types of knowledge is required to succeed on this pathway. These types complement descriptive-analytical knowledge (where are we) and provide sustainability actions and transformations

SESSION I

12

with direction (where should we be) and operational structure (how do we get there). This quest is challenged by critical issues of uncertainty and dissent, as well as asymmetrical power relations that give particular interests more weight than others. These and other challenges have trapped sustainability science to remain in the safe space of conventional knowledge production (descriptive-analytical knowledge) and to support the systemanalytical stream of sustainability science mentioned above. In sum, the field of sustainability science is still emerging and it is still characterized by the challenge of how to move from complex systems thinking to transformational change. This session reviews the current state of the debate, addresses some of the open research questions, and facilitates a synthesis discussion on how to move from problem analysis to problem solving and what epistemological and methodological challenges this endeavor entails. This session is not intended to continue the common theoretical debate. It confronts the theory with empirical studies in sustainability science by posing the question in how far we truly advance in solving sustainability problems as opposed to only enhancing our understanding of these problems (see section 5 below).

Current state of knowledge Sustainable use of landscape and natural resources, mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change affected regions, or precautionary governance of emerging technologies are complex sustainability challenges that have driven the evolvement of a new scientific paradigm, i.e. sustainability science, over the last decade (Kates et al., 2001; Clark and Dickson, 2003; Swart et al., 2004; Komiyama and Takeuchi, 2006; Turner and Robbins, 2008). Thereby, sustainability science is inspired by concepts of post-normal and mode 2 science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993; Gibbons et al., 1994) and employs corresponding research paradigms such as participatory, interactive, transdisciplinary, transacademic, collaborative, and community-based research approaches (Kasemir et al., 2003; Bckstrand, 2003). All these approaches have in common that they endorse research collaborations among scientists and non-academic stakeholders from business, government, and the civil society for addressing issues of sustainability. This evolvement can be understood as a response to two developments that led to the proposal of a new social contract for science (Lubchenco, 1998; Gibbons, 1999): First, to the asserted claim that science ought to address and solve demanding societal problems, a claim that is renewed in the context of the global environmental change debate (Liu et al., 2007, p. 646); and second, to the indication that traditional disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches as well as applied and consultative (extractive) approaches with restricted stakeholder engagement tend to fail in coping with sustainability challenges (Gibbons, 1999; Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2006). Regardless indisputable success, a variety of reflexive and meta-studies indicate that sustainability science efforts have not yet unfold their full potential (Cash et al., 2003; Blackstock and Carter, 2007; Wiek, 2007; Robinson, 2008). Although being experienced, committed, and equipped with the best intentions, sustainability science teams have a hard time to perform in line with the new requirements and to achieve their goal to move from analyzing to solving sustainability problems. The referenced authors argue that these shortcomings are to a significant extent caused by incompatibility with the established research institutions and paradigms in place (rules-in-use). It is assumed that epistemological and methodological standards for issue legitimization and peer-review tend to undermine key features of sustainability science. Albeit we might adhere to some transitional rules and formats at the early stages of an evolving field, it seems to be timely to move forward in establishing new rules and paradigms that adequately respond to the new features of sustainability science. Epistemological studies have initially pursued to establish a functional typology of knowledge differentiating and linking (a) analytical (explanatory, systemic, system) knowledge, (b) anticipatory knowledge, (c) normative (orientation-guiding, goal, target) knowledge, and (d) action-guiding (transformation) knowledge (Burger and Kamber, 2003; Grunwald, 2004; Grunwald, 2007; Wiek, 2007). More recent studies have focused on the uncommon knowledge types, namely, normative knowledge (Schultz et al., 2008) and strategic knowledge (Loorbach, 2010). Methodological studies have initially developed frameworks of how to link knowledge to action in sustai1

The concept of solving sustainability problems and solutions for sustainability problems respectively does not follow a simple command & control approach, but is based on participation, coordination, iteration, and reflexivity (cf. van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2006).

13

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

nability research (Ravetz, 2000; Scholz et al., 2006; Robinson, 2008; Loorbach, 2010) and later focused on particular methods in sustainability science, such as scenario analysis (Swart et al., 2004; Guimares Pereira et al., 2007) and sustainability assessments (Bojorquez-Tapia et al., 2005; Gibson, 2006; Ness et al., 2007). Recent studies have explored the methodology of post-normal science in sustainability science (Farrell, 2008) and suggested new methodological approaches to problem structuring (Ness, 2010).

Open research questions As with any other academic pursuit, the credibility of sustainability science relies on conducting empirical research using sound epistemological and methodological foundations. In addition to purposefully and thoroughly applying methods, a good understanding of the specific strengths and limits of the methods as well as a critical appraisal of the knowledge generated are required. The key question remains What type of knowledge and how do we generate knowledge in sustainability scienceto comply with the ambitious transformational program that has been set forth? Specific epistemological questions address: what type of knowledge is generated (analytical/descriptive, anticipatory, normative, strategic knowledge); does the generated knowledge fulfill the promise of leading to realworld solutions and transformations; what is the reliability and validity of the knowledge; how credible, salient, and legitimate is the knowledge generated? Etc. Specific methodological questions address: who interacts with whom, when, on what, how, and to what extent in sustainability research and problem-solving (stakeholder selection, balancing inputs, intensity of collaboration, facilitation, mediation and negotiation, etc.); what features do qualify the applied methods as sustainability method; does the participatory seeting allow to produce different knowledge types that lead to real-world solutions, e.g., methods for problem identification and structuring, system analysis, scenario construction, option analysis, multi-criteria assessment, strategy building, evaluation, etc. and/or their combination (that sustainability science must be created through the processes of coproduction in which scholars and stakeholders interact to define important questions, relevant evidence, and convincing forms of argument (Kates et al., 2001))? Etc.

Session contributions This session calls for epistemological and methodological contributions on sustainability research guided by the question What type of knowledge and how do we generate knowledge in sustainability scienceto comply with the ambitious transformational program that has been set forth? We are interested in truly epistemological and methodological contributions reflecting on the epistemological and methodological challenges related to sustainability scienceinstead of studies that simply apply or propose methods in sustainability research (cf. Blackstock and Carter, 2007). Each session contribution is asked to analyze one or multiple empirical studies in sustainability science and critically reflect on (and make and argument for) how these studies transition from complex systems thinking to transformational change and actually do sustainability problem-solving. Thereby, the session showcases a spectrum of current empirical sustainability studies and explores in how far they fulfill (or not fulfill) the promise of sustainability science (do we actually solve complex sustainability problems as theory and society demand?). The following framework allows to analyze and to compare the epistemological and methodological components of sustainability research as well as to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses in order to indicate the current state of the art as well as future research directions in sustainability science.

SESSION I

14

Each contribution should: 1. briefly introduce one or multiple empirical sustainability studies (with or without involvement of the authors): the topic/field, collaborating partners, duration, etc. of the study/studies 2. elaborate on a. what sustainability problem was addressed in the study/studies analyzed (what features do qualify the problem as a sustainability problem) b. what sustainability method was used; what participatory setting was applied (who was involved and how) c. what results were accomplished; in how far the problem was solved 3. reflect on a. the quality of the process and the results (transparency, inclusiveness, validity, credibility, etc.) b. the type of real-world changes and transformation that have been accomplished in the study 4. reflect on potential improvements if the process or results have not fulfilled the expectations (what could/should have been done differently) A good example for the type of meta-studies we are calling for can be found in Blackstock and Carter (2007, pp. 346-351).

Structure of the session 1. Arnim Wiek, Arizona State University, USA: Introduction 2. Katharine Farrell, : 3. Fridolin Brand, ETH Zurich, Switzerland: 4. Petra Schweizer-Ries, Saarland University, Germany: 5. Barry Ness, Lund University, Sweden: 6. All: Synthesis of session results (including future research agenda)

References Bckstrand K., 2003. Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 3(4): 24-41 Blackstock, K.L., Carter, C.E., 2007. Operationalising sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects. The Geographical Journal 173, 343357. Burger, P., Kamber, R., 2003. Cognitive integration in transdisciplinary science: Knowledge as a key notion. Issues in Integrative Studies 21: 4373. Cash, D., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., Guston, D., Jger, J., Mitchell, R., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 8086-8091. Clark, W.C., Dickson, N.M., 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 8059-8061.

SESSION I

15

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Farrell, K.N., 2008. The politics of science and sustainable development: Marcuses new science in the 21st century. Capitalism Nature Socialism19:68-83. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 735-755. Gallopn, G.C., Vessuri, H., 2006. Science for sustainable development: articulating knowledges. In: Guimares Pereira, A., Guedes Vaz, S., Tognetti, S. (eds.). Interfaces between Science and Society. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. Chapter 2. Gibbons, M., 1999. Sciences new social contract with society. Nature 402, C81-C84. 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. London: Sage. Gibson, R.B. (2006), Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24: 170182. Grunwald, A., 2004. Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: the need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1, 150-167. Grunwald, A., 2007. Working towards sustainable development in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9, 245-262. Guimares Pereira, A., von Schomberg, R., Funtowicz, S., 2007. Foresight knowledge assessment. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3, 53 75. Kasemir, B., Jager, J., Jaeger, C.C., & Gardner, M.T. (2003). Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kates, R W, W C Clark, R Corell, J M Hall, C C Jaeger, I Lowe, J J McCarthy, H J Schellnhuber, B Bolin, N M Dickson, S Faucheux, G C Gallopin, A Grubler, B Huntley, J Jager, N S Jodha, R E Kasperson, A Mabogunje, P Matson, H Mooney, B Moore III, R ORiordan and U Svendin 2001. Sustainability Science. Science, 291, 641-642. van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31, 445-477. Komiyama, H., Takeuchi, K., 2006. Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1, 1-6. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., et al., 2007. Coupled human and natural systems. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36, 639649. Lubchenco, J., 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279, 491-497. Modvar, C., Gallopn, G.C., 2005. Sustainable Development: Epistemological Challenges to Science and Technology. Report of the Workshop on Sustainable Development: Epistemological Challenges to Science and Technology, 13-15 October 2004, ECLAC, Santiago, Chile. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalua, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2007. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60: 498508. Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2010. Structuring problems in sustainability science: The multilevel DPSIR
SESSION I

16

framework. Geoforum 41: 479488. Ravetz, J. 2000. Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20: 3164. Robinson, J., 2008. Being undisciplined Transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures 40, 70-86. Scholz, R.W., Lang, D. Wiek, A. Walter, A., Stauffacher, M. 2006. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7: 226251. Schultz J., Brand F.S., Kopfmueller J. & Ott K., 2008. Building a Theory of Sustainable Development: Two salient conceptions within the German discourse. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 7: 465-482. Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., Robinson, J., 2004. The problem of the future Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change 14, 137-146. Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., et al., 2003a. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100: 8074-8079. Turner, B.L., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L. et al., 2003b. Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability analysis Three case studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100: 8080-8085. Turner II BL, Robbins P., 2008. Land-change science and political ecology: Similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33: 295-316 Wiek, A., 2007. Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation Experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 16, 52-57.

SESSION I

17

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Chair: Arnim Wiek, Arizona State University, School of Sustainability

Dr. Wiek is an Assistant Professor at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. He has conducted sustainability research on emerging technologies, urban development, land use conflicts, resource governance, and climate change in Europe, Canada, USA, Sri Lanka, and Costa Rica. He carries out research in close collaboration with nonacademic partners from government, business, and the civil society. He had prior research engagements at ETH Zurich, the University of British Columbia, and the University of Tokyo.

From complex systems thinking to transformational change: Epistemological and methodological challenges in sustainability science Introduction to Session I
About a decade ago, the field of sustainability science has been launchedwith some ambivalence regarding its epistemology and methodology. In one stream of its early reception, sustainability science has been conceptualized as an advanced form of complex system analysis with the epistemological goal to enhance understanding and the methodological approach to apply analytical-descriptive tools. At the same time, a more transformational agenda has been proposed according to which the research community needs to complement its historic role in identifying problems of sustainability with a greater willingness to join with the development and other communities to work on practical solutions to those problems (Clark and Dickson, 2003, p. 8059). This agenda points in the direction that the epistemological goal needs to be broader than understanding coupled human-environment systems. As a solution-oriented endeavor, sustainability science addresses the normative question of how coupled human-environment systems ought to be developed in ways that comply with a set of commonly shared goals. The co-creation of uncommon types of knowledge is required to succeed on this pathway. These types complement descriptive-analytical knowledge (where are we) and provide sustainability actions and transformations with direction (where should we be) and operational structure (how do we get there). As sustainability science is still emerging, this session reviews the current state of the debate, addresses some of the open research questions, and facilitates a synthesis discussion on how to move from from complex systems thinking to transformational change, and what epistemological and methodological challenges this endeavor entails. The session confronts the theoretical debate with empirical studies in sustainability science by posing the question in how far we truly advance in solving sustainability problems as opposed to only enhancing our understanding of these problems.

Co-Chair: Francesca Farioli

Coordinator of the Research Unit Energy, Environment and Development at CIRPS-Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable Development, Sapienza University of Rome, PhD. Professor of energy sustainability at Marconi University, Rome. She has conducted research on energy for sustainable development, sustainability assessment and policy implications (CDM and bioenergy). Her approach aims to bridge research, practice and policy. She forms part of experts for indicators development and good practices for the Global Bioenergy Partnership and BEFSCI FAO project.

SESSION I

18

Barry Ness, LUCSUS,Lund University

Barry Ness is a researcher at the Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS) at Lund University in Sweden. He received his Ph.D. in Sustainability Science from Lund in 2008. Barrys past research experience has focused on amongst other areas understanding the myriad tools that exist for assessing sustainability and structuring complex sustainability challenges through multi-scale and level perspectives. Recent research focuses on the governance of large-scale land acquisition projects in the Global South for food and biofuels production as well as the epistemological and methodological development of sustainability science. Barry is an Earth System Governance Fellow and has an active role teaching in the LUMES Masters program at Lund University, with particular ties to the energy, methods and sustainability science courses.

The EU MATISSE (WP 6) project as a catalyst for transformational change?

The presentation concentrates on how the EU FP6 Matisse project, and in particular work package 6, moves from complex systems thinking to transformational change. The analysis finds that no single sustainability challenge of the Ebro River Basin in Spain (object of focus) was necessarily solved. It does show however that insights were gained through the creation and application of a participatory agent-based gaming tool made up of system dynamics modeling, GIS data (e.g. hydrological) and different agent (cultural theory) types. Social learning in the more specific forms of sustainability learning and transition learning took place through use of the gaming tool by stakeholder groups; social learning amongst work package partners (interdisciplinarity) also occurred through the fusing of the engineering, natural and social sciences in the creation of the gaming tool. Suggested improvements for the work package include amongst others the earlier delivery of the gaming tool in order to create more sophisticated insights into participatory processes, as well as augmented boundaryspanning efforts by project participants and funding organizations in sustainability problem-solving efforts.

Katharine N. Farrell, Autonomous University of Barcelona and Central European University

Katharine N. Farrell is an Ecological Economist and Political Theorist, holding three honours degrees and one degree by research and is a member of Pi Sigma Alpha. Her work focuses on the political economy of knowledge in environmental governance, ecological political economy, inter- and transdisciplinary research methodology, and the role of time and tradition in processes and principles of economic production. She is currently a Postdoctoral Researcher with the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and a Lecturer in Ecological Economics at the Central European University, in Budapest.

Seeing is Believing: a meta-assessment of the methodological and epistemological strengths and weakness of a consciously self-reflective participatory modelling exercise
This paper is a contribution toward a comparative assessment of applied sustainability science projects, which is being carried out in collaboration, amongst the panellists for this session. Following specifications issued by the session chair, and additional criteria drawn from the authors own empirical and theoretical work, it considers the structure, results and overall effectiveness of the applied sustainability science project reported upon in Serrat-Capdevila, A., A. Browning-Aiken, K. Lansey, T. Finan, and J. B. Valds. 2009. Increasing socialecological resilience by placing science at the decision table: the role of the San Pedro Basin (Arizona) decision-support system model Ecology and Society 14(1): 37. The aims and objectives of the project are first reviewed and then considered within the context of the framework provided to the session contributors: what qualifies this work as

SESSION I

19

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

a sustainability science; what sustainability science method(s) was/were used; what results were accomplished; in how far the problem was solved; reflections on - the quality of the process and the results, the type of realworld changes and transformation that have been accomplished through the study and potential improvements. In keeping with earlier works of the author, this is structured to address two aspects of effectiveness: 1. methodological concerning the overall epistemological robustness of the empirically entailed aspects of the work and 2. political concerning the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the politically entailed aspects of the work. The example is found to be of high quality on both counts. The paper concludes with reflections on possible reasons for this and also raises some cautions regarding problems of quality that do arise with the approach taken in the study project.

Fridolin S. Brand, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

Dr. Fridolin S. Brand is working since 2009 as a postdoc researcher and lecturer at the Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED); Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI) at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich in Switzerland. From 1999 to 2005 Fridolin Brand studied biology and philosophy at the universities of Mainz, Greifswald (Germany) and Perth (Australia). From 2005 to 2009, he worked at the Chair of Landscape Ecology at the Technische Universitt Mnchen in Germany with a PhD on Resilience and Sustainable Development: an Ecological Inquiry.

Moving towards a solution-oriented mode of sustainability science: Evidence on opportunities and challenges from two case studies in Switzerland and Germany
Sustainability science can achieve progress if it moves towards a solution-oriented endeavor, which implies shifting from pure complex systems thinking to also targeting transformational change [1]. Based on evidence from two case studies, the CCES-MOUNTLAND project in Switzerland and the Risk Habitat Megacity Research Initiative in Germany, I will formulate several hypotheses central to achieve progress in sustainability science in terms of solution-orientation. First, in order to get a better understanding of how systems ought to develop, sustainability science needs an intense academic discourse and transdisciplinary learning process on building a well-founded Theory of Sustainable Development. Such theory building opposes hundreds of stipulative definitions of the current literature, as it aims to provide good and convincing arguments for every layer of a theory (i.e. idea, conception, rules, guidelines, applications, special concepts, monitoring) [2]. Second, we have to find ways to enhance knowledge integration of different types of epistemics (e.g. scientific and experiential knowledge, utilizing and relating disciplinary knowledge from the social, natural, and engineering sciences) [3]. Third, sustainability science should establish a transdisciplinary mode and carry out transdisciplinary processes involving scientists, decision-makers and the overall public. This includes joint problem definition, problem representation, and the development of orientations for sustainable transformations [4]. This presentation will also highlight further issues illustrating chances and pitfalls for achieving progress in sustainability science. [1] Wiek, A. From complex thinking to transformational change: epistemological and methodological challenges in sustainability science. Background paper for session 1 at the Second International Conference on Sustainability Science ICSS 2010. [2] Schultz J., Brand F.S., Kopfmller J. & Ott K. (2008). Building a Theory of Sustainable Development: Two Salient Conceptions within the German Discourse International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 7 (4): 465 482. [3] Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 226-251.

SESSION I

20

[4] Scholz, R. W. (in press). Environmental literacy in science and society: From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prof. Dr. Petra Schweizer-Ries als Juniorprofessorin, University of Saarland/University of Magdeburg, Germany
Petra Schweizer-Ries is a social and behavioural scientist who has been working on renewable energy technologies for over 15 years. She worked with the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) from 1992 until 2002, where she founded an interdisciplinary work group on rural electrification. Since 2002 she has been a Junior Professor for Environmental Psychology at the University of Magdeburg, Germany. There, she leads a research group working on different social aspects of energy distribution and introduction in rural and grid-connected areas. She currently represents the chair for Sustainable Development at the University of Saarland, Germany.

How to support complex sustainable development processes Research on energy sustainable communities
Unsustainable energy systems result in global emissions, rely on resources with limited availability and accessibility, and imply high risks for public health and the environment (e.g., coal and nuclear power). Sustainability science is concerned with the question of how to transition from unsustainable energy systems (supply and use) towards sustainable ones that do not deplete the energy resources available. At the same time, sustainability science aims at facilitating these transition processes in ways that community change supports social development (empowering end-users) and not bring about unwanted consequences (misbalanced power structures). This requires thorough research on transition strategies that account for coherence, efficiency, and sufficiency. The talk presents community-oriented research on energy transitions with case studies from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe. The studies deal with balancing technical solutions and social distributional issues within a developmental process. The analysis identifies success factors and failures concerning socio-technical systems change via scientific co-production of knowledge (action-research).

SESSION I

21

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

SESSION II Solution-oriented/transdisciplinary research for sustainable development

Chair: Pim Martens, Maastricht University Co-chair: Silvia Macchi, Sapienza University of Rome Background Paper
Introduction It is clear that in making the concept of sustainable development concrete, one has to take into account a number of practical elements and obstacles. Thus there is little doubt that integrated approaches are needed to support sustainable development. Questions as to exactly how such integration underpinned by the right research - should be conceived and put into effect have so far been the preserve of a select group. In order to realize the high level of expectations, a new research paradigm is needed that is better able to reflect the complexity and the multidimensional character of sustainable development. The new paradigm must be able to encompass different magnitudes of scales (of time, space and function), multiple balances (dynamics), multiple actors (interests) and multiple failures (systemic faults). This new paradigm emerges from a scientific sub-current that characterizes the evolution of science in general a shift from mode-1 to mode-2 science (see Table 1) (Gibbons 1994). Mode-1 science is completely academic in nature, monodisciplinary and the scientists themselves are mainly responsible for their own scientific performance. In mode-2 science, which is at core both inter- and intra-disciplinary, the scientists form a part of a heterogeneous network. Their scientific tasks are part of an extensive process of knowledge production and they are also responsible for more than merely scientific production. Another paradigm that is gaining increasing influence is what is known as post-normal science. It is impossible to eradicate uncertainty from decision-making processes, and therefore it must be adequately managed through organized participatory processes in which different kinds of knowledge not only scientific knowledge come into play. As a result, those making policy are as well informed as possible about complex social problems of major importance.

Table 1: Several properties of mode-1 and mode-2 science Mode-1 science Academic Mono-disciplinary Technocratic Certain Predictive Mode-2 science Academic and social Trans- and interdisciplinary Participative Uncertain Exploratory

SESSION II

22

The research programme that is beginning to emerge from this movement is known as Sustainability Science. Sustainability is characterized by a number of shared research principles. Shared here implies a broad recognition by a growing group of people who in a steadily extending network are active in the area of sustainability science. The central elements of sustainability science are:

inter-, intra- and transdisciplinary research co-production of knowledge co-evolution of a complex system and its environment learning through doing and doing through learning system innovation instead of system optimalization

Simply stated, this new model can be represented as co-evolution, co-production and co-learning. The theory of complex systems can be employed as an umbrella mechanism to bring together the various different parts of the sustainability puzzle. Integrated analysis of sustainability This new paradigm has far-reaching consequences for the methods and techniques that need to be developed before an integrated analysis of sustainability can be carried out. These new methods and techniques can also be characterized as follows:

from supply- to demand-driven from technocratic to participant from objective to subjective from predictive to exploratory from certain to uncertain

In short, the character of our instruments of integrated analysis is changing. Whereas previous generations of these instruments were considered as truth machines, the current and future generations will be seen more as heuristic instruments, as aids in the acquisition of better insight into complex problems of sustainability. At each stage in the research of sustainability science, new methods and techniques will need to be used, extended or invented. The methodologies that are used and developed in the integrated assessment community are highly suitable for this purpose. Roughly, there are a number of different kinds of methods for the integrated assessment of sustainability: analytic methods, participative methods and more managerial methods. Analytic methods mainly look at the nature of sustainable development, employing among other approaches the theory of complexity. In participative research approaches, non-scientists such as policy-makers, representatives from the business world, social organizations and citizens also play an active role. The more managerial methods are used to investigate the policy aspects and the controllability of sustainable transitions. An example of an analytic instrument for the assessment of sustainability is the integrated assessment model which allows one to describe and explain changes between periods of dynamic balance. This model consists of a system-dynamic representation of the driving forces, system changes, consequences, feed-backs, potential lock-ins and lock-outs of a particular development in a specific area. Another analytic instrument is the scenario that describes sustainable and unsustainable developments, including unexpected events, changes and lines of fracture. Participatory methods differ according to the aim of the study and its participants. Thus negotiation processes

SESSION II

23

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

are mimicked in so-called policy exercises, whether or not these are supported by simulations. In the method of mutual learning, the analysis is enriched by the integration of the knowledge possessed by participants from diverse areas of expertise. An example of a new kind of policy instrument is provided by transition management (Rotmans, Kemp et al. 2001). Transition management is a visionary, evolutionary learning process that is progressively constructed by the undertaking following steps: I. develop a long-term vision of sustainable development and a common agenda (macro-scale) II. formulate and execute a local experiment in renewal that could perhaps contribute to the transition to sustainability (micro-scale) III. evaluate and learn from these experiments IV. put together the vision and the strategy for sustainability, based on what has been learned (this boils down to a cyclical search and learn process that one might call evolutionary steering: a new kind of planning with understanding, based on learning by doing and doing through learning). But now that the first steps towards an integrated sustainability science have been taken, there is a prospect of making some major leaps forward. Operationalizing Sustainability Following publication of the Brundtland Report, numerous attempts were made to operationalize sustainable development. The most popular and common attempt is the triangular concept with the three pillars economy, environment, and society, which in recent years has in some contexts come to be referred to as the P3 concept of people, planet, profits. Economy refers to jobs and wealth; environment to environmental qualities, biodiversity, and natures resources; and society to health, social cohesion, and opportunities for self-development attributable to education and freedom. The pillar-focused approaches have gained great popularity, particularly in business circles, but they have often suffered from insufficient attention to overlaps and interdependencies and a tendency to facilitate continued separation of societal, economic, and ecological analyses. Alternative depictions stressing interconnections and consideration of institutional aspectsas in the SCENE model of (Grosskurth and Rotmans 2005) offer useful ways forward. Concerns with the poor and the weak that should be part of the sustainability debate do not feature prominently in the pillar approaches. These are, however, captured by the four principles of (Newman and Kenworthy 1993):

The elimination of poverty, especially in the Third World, is necessary not just on human grounds but as an environmental issue The First World must reduce its consumption of resources and production of wastes Global cooperation on environmental issues is no longer a soft option Change towards sustainability can occur only with community-based approaches that take local cultures seriously

An interesting aspect of the above definition is the attention given to local cultures and community-based decision making, a strategy that renders sustainable development less technocratic. The requirements of sustainable development are multiple and interconnected. The main dimensions can be said to consist of maintaining the integrity of biophysical systems; offering better services for more people; and proSESSION II

24

viding freedom from hunger, nuisance, and deprivation. To these one may add choice, opportunity, and access to decision makingaspects of equity within and across generations. Towards a transdiciplinary strategy for sustainable development A research framework for sustainability science will need to be further built on existing sciences and scientific programmes. Principal opportunities and policies for transitions to sustainability are multiple, cumulative and interactive. We need more, however, before we can study the sustainability of the interaction between the planet and its ecosystems and peoples. It should be clear that sustainability science will have to be above all an integrative science, a science which sets out to break down the barriers that divide the traditional sciences. It will have to promote the integration between such different scientific disciplines as economics, earth sciences, biology, social sciences and technology. The same can be said for sectoral approaches, in which such closely linked aspects of human activity as energy, agriculture, health and transport are still dealt with as separate subjects. The most significant threats to sustainability appear in certain regions, with their specific social and ecological characteristics. In fact, a sustainable transition will often have to occur within the local surroundings. However, sustainability science has to promote integration on a larger geographical scale in order to get beyond the sometimes easy but finally artificial division between global and local perspectives. Regardless of what spatial scale is found most suitable for the investigation of any particular sustainability issues, gaining insight into the linkages between events on both the macro and the micro scale is one of the major challenges facing sustainability science. Finally, sustainability science must ensure the integration of different styles of knowledge creation in order to bridge the gulf between science, practice and politics. In other words, it has to transcend existing barriers in sectors, scientific disciplines, and perspectives. Sustainable policy If we look at the consequences of this new vision of sustainability for policy, we can note the following. It is important for policy-makers both in politics and in the business community that specific policy aims along with their associated time limits are clearly determined. Several possibilities are shown in the diagram below (Figure 1). One of the options the policy-maker has and this is not so far from the current situation is to go for short-term goals and simple or cheap means of achieving them. In contrast to such an approach, a more pro-active, innovative standpoint can be adopted that pursues longer-term goals, taking into account developments on different levels of scale and in different sectors. Unquestionably, sustainable development demands the latter approach. To facilitate decision-making, sustainability scientists must assist in the task of making concrete both problems and solutions on all relevant temporal and spatial scales. This means that sustainability at the systemic level must be assessed, bringing to bear the following procedural elements: analysis of deeper-lying structures of the system, projection into the future and assessment of sustainable and unsustainable trends. Evaluation of the effects of sustainable policy and the design of possible solutions through sustainable strategies also belong here. Fortunately, integrated approaches to sustainability issues in such areas as environment and development are not entirely new. For example, research has already been carried out into the interactions between urban, rural, industrial and natural ecosystems in order to gain more insight into policy implications for the management of water. The search for integrated theories that combine different disciplinary strengths is an excellent way of creating a better basis for decision-making on sustainability. Conclusion From an anthropocentric point of view, sustainable development is about human betterment or progress. It reflects social consensus of what is unsustainable and what constitutes improvement, and therefore cannot be translated into a blueprint or a defined end state for the achievement of which criteria can be derived and

SESSION II

25

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

unambiguous decisions taken (Voss and Kemp 2006). Sustainable development is often seen as being about protection of amenities (including cultural diversity), but, as this article argues, it is equally about continued advancement and creation: a better and more just world. Both the protection of amenities and the creation of new and better services for more people require innovation in governance institutions and in sociotechnical systems (regime changes). Attempts to achieve these objectives should be carried out in a prudent, reflexive manner to avoid new problems and to make sure that actions taken lead to progress. Sustainability science, based on integrated assessment, may help to identify directions in which change is needed. But the sustainability of new trajectories is not guaranteed. We need more reflexive modes of governance to make sure that the trajectories are indeed sustainable. Sustainability science can guide decision making, providing provisional knowledge about social problems, the desirability of new systems of provision, and the longterm effects of interventionsissues on which science has no definitive answer. We do not think that sustainable development can be objectified using mode-1 science. To try to do so would go against the grain of sustainable development as a deeply normative process that requires attention to long-term effects across various scales (e.g., geographic, functional systems, time). Sustainability may be understood as a specific kind of problem framing that emphasizes the interconnectedness of different issues and scales, as well as the long-term and indirect effects of actions that need to be accounted for as part of decision making (Voss and Kemp 2006). References Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in comtemporary science. London, Sage. Grosskurth, J. and J. Rotmans (2005). The scene model: getting grip on sustainable development in policy making. Environment, development and sustainability 7: 135-151. Kemp, R. and P. Martens (2007). Sustainable development: How to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Science, Practice and Policy 2 (2): 1-10. Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 2 (1): 1-5. Newman, P. and J. Kenworthy (1993). Sustainability and Cities. Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington, DC, Island Press. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, et al. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3 (1): 15-31. Voss, J.-P. and R. Kemp (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: introduction. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. J.-P. Voss, D. Bauknecht and R. Kemp. Northampton MA Edward Elgar: 3-28.

1 Based on Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 2(1): 1-5. & Kemp, R. and P. Martens (2007). Sustainable development: How to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Science, Practice and Policy 2(2): 1-10.

At the United Nations summit in Johannesburg in 2005, the P3 concept of people, planet, profit was changed into people, planet, and prosperity.

SESSION II

26

Chair: Pim Martens

Pim Martens is Director of the International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development (ICIS), Maastricht University. He holds the chair Sustainable Development at the Maastricht University, is a guest professor at Leuphana University Lneburg, and a Leverhulme professor at Aberystwyth University, Wales. Prof. Martens is projectleader and principal investigator of several projects related to sustainable development and sustainability science, globalisation, environmental change and society.

Co-chair: Silvia Macchi

Associate Professor of Regional Planning and Urban Policies at Sapienza University of Rome, Faculty of Engineering. Member of the scientific board of the Interuniversity Research Center for Sustainable Development (CIRPS/Sapienza), where she coordinates the section on Policies for the Empowerment of Women and the PhD Program on Sustainable Development and International Cooperation. Member of the International Network for Urban Research and Action (INURA). Referee for the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Consultant in the field of Gender and Development to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other International Organization.

Daniel J. Lang, Institute for Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany
Since January 1st 2010 Dr. Daniel J. Lang is Professor for Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research at the Department of Sustainability Sciences at Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany. Daniel first studied geo-ecology at the University of Bayreuth, Germany (pre-diploma) and later Environmental Sciences at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (MSc). He did his PhD at the Institute for Environmental Decisions, Natural and Social Science Interface at ETH Zurich (Dr. Sc. ETH) where he continued his career as post-doc and senior researcher. In 2008 Daniel spent three months as research affiliate at the Center for Industrial Ecology at Yale University. A core question of Daniels research and teaching activities is how scientists from different disciplines as well as actors from outside academia can work together and learn from each other in order to contribute to coping with the fundamental sustainability challenges of the 21st century. Relevant topics of Daniels research are sustainable governance of physical resource as well as sustainability transitions of communities and regions.

Challenges and Potentials of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research Understanding and Further Developing Interfaces
Sustainability science is an emerging field aiming to cope with fundamental societal challenges of the 21th century. There is broad consensus that approaching these challenges requires new ways of knowledge production, integration, and use that goes beyond established disciplinary and even interdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinary Research aims at meeting this requirement in enabling mutual learning processes among scientists from

SESSION II

27

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

different disciplines and relevant actors from outside academia. In the first part of this presentation better understanding and further developing various interfaces, specifically between natural and social sciences, science and society, qualitative and quantitative research, intuitive and formal approaches, is defined as key challenges of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research. In the second part a concrete example of a transdisciplinary project is presented, which revolves around the development and implementation of a landfill rating system in Switzerland. This system is theoretically based on a systemic sustainability assessment approach (Sustainability Potential Analysis) that was adopted and further developed together with key stakeholders form waste management to become a feasible, transparent and broadly accepted rating tool. In the last part some insights gained in this project are reflected with regards to the outlined challenges of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research. The project clearly indicates that theory and practice do not necessarily contradict each other, but sound theoretical, methodological as well as process-related foundations are needed if the full potential of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research should be used.

Dr. Peter Moll, science development

Peter Moll is an independent international consultant and scholar. He has 20 years of experience with working in implementation- oriented research projects while specializing in managing interfaces between knowledge and action. This concerns stakeholder integration work, communication, and continuation work beyond the limits of a research project and programme. Clients include et al the Global Environment Facility, World Bank, UNDP, the European Commission, European research ministries and international foundations operating in research on sustainable development. Thematically the focus lies on Sustainability Science, Global Change (climate change, biodiversity, water, land use & land management) and Development Research. Peters work experience covers Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Implementation-oriented research: Lessons learned from the Coffee project

The presentation takes the concrete work experience of a seven-year project on sustainable use of forest coffee resources in the montane rainforests of Ethiopia as a starting point. From this experience some lessons learned are presented that concern:

options and needs for successful involvement of stakeholders communication for reaching beyond the science community strategies for bridging some of the many science - policy gaps and the concrete work with continuation strategies.

The presentation will briefly summarize the scientific work of this project and elaborate from there on those lessons learned. The idea behind this procedure is to provide as many as possible entry points for feed-back of the audience and for subsequent discussion on the questions raised as well as on possible solutions presented.

SESSION II

28

Professor Christopher J Thomas, Aberystwyth University, UK

Chris Thomas is CIRRE Research Professor in Ecological Modelling, Aberystwyth University, Wales, UK. My group employs a broad range of modelling, analytical and geographic techniques (e.g. spatial modelling, Geographic Information Systems, remote sensing and image processing) in addition to traditional field ecological methods. Coupling mathematical ecology with geography provides exciting opportunities to link theory to the real world. However, it is clear that the research agenda for many complex ecological systems spans a number of disciplinary boundaries. A focus of recent work is on mapping and modelling malaria risk at landscape and continental scales., particularly in Africa. Co-authors. Christine Dunn is Senior Lecturer in Medical Geography at Durham University leading projects in the Kilombero and Jennifer Hatfield is Associate Dean, International/Global Health and director of both the Health and Society Program and the Global Health Program at Calgary University, leading projects in Ngorogoro.

Transdisciplinary approaches to climate change and disease in rural Tanzania.

Eco-Health is a promising model for development research, leading to more sustainable outcomes in improving peoples lives as well as the natural environment. This transdisciplinary approach is very well suited to applied, local projects, but can we also use this model to integrate complex environmental science into sustainable development, and at a range of scales (e.g. regional to local)? A good example of this challenge is in climate change, where complex issues in the science (e.g. modelling, scaling, uncertainty) mesh with complex interactions on the ground (e.g. culture, economy, education, food security, health, poverty, governance). As scientists, we need to devote more effort to this interface if we are to understand vulnerability and recognise opportunities to enhance adaptation and resilience. One practical obstacle in the research domain is the perennial problem of truly integrating physical, social and economic science. Advances in spatial technology offer a partial solution by uniting different forms of evidence through geography: everything happens somewhere, sometime, on some space-time scale. Importantly, this also provides an instrument for translation through participatory mapping. There is a wealth of research dating back decades that can help us deal with technical problems arising from, for example, incomplete spatial coverage, scaling and non-stationarity (that things may vary with distance in admixtures of gradients, non-linearity or boundaries). This is an emerging discipline, but we illustrate our first steps along this road with two ongoing field programmes; 1) malaria transmission in rural farming communities in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania, which has the highest levels of transmission in the world, and; 2) veterinary and human diseases among pastoralists and their livestock in the Ngorogoro Crater Area, also in Tanzania, where apparently changing patterns of disease are a major threat to both food security and health of the Maasai. In both of these studies we are attempting to reveal the consequences of climate change on complex local dynamics and to integrate indigenous people, their knowledge, perceptions and vision as integral players in the research. This is not easy, nor does it yield quick, high impact returns. It is slow science but we are a) patient and b) optimistic. However, slow science remains largely unrewarded by our national and university systems for grading research output. For early career scientists, this is a serious impediment to uptake.

SESSION II

29

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Mark Swilling and Even Annecke, Stellenbosch University

Professor Mark Swilling is Programme Coordinator: Sustainable Development Planning and Management in the School of Public Management and Planning, University of Stellenbosch and Academic Director of the Sustainability Institute. Prior to this Professor Swilling cofounder and Director of the Graduate School of Public and Development Management at the University of the Witwatersrand, 1995-1998; and co-founder of PLANACT in 1985, an urban development NGO. Professor Swilling obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Warwick in 1994 and has a BA and a BA (Honours) obtained through the Department of Political Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand where he was also a lecturer from 1982 - 1987. He has published over 50 academic articles, five books and written extensively for the popular media on a wide range of public policy issues. In 2007 he was invited to be a member of the International Panel on Sustainable Resource Management, established by the United Nations Environment Programme to assess ways of making the global economy more sustainable.

Transdisciplinary Teaching of Sustainability in South Africa: the case of Stellenbosch University

South Africa is a new democracy and the most unequal society in the world. It also faces major sustainability challenges. It has a well developed University sector, but a limited tradition of education and research in sustainable resource use within a transdisciplinary framework. In response, Stellenbosch University has established two programmes. Firstly, a Masters Programme in Sustainable Development with an annual intake of between 60 and 75 students drawn from all sectors. Secondly, a Transdisciplinary Doctoral Programme for the study of sustainability and complexity. The paper will start off by describing the two programmes, why they were established, and how they work. This will provide the basis for a more reflective analysis of the learning process and the related research programme. The key themes that will be addressed are as follows:

Implications of a transdisciplinary approach for curriculum design Implications of a transdisciplinary approach for building a network of teachers from across a range of different disciplines The benefits and drawbacks of selection criteria that give entry to people from a wide range of disciplinary backgrounds Teaching methodologies, in particular the impact of discussion learning Benefits and challenges of locating teaching and learning within a working example of a sustainable community The role of research, in particular the topics selected by masters students and the output over the years The challenge of setting up a transdisciplinary Phd programme, in particular with respect to cooperation between a wide number of academic departments from several different faculties General lessons learnt that can contribute to the wider discussion about learning and research on sustainable development

The core argument will be that transdisciplinary learning and research within a developing country context like South Africa has to find a strong interface between development economics, eco-system science, governance and leadership studies. Examples of masters and Phd research undertaken after the core modules completed will be discussed to reveal the significance of this interface for redefining what development means in Africa from a sustainability perspective.

SESSION II

30

31

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

SESSION III Innovation for Sustainability: toward a Sustainable Urban Future

Chair: Kazuhiko Takeuchi, United Nations University, University of Tokyo Co-chair: Kensuke Fukushi, University of Tokyo Background Paper
Introduction During the past decades, urban growth has been accelerating with the massive migration of population to cities. Urban population in the world is estimated as 2.9 billion in 2000 and predicted to reach 6 billion or 70% of the global total in 2050 (United Nations, 2007). Cities are complex and diverse socio-technical systems and the creation of sustainable urban futures will need breakthroughs in technology, planning and management and the engagement of international cooperation with involvement of citizens, industries, researchers and policy makers, etc. In the 21st century, how to achieve a sustainable urban future have become one of the most important focuses in the worldwide scope especially against the background of population decline and extended life in the near future. The desires of human being by using a variety of methods such as development of new technology, change of peoples life style, and macroscopic control through strategies and policies so as to mitigate and adapt global warming, achieve a higher vitality of region and quality of life have becoming increasingly stronger than ever before. According to the definition of United Nations, sustainability requires the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands, which is expressed as an illustration using three overlapping ellipses indicating that the three pillars of sustainability are not mutually exclusive but can be mutually reinforcing. However, urban growth are facing tremendous challenges that need to be tackled urgently, such as how to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions by 50% until 2050, problems of population decline and extended life of population, maintenance of the vitality of urban-rural fringe, issues of energy source, restoring of bio-diversity and ecology, the coexistence with nature, recycling of waste, and disaster adaption. In this paper, we focus on three major corresponding issues and their mutual interactions as shown in Fig.1.

The first concern is to achieve a low carbon society. It has become common knowledge that climate change is a major problem of the present and the worlds cities account for around 80% of all CO2 emissions that they also conversely offer numerous options to mitigate emissions and to adapt climate change. All the worlds countries need to unite to make supreme efforts to establish a low-carbon society by reducing global emissions by half from the current level by 2050. If per capita CO2 emissions were the same worldwide when the 50% reduction is realized, the developed countries would need to reduce their per capita emissions by 70-80 % comparing to the current level, and the developing countries would need to keep approximately the current level while achieving economic growth and improved quality of life (Ministry of the Environment of Japan, 2007). Such a society cannot be realized if the current trends continue. All countries, organizations, and entities have to commit themselves to actions from now on. The innovation of existing technology towards a low carbon or carbon free one could be an important countermeasure. For examples, the enhancement of efficiency of individual cars due to lighter bodies and widespread the use of hybrid cars, electric vehicles, fuel-cell cars, etc. will decrease the CO2 emissions from car uses and overcome the related air pollution problem. Intelligent transportation systems will not only collect and provide traffic information, but they will also enable an advanced billing method, thereby forming the basis of a low-carbon transportation system. The improvement of energy use efficiency is also need to be paid great attention. It would become a common practice to avoid wasting energy and to efficiently use natural energy in transport, homes and offices. For examples, through shifting the share of transport to more efficient modes like buses and subways, we can improve the energy efficiency while still meet the demand of mobility. Similar improvements at homes and offices could be achieved by increasing compressors efficiency and decreasing the temperature difference in heat transfer of air conditioners and other heat pumps. In addition, the development of renewable energy is another necessary option. Since even if

SESSION III

32

we can reduce the total amount of energy consumption through changing peoples life style, enhancing the efficiency or recycling of energy utilized, we will still need a large amount of energy resources while we cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels. From the single viewpoint of global warming caused by CO2 emissions, it is clear that we do not have much time left to develop energy resources that can replace fossil fuels. Rather than sitting back and doing nothing but just waiting for the exhaustion of fossil fuel resources, we must try our best efforts towards the development of alternative energy resources such as hydropower, solar energy, wind power, biomass energy and geothermal so as to make a soft landing to a sustainable energy system.

The second concern is to tackle the problem of extended life of population. The economic progress and advanced medical technology have enabled the world population decline in the fertility rates and extension of life span, i.e. slower population growth and it aging. The aging process is already underway in the developed countries like Japan, while in many developing countries in Eastern and Southeastern Asia, as well as Central and Eastern Europe, the aging process is expected to begin around 2020. In the urban domain, one of the future challenges will be to accommodate citizens preference for larger living spaces, while providing commutable, livable cities with appropriate infrastructure which can not only decrease the environmental load but also can maintain the residents quality of life. Compact city is recognized as a feasible solution against the above background because it has the characteristics of promotion of revitalization of urban town centers, restraint on development in rural areas, higher densities, mixed land use. There are many perceived benefits of the compact city over traditional urban sprawl, which include less car dependency, reduced energy consumption, the reuse of infrastructure and previously developed land, a regeneration of existing urban areas and urban vitality, a higher quality of life, and the preservation of green space. Meanwhile, it is also necessary to conduct transportation planning with general aims at promotion of public transport thus lower emissions, high efficient use of fossil energy and introduction of new transport modes to meet the demand of an aging society. The third focus of this paper is to enrich the development of urban-rural fringe. Known as the outskirts or the urban hinterland, the urban-rural fringe can be described as the landscape interface between town and countryside, or also as the transition zone where urban and rural uses mix together. Typically, urban-rural fringe are intensively managed to prevent the urban sprawl and protect the agriculture land and forests, where have certain land uses such as roads, power, water and sewerage plants, factories, and waste recycling facilities. To enhance the vitality of urban-rural fringe together with the correlated objectives of low carbon and adaptation to extended life of population, there are several possible ways such as development of bio-fuel production industry using the biomass generated in urban area as resource, construction of a material recycling system, and mixed land use planning.

Fig.1 Three major focuses among multiple themes concerning sustainable urban future

SESSION III

33

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Low carbon society Global greenhouse gas emissions will need to peak within the next 10-15 years followed by reductions of at least 50% by 2050 if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. Developed country emissions will need to be reduced significantly. As much as a 60-80% reduction in emissions from developed countries by 2050 are feasible both technically and economically. In addition, developing country emissions will need to follow a pathway that allows continued growth and development whilst making the transition to a low-carbon society. Climate change is now recognized as an economic as well an environmental problem. The costs of strong and urgent action both in mitigation of and adaptation to climate change are vastly outweighed by the future costs of inaction. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expected macro-economic costs of moving to low-carbon societies are less than 0.12 percentage points reduction of annual global GDP growth. Any delay in mitigation causes significant cost increases (IPCC, 2007). To achieve a low carbon society and as discussed above, innovation of technology, improvement of energy efficiency and development of renewable energy are three feasible countermeasures. In detail, when taking the automobile as a case, as shown in fig.2, we could cut gasoline consumption to 15% of the level in 1995 by reducing the cars body weight and using hybrid engines. Moreover, in the future with the help of new technology like the introduction of electric car, the potential of reduction of CO2 emissions would be increasing. Taking Japans electric vehicle as an example, Mitsubishis I-MiEV and Nissans Leaf have lighter body weights and only around 10% and 20% of emissions of the conventional car and hybrid car respectively.

Fig.2 CO2 emission of various types of cars. Modified on basis of Komiyama and Kraines (2008). TEPCO stands for Tokyo Electric Power Company. CO 2 emission coefficients used for the calculation do not consider carbon credit adjustment.

When looking at the contribution of renewable energy as an example, as pointed by Komiyama and Kraines (2008), in a sustainable scenario of year 2050 we will aim to achieve the new development of hydropower equivalent to 5% of the current fossil fuel consumption, biomass such as agricultural and forestry residuals and municipal waste equivalent to 15%, solar cells equivalent to 3%, and the equivalent of about 2% of current fossil fuel consumption from other renewable energy sources such as wind and geothermal. This gives us a total of 25% of 1995 fossil fuel consumption.

SESSION III

34

Extended life Recently, aging of population has already become one of the biggest issues just as global warming for both developed and developing countries. For nation-wise, until the early 1980s, the pace of ageing in Japan was slower than US and Europe, and only less than 10% of the population was the elderly aged 65 or older. But the percentage started to surge after that, and in 2005 Japan became the fastest-ageing society, exceeding Italy (Fuyuno, 2007).

Fig.3 Future compact city image in an aging society

In another hand, through several decades rapid economic development and urbanization in most cities, extensive sprawl of urban areas creates many problems like difficulty of infrastructure maintenance, longer trip for commute and inconvenient mobility especially for aged people, low vitality of urban center. However in the past decades, urban planning, adaptation to the aging society and low carbon society are usually considered independently without any integration. The urgent needs for a sustainable urban encourages the problems to be tackled simultaneously by considering the interactions of each other. Fig.3 gives us an example, in which we illustrate a future vision of compact city in an aging society. The compaction of city, promotion of modal share of public transport, bicycling and pedestrian, assistance of new technology (e.x. LED light), use of renewable energy (e.x. solar power), and improvement of energy efficiency would be greatly helpful to adapt the transformation to aging society, maintenance of elder peoples quality of life and release of environmental load as well. This kind of integration of several planning targets and countermeasures would be a dominant trend in future development. 4. Urban-rural fringe Usually, the urban-rural fringe serves as a purchaser of energy and organic materials which are generated in rural areas and processes those raw agricultural resources into edible and marketable products and supplies to urban area. Adversely, this area always suffers from considerable environmental damages in the form of waste disposal and resource constraints (Fig.4). To avoid the environmental problems and ensure the enrichment of urban-rural fringe, introduction of those eco-industries, for example, the bio-fuel production industry will be a sustainable solution, through which a large amount of biomass waste from urban area could be transformed into renewable energy, and at the same time employment opportunities would be created and new business could be expanded. Thus the vitality of this area could be enhanced. Furthermore, the living conditions of local residents would be improved as a result of better use of waste material and reduction of pollution.

SESSION III

35

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Fig.4 A sustainable urban-rural fringe image

Conclusions and discussions This paper looks at the sustainable urban future through the analysis of three major issues including achievement of a low carbon society, extended life of population and enhancement of vitality of urban-rural fringe. Through the investigation of their characteristics, interactions and possible countermeasures, we propose a conceptual vision of sustainable urban future with the target year of 2050. In detail, we discuss the importance of integration of all the objectives with the support of new technology, policy control and planning, change of peoples life style, etc. It is found that the combination of planning targets and countermeasures that interact with each objective are necessary and dominant trend in future development. On the other hand, for the developing countries, currently most of them are still on the way of economic booming, population increase and rapid urbanization with extensive urban sprawl. Those problems such as extended life of population, mitigation and adaption of global warming, and management and enrichment of urban-rural fringe have not yet been paid as great attentions as other problems like economic growth, water and food security, etc. While with the communication with developed nations and peoples increasing desire for future sustainability, it is necessary to start actions from now on, through local endeavor and international cooperation so as to achieve a sustainable urban future.

References Fuyuno, I. (2007) Aging Society in Japan - Part I, Available on http://bsra.org.uk/news/report-japans-ageingsociety. International Panel on Climate Change (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III Report Mitigation of Climate Change. Available on http://www.ipcc.ch/. Komiyama, H., Kraines, S. (2008) Vision 2050 Roadmap for a Sustainable Earth, Springer. Ministry of the Environment of Japan. (2007) Building a Low Carbon Society (first draft), Available on http:// www.env.go.jp/earth/info/pc071211/en.pdf United Nations, (2007) World population prospects: the 2006 revision. Available on United Nations Population Division Database.

SESSION III

36

Chair: Dr. Kazuhiko Takeuchi

Dr. Kazuhiko Takeuchi is Professor of Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Tokyo (Todai). He is the Deputy Executive Director of the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S). Prof. Takeuchi took his new post as Vice-Rector of the United Nations University on 1 July 2008. His research focuses on creating eco-friendly environments for a harmonious coexistence of man and nature on local and global scale. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Sustainability Science published by Springer

Co-chair: Kensuke Fukushi

Dr Kensuke Fukushi is Associate Professor of IR3S at the University of Tokyo. After a Bachelor and Master degrees in civil engineering from Tohoku University, Japan, he earned his doctoral degree in civil-environmental engineering from the University of Utah. He became Associate Professor at the University of Tokyo in 2001, and one of the founding faculty members of IR3S in 2006. His research interests are hazardous compound management, risk assessment, environmental microbiology, membrane technology, and sustainability scienc

Srikantha Herath, Institute for Sustainability and Peace, United Nations University
Dr. Srikantha Herath is currently a Senior Academic Programme Officer at the Institute of Peace and Sustainability of United Nations University in Tokyo Japan. He servers as the Academic Director of the Institutes Postgraduate Programmes, as director for international course on Global Change and Sustainability. He is trained as a Civil Engineer and received his Ph. D. from the University of Tokyo in Hydrology and Water resources. He has worked as a Civil and Irrigation Engineer in Sri Lanka, Senior Research Engineer in Consulting In Japan, and as an Associate Professor and Guset Foreign Professor at the University of Tokyo. He has wide experience in conducting research programs in water and disaster risk reduction fields in a number of Asian countries and is engaged in collaborative programs in EU and Ocenia. He serves in number of international programs in various capacities such as, member of the management committee of the International Flood Initiative, as an advisor to the International programme on landslides, as member of the capacity development committee of the Asian Pacific Network. etc. Currently he coordinates University Network for Climate and Ecosystems Adaptation Research which is a consortium of leading universities in Asia, developing common educational and research programs for climate and ecosystems change adaptation

Adaptive solutions for flood risk reduction in Urban Areas

Urban areas, especially in Asia, are undergoing rapid changes. Asia society projects a staggering 60% increase of urban population, which would inevitably contribute to expanding urban slums in mega cities that are extremely vulnerable to hydrometerological disasters. Rapid pace of new urban developments that have not been exposed to high intensity, low probability extreme events is the major hidden vulnerability of mega cities When such areas experience extreme events that take place once in 100 or once in 500 years, unforeseen consequences leading to catastrophic losses may result. Flooding in underground space is one such example, where a substantial amount of inflow to underground space could overwhelm not only commercial areas that
SESSION III

37

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

are not designed to withstand such waters, but also subway networks. Urban development, expansion in to risk fringe areas, especially the expansion of slums in to marginalized and vulnerable areas makes flood risk reduction a major challenge in urban areas, especially mega cities. Now climate change threatens urban landscape with increased rain intensities that can induce extreme flood disasters more frequently. Investing in mitigation measures is difficult due to large uncertainties in future projections. Further, the options available too are very much limited due to land ownership restrictions and high property values. Uncertainties in future projections stem from model uncertainties as well as future scenario uncertainty. Even when the potential extreme weather patterns are established, the complex terrain and uncertainty of performance of existing flood control measures under stress provides a large variability in future risk assessment. Incremental adaptive measures combined with innovative solutions that address not only the flood issue, but combines flood risks reduction with broad development objectives are the most suited to address future urban flood risks under uncertainty. This paper discusses these uncertainties and potential solutions. Four case studies (a) An urban flood control proposal from Vietnam (b) Major structural measures from Japan (c) Floating houses and (d) Onsite facilities for retention and infiltration are introduced that aim at sustainable risk reduction solutions. Especially onsite water management is an adaptive measure that address risk management in an incremental manner, that can be adjusted according to the improvements knowledge of future risks.

Niko HEEREN, Chair of Sustainable Construction, ETH Zrich

Niko Heeren has studied Environmental & Resource Management and Architecture & Sustainable Development. Since 2008 he has been working as a scientific assistant at the chair of Sustainable Construction at the ETH Zurich in Switzerland. His research focuses on the environmental impact of building parks and construction activity in general. Mr. Heeren has already studied a number of building parks, such as Switzerland, Canton Vaud and the city of Zurich.

The city of Zurich on its way towards a low carbon society

Over the last several years in Switzerland, the notion of the 2000-Watt society has become very popular. That means that the per capita consumption of primary energy shall be below 2000 watts, with no more than 1 ton of greenhouse gases emitted. Also the city of Zurich has decided to adopt this vision for its future development scenarios, and declared it as a political target for 2050. The role of the building park on this reduction path is assessed by means of a bottom-up building park model. Different assumptions regarding the most important physical drivers, as well as energy efficiency parameters of new buildings, building retrofits, building technologies and other energy applications were made and their respective leverage effect examined. The results of the study show that with the underlying assumptions, the goals of the 2000-Watt-Society most likely may be met in the city of Zurich: By 2050 the annual emission of greenhouse gases can be reduced by approximately 85% compared to 2005. That corresponds, for example, to an annual per capita greenhouse gas emission of 0.3 tons CO2-equivalent for residential buildings, leaving further capacity for other sectors, such as commerce or transport.

SESSION III

38

Vincenzo Naso, CIRPS-Sapienza University of Rome

Full Professor of Energy Systems at Sapienza University of Rome. Director of the Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable Development (CIRPS)-Sapienza University of Rome. Director of three Master Courses at Sapienza University of Rome. Member of Scientific and Technical Committees and expert for the EC regarding energy and environment issues. Scientific co-ordinator of national and international research projects in the field of sustainable energy systems, rational and final use of energy and renewable energy sources. ICSS2010 Chairman.

Energy sustainability: Closed cycles of resources and their application to energy systems.
Making the transition to a future of sustainable energy is one of the crucial challenges mankind faces in this new century. It means to secure adequate energy resources to sustain the current and future economies of developed and developing countries in a world foreseen to reach 9 billion people by 2050, according to UN estimates; it means as well to preserve the underlying integrity of essential natural systems, including avoiding dangerous climate change. To achieve an equilibrium between the two objectives requires energy systems designed to meet sustainability criteria. New approaches are required to analyse the interactions among climate change, development and energy. The dimensions are simultaneously social, technological, economic and political. The perspective is local as well as global. Sustainability Science can help in understanding those linkages, in bridging the gap between science policy and practice with the aim of finding appropriate sustainable solutions to answer the fundamental question of how to reconcile the need to secure adequate energy resources to sustain the current and future economies of Developed and Developing Countries, preserving the integrity of Earth system. As outlined by IR3S approach a sustainable world can be achieved only when the global system (the planetary base for human survival), the social system (the political, economic, industrial, and other human-devised structures that provide the societal basis of human existence), and the human system (the sum total of all factors impacting the health of humans) work in conjunction with each other. Sustainability science has to consider all the issues that each combination of systems generates, and science and technology has to work and develop towards global sustainability. The relationship between each system produces complex problems. Energy problem is a complex issue, based on human-nature interaction, requiring a trandisciplinary approach so to find appropriate sustainable solutions. The current energy paradigm is in deep contrast with the idea of sustainable energy: it is based on the intensive use of non renewable fossil fuels, causing environmental degradation and posing global risks to the integrity of essential natural systems. Human activities are still based on open cycles of energy resources, starting from a condition of environmental balance and reaching an environmental imbalance, this cycle consumes resources and produces waste. The era of open cycles cannot continue. What yesterday seemed impossible, today is our stated objective: to realize energy systems that not consume resources and do not produce waste. The solution to move towards a new sustainable energy paradigm is the realization of Closed cycles of resources, which can be achieved in the energy sector by exploiting renewable resources and structurally integrating energy vectors. The inclusion of energy vectors (to be produced from several primary resources) in the energy system chain becomes a key concept for a new sustainable society with low carbon emissions, with equal opportunities of development for all Countries and poverty eliminated, aiming to zero waste and zero consumptions and that continuously re-use its resources.

SESSION III

39

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Claudio Cecchi, SPES Development Studies at SAPIENZA University of Rome

Claudio Cecchi is Professor of Rural Development and Director of SPES Development Studies at Sapienza University of Roma. His first degree was in Economics and PhD was in Rural Development and Planning, but he has recently moved into the economic/planning area of research and teaching. His research interests include: social and spatial theory (notably the development of local systems theory within social and economic contexts); issues of governance (with particular reference to land use planning); and rural community sustainable development (with particular reference to local system analysis).

Urban and rural cities. Socio-economic issues in a sustainable development perspectives

Many social movements ask for a change in the behaviour of urban dwellers. The ethical food movement claims for organic food, fair-trade food, and local food to avoid chemical pollution. The Critical-mass movement asserts cyclists right to use the road against the monopolistic occupation by cars and vans, reducing pollution. Both movements were born in urban congested metropolitan areas (Milan and San Francisco); but many different types of cities exist from large industrial towns to small rural towns in which different types of needs emerge. In these different types of cities, dwellers behaviour has a variety of impacts on the economy, environment and society. The presentation challenges the implicit, but indeed common, assumption that the answers to urban needs do not have consequences on rural areas. Three main topics are introduced. The first relates to the resource transfer between urban and rural areas. The second builds on the characteristics of production and consumption in different human settlements. The third explores the drivers of the change in production and consumption. Accordingly, three economic models form the background for the analysis of each topic: mainstream Libertarian (free-market), Keynesian (state governed), and Post-development (nature-driven). The conclusion argues that research and innovation should answer questions that jointly emerge from urban and rural people, both claiming for specific sustainable development strategies.

SESSION III

40

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

SESSION IV Global Sustainability Governance

Chair: Hideaki Shiroyama, University of Tokyo Co-chair: Heike Schroeder, University of Oxford Background Paper
Global sustainability governance provides the framework from analyzing global governance from sustainability science perspective. Global sustainability governance perspective has to be based on the case studies of transdisciplinary research practices to address complexity of human-nature interaction (conference objective 2), discuss the possibilities and challenges of an effective collaboration between civil society, industry, government and academia (conference objective 4), and examine the central issues and challenges of global sustainability giving equal attention to the perspectives of the South (conference objective 5). The key function of global sustainability governance is coordination across various dimensions. Four dimensions of coordination are introduced in this section: (1) international coordination, (2) coordination with non-state actors (3) inter-regime coordination (including international organizations), (3) coordination with non-state actors, and (4) coordination of science/ technology and politics. International coordination International coordination is coordination among states over interests and norms. The emergence of global challenges to sustainability makes it difficult for states to implement solutions unilaterally, which in turn leads states to engage in international cooperation. As Garrett Hardins famous phrase of the tragedy of the commons predicts, freedom in the commons brings ruin to all. For the promotion of sustainability, it is necessary to institutionalize formal and informal rules, norms and agreements that restrict some of the freedom of states. In addition, it is necessary to give equal attention to the perspectives of the South, and elaborate the concept and institutional framework of common but differentiated responsibility. Coordination with non-state actors Coordination with non-state actors involves coordination among actors over their own interests and missions. Non-state actors include firms and NGOs. Involving business firms are becoming more important even in developing countries, under the rapid growth of emerging economies. NGOs also play important roles as advocates of the perspectives of the South and minorities. There is also a movement toward industry-NGO partnerships. One of the challenges associated with global sustainability governance is to examine how to balance interests among actors, make use of voluntary initiatives, and incorporate expertise and technical/ indigenous knowledge as well as answer the legitimate concerns of non-state actors, particularly where public action is lacking or absent. In addition, ensuring the transparency of non-state actors is necessary as a measure toward resolving their inherent accountability issues. Inter-regime coordination Inter-regime coordination takes place between international regimes across the boundaries of policy fields. Historically, international regimes and organizations have evolved within specific functional issue-areas. As a consequence, most existing regimes act to promote their own mandates within sector-based issue area, which makes global sustainability governance appear to be fragmented when faced with sustainability issues that require inter-sectoral action. Inter-regime coordination is imperative in this context. Without coordination, relations among regimes remain competitive and inconsistent due to their conflicting objectives, and policies are rendered inefficient by overlapping or duplicated responsibilities. Key question is how to coordinate inter-regime relations by enhancing institutional interactions and synergies through the use of an integrated approachThis coordination is especially important during the process of transition to sustainability, which requires co-evolution of sub-systems and coordination among difference levels of governance.

SESSION IV

42

Coordination of science/ technology and politics Contributions of innovation concerning science and technology are indispensable for global sustainability governance in contemporary time. Scientific assessment in policymaking is becoming an increasingly important element of global sustainability governance when addressing sustainability issues. Questions arise over how science should be reflected in policy measures in combination with various social values. In analyzing the dynamic interface between science and politics, it is important not only to see the role of experts and the epistemic community in the decision-making process, but also to reveal the process of how and by whom knowledge and scientific assessments are framed, interpreted, and produced. In addition, the development and diffusion of innovative technologies is also indispensable for global sustainability governance. However, the development of technology is accompanied by various potential risks and social problems, as well as benefits. And as the scope of those issues has grown wider, the range of interested actors has increased accordingly As long as society decides to make use of technologies with diverse social implications that encompass risks for society as well as benefits, there is a need for technology assessment systems for the decision-making and management about the development and utilization of these technologies.

Chair: Hideaki Shiroyama, Graduate School of Public Policy, Graduate School of Law and Politics, The University of Tokyo
Hideaki SHIROYAMA is aprofessor of public administration at the University of Tokyo. He studies about policy making process, international administration, and the environmental/ safety policy especially focusing on the interface between science/ technology and politics. His recent publications include The Harmonization of Automobile Environmental standards between Japan, the United States and Europe, Pacific Review, 2007, Environmental Cooperation in East Asia, in Development of Environmental Policy in Japan and Asian Countries (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).

Co-chair: Heike Schroeder, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

Heike Schroeder is a James Martin Senior Research Fellow and a Tyndall Senior Research Associate at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford. Her research interests include multilevel environmental governance, non-state actors, the international climate negotiations, cities and climate change, and forest governance. She is also a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Earth System Governance Project (ESGP) under the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP).

Governing REDD+: Who, What and How

Deforestation is a major cause of rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, contributing about 12-17% of global emissions. In the past few years, a mechanism has been developed to incentivize forest nations to keep their forests intact. It is referred to as REDD+, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, taking account also the roles of conservation, sustainable forest management and enhancement of carbon stocks. REDD+ provides a lucid example of a multi-faceted resource management approach which is rapidly unfolding into unorchestrated, multi-level, multi-purpose and multi-actor projects and initiatives. REDD+ is a scientifically informed policy idea, which permeates through multiple spheres of decision-making and organization, creates contested interests and claims, and translates into multiple implementation actions running ahead of policy processes and state-driven decisions. The objective of this presentation is to shed some light into this new policy domain and to examine who the actors involved in this process are, what the governing challenges are and how REDD+ can become an effective mechanism.
SESSION IV

43

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Prof. Dr. Roland W. Scholz, ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions, Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI)
Roland W. Scholz holds the Chair of Environmental Sciences: Natural and Social Science Interface at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich, Switzerland). He is adjunct professor of Psychology at the University of Zurich (Privatdozent) and was elected as the fifth holder of the King Carl XVI Gustafs Professorship 2001/2002 hosted at the Center of Environment and Sustainability of Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenborg University (Sweden). Since 2002, he is the speaker of the International Transdisciplinarity Network on Case Study Teaching (ITdNet). Scholz graduated in Mathematics, Psychology, and Educational Sciences (Dipl.-Math.), Social Psychology (Dr. phil., University of Mannheim), and Cognitive Psychology (Dr. phil. habil.,). Scholz specialized in decision sciences and systems analysis, cognitive and organizational psychology, and environmental modeling, evaluation and risk assessment. His current research field is environmental decision making in human-environment interactions and the theory, methodology and practice of transdisciplinary sustainable transition processes. Since 1994 he hosts annual transdisciplinary ETH-UNS case studies on sustainable urban, regional, and organizational development.

Transdisciplinary processes for coping with global threats. How might the future look like: The case of phosphorous scarcity
In transdisciplinary processes legitimized decision makers, agents from the scientific community and usually - other representatives from the public at large collaborate in a process of mutual learning for coping with ill defined, societally relevant real world problems [1]. One of the key goals of transdisciplinary processes is the development of socially robust knowledge that generates a form of epistemics, which (i) meets state of the art scientific knowledge, (ii) has the potential to attract consensus, and thus must be understandable by all stakeholder groups, (iii) acknowledges the uncertainties and incompleteness inherent in any type of knowledge about processes of the universe, (iv) generates processes of knowledge integration of different types of epistemics (e.g. scientific and experiential knowledge, utilizing and relating disciplinary knowledge from the social, natural, and engineering sciences), (v) considers the constraints given by the context both of generating and utilizing knowledge [2]. Much experience could be gained with Transdisciplinary Case Studies (TdCS) worldwide. Since 1993, the Natural and Social Science Interface group (NSSI) participated in about 18 projects involving on average 100 stakeholders in each study. Other similar TdCS took place in Austria (N =4), Germany (N =1), Sweden (N=9), Bhutan (N = 1), Seychelles (N =1, see ). These studies dealt primarily with sustainable transitions on a regional scale and included topics such as urban development, mobility, sustainable agriculture, energy use, etc. Even the sustainable transition of policy processes has been the object of study. Here the method of a multiple case study was applied for the first time in investigating the decision processes for finding nuclear waste repositories [3]. One strength of transdisciplinary processes is that mutual learning between theory and practice occurs by relating experiential knowledge from stakeholders (including policy makers) with abstract, codified knowledge from the different scientific disciplines and relevant domains for a certain real world problem. Based on my experience, important aspects of transdisciplinary processes are that scientists and practitioners collaborate on an equal level and through joint leadership, which allows for shared accountability and responsibility for the process and the product of the TdCS. The transdisciplinary processes should include a joint problem definition, problem representation, and the development of orientations for sustainable problem transformation. These steps should serve the key functions of transdisciplinarity which are (1) capacity building, (2) consensus building, (3) mediation, and (4) providing legitimization for the decision makers.are realized in processes support both the sustainable transformation of the case and the better scientific understanding of obstacles of sustainable development. The speech is focused on a new perspective of transdisciplinary processes. The vision and critical question is whether transdisciplinary processes can take place on a global level. There are many challenges in the current world and in many domains, particularly in adapting to global threats such as climate change, coping with micropollutants, or preparing for and coping with phosphorous scarcity (peak phosphorous).

SESSION IV

44

We present a potential design for a transdisciplinary case study and discuss the role of science based on a previous multiple case study on nuclear waste repositories run in Switzerland and in Sweden [4]. The topic of the potential TdCS will be phosphorous scarcity. Phosphorous (P) scarcity and Peak P is an issue that may be much more essential than Peak Oil. Food production in many areas of the world is fundamentally dependent on P. Many areas of the world are already suffering from P shortages. Additionally, current accessibility to rock phosphate and future scarcity is and may be experienced quite differently in many parts of the world. We sketch what type of learning may occur by what stakeholders in a Global TdCS on P scarcity. [1] Thompson Klein, J., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R. W., & Welti, M. (Eds.). (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Basel: Birkhuser. [2] Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 226-251. [3] Scholz, R. W. (im press). Environmental literacy in science and society: From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [4] Schori, S., Krtli, P., Stauffacher, M., Fleler, T. & Scholz, R. W. (Eds.). (2008). Siting of nuclear waste repositories in Switzerland and Sweden - Stakeholder preferences for the interplay between technical expertise and societal input. ETH-NSSI Case Study Report 2008. Zurich: ETH Zurich.

Wolfgang Sachs, Wuppertal Institute

Author, university teacher, journal editor. 1966-1973 studies in theology and social sciences in Munich, Tbingen and Berkeley. PhD University of Tbingen 1975. Since 1993 Senior Fellow at the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Head of the Berlin office of the Wuppertal Institute. Regular lecturer at Schumacher College, England, and Honorary Professor at the University of Kassel. 1993-2001 Chair of the Board, Greenpeace Germany. 1999/2001 Member of the IPCC, since 2005 Member of the Club of Rome. Research areas: Globalization, development, environment, new models of wealth.

Equity or Emergency? Conflicting Conceptions of Justice in Global Climate Governance

The Copenhagen negotiations failed because any forthcoming deal was not considered fair by developing countries. It was felt to be violating the first dimension of equity. i. e. the relative justice among nations with regard to obligations reducing greenhouse gases. However, the insistence on the principle of greater relative justice among nations threatens to collide with the second dimension of equity, i.e. absolute justice as respect for human rights. Emphasis on relative justice slows down - or even blocks - an agreement on emission limits. But insufficient climate protection undermines the principle of absolute justice, i.e. the protection of fundamental livelihood rights. What does climate justice call for? Do we have to drop the claim to international equity for responding to the imminent emergency? Or is it right to disregard the emergency for realizing greater equity?

SESSION IV

45

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Dr John Thompson, Research Fellow Knowledge, Technology and Society, Institute of Development Studies; Co-Convenor, Food and Agriculture Domain, The STEPS Centre; and Joint Coordinator, Future Agricultures Consortium
Dr John Thompson is a resource geographer who has worked on power, policy and sustainability issues in food and agriculture, water resource management and rural development for over 25 years. He joined the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the University of Sussex, UK, in October 2006 as a senior Research Fellow in Knowledge, Technology and Society. Currently, he serves as Joint Coordinator of the DFID-supported Future Agricultures Consortium, which aims to encourage critical debate and policy dialogue on the future of agriculture in Africa, and as Co-Convenor of the Food and Agriculture Domain of the STEPS Centre, a global research and policy engagement centre funded by the UK ESRC working on sustainability science and social justice issues. Previously, he served as Director of the Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, and Director of Research and Development of Just Food, New York City. Dr Thompson has authored more than 80 peer-reviewed articles, technical papers and reports, and authored and edited several major books and monographs. In addition, he has sat on several international task forces, advisory panels and editorial boards, and has worked as a Research Associate at the National Environment Secretariat, Kenya, a Research Fellow at Clark and Harvard Universities, USA, and a Young Fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria.

Governance, Sustainability and Pathways to Food and Agricultural Futures

The nature of governance and pathways to sustainability are intimately intertwined in at least two ways in global debates on the future of food and agriculture. First, issues and problems in todays world are open to a variety of different narratives about problems and potential solutions, each suggesting potential response pathways or policy options. Such narratives are promoted by particular actors in specific contexts and embody different system-framings and goals. Moreover, they attend, to varying degrees and in different ways, to issues of risk, uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance and different dynamic properties of sustainability. But questions remain as to which narratives and pathways come to dominate and which remain marginal or even hidden. In addition, which pathways are pursued and which are not is in large part a question of governance; that is, a politics of narratives and pathways shaped by power relations and institutions. This leads to the second inherent interlinkage between governance processes and pathways to sustainability, where political and institutional processes are themselves often key factors implicated within the narratives and pathways themselves. Drawing on recent work by The STEPS Centre, UK, this paper will examine how, in practice, these two dimensions of the interrelationship between governance, narratives and associated pathways often merge in discourses on global food security and sustainable food and farming futures. It will highlight how a process by which particular narratives give rise to different pathways which are promoted by powerful actors and institutions, upholding the status of their institutions and their power to intervene, manage or at least avoid blame for the situation. But does it have to be this way? This paper will explore a range of processes, styles and practices of governance in the contemporary world, especially in relation to the food and agricultural systems. It will argue that, while some processes and practices reinforce narrow, power-laden narratives and pathways, others offer prospects for incorporating more effectively the goals and perspectives of marginalised groups, and the full range of dynamic properties of sustainability.

SESSION IV

46

Ruben Zondervan, Earth System Governance Project

Ruben Zondervan is the executive director of the Earth System Governance Project, a core project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP). He studied political science, modern history, law, and economics in Freiburg im Breisgau and Potsdam, and graduated in environment & resource management from the VU University Amsterdam. His current research interests include amongst others the governance of geo-engineering. Prior to his current position, he worked at the University Oldenburg, the VU University Amsterdam, the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Riga, and at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He has also been consultant in industry.

Earth System Governance: A research programme

It is apparent that the governance mechanisms by which humans currently regulate their relationship with the natural environment and global biochemical systems are not only insufficient. They are also poorly understood. This is the rationale for the Earth System Governance Project that bring together researchers from a variety of disciplines and regions to study earth system governance, defined as the interrelated and increasingly integrated system of formal and informal rules, rule-making systems, and actor-networks at all levels of human society (from local to global) that are set up to steer societies towards preventing, mitigating, and adapting to global and local environmental change and, in particular, earth system transformation, within the normative context of sustainable development. This research is about the people who are drivers of global environmental change and at the same time part of any solution. It is about places in all their variety and diversity, yet seeks to integrate place-based research in a global understanding of the overall challenge of sustainable development. Eventually, this research is about our planet, about developing integrated systems of governance, from the local to the global level, that ensure the sustainable development of the coupled socio-ecological system that the Earth has become. The presentation will introduce the overall concept of earth system governance and the five interdependent analytical problems prioritized by the project: The problem of the overall architecture of earth system governance, of agency beyond the state and of the state, of the adaptiveness of governance mechanisms and processes, of their accountability and legitimacy, and of modes of allocation and access in earth system governance.

Prof. Dr. Felix Ekardt, LL.M., M.A.

Professor for environmental law and legal philosophy at the University of Rostock, is a member of the German soil protection commission [Kommission Bodenschutz der Bundesregierung beim Umweltbundesamt] of the German Federal Environmental Agency. Nadine Holzapfel is writing her dissertation on soil conservation and waste legislation with Prof. Ekardt as a member of his Research Group Sustainability and Climate Policy (www. sustainability-justice-climate.eu) and works as an attorney in a Bremen law firm. Andrea E. Ulrich M.A., M. Sc., is pursuing her doctorate with Prof. Dr. Roland Scholz at the Institute for Environmental Decisions/ NSSI, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, on exploring sustainable global phosphorus management and stewardship.

SESSION IV

47

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Andrea E. Ulrich (M.A., M. Sc.), ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions, Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI)
Since 12/09: Research assistant, Institute for Environmental Decisions, NSSI, Chair of Prof. Roland W. Scholz, ETZ Zurich, Switzerland. 10/07 2/10: M. Sc. Sustainable Resource Management, School of Forest Science and Resource Management, Technische Universitt Munchen (TUM) - Munich, Germany Thesis: Food and Water Security in the Lake Winnipeg Basin An Action Research Approach for Sustainable Phosphorus and Water Resources Management 10/01 - 1/07: M.A. (Magister Artium): American Cultural History, Geography and Law, University of Munich (LMU), Germany Thesis: Canada - Living with Abundant Water? Paradigm Change in Water Resource Understanding and its Impact on Modern Canadian Political History 9/03 - 4/04: Universit Laval, Qubec/ Canada (visiting student) 10/00 - 9/01: Translation and Interpretation (English, French), University of the Saarland, Saarbrucken, Germany

Sustainability in Soil Protection Land Use and Conservation of Natural Resources. Phosphorus Fertilization and Soil Biodiversity as a Legal Problem
This article (with Felix Ekardt/ Nadine Holzapfel/ Andrea Ulrich*) broaches the legal treatment of the declining, non-renewable, non-substitutable resource phosphorus, which is indispensable for life. We address a highly important resource problem that has hitherto received little attention in the jurisprudential discourse. Excessive and dissipative phosphorus entry into the environment, soils, and water bodies has significant harmful effects on ecosystems, and is represented by subtle, long-term accumulations in the aquatic ecosystem as well as soil contamination. In this article, we present this problem field and demonstrate that currently neither European nor German fertilizer legislation and soil conservation legislation provide for adequate regulatory approaches. In this respect, a precautionary concept on the European level is basically non-existent. Insufficient regulations in the above mentioned fields lack concreteness, real enforcement, prevention of relocating problems and a safeguard for absolute reductions in phosphorus usage. If these factors are not taken into account, it will remain impossible to effectively address ecological and resource problems because phosphorus politics will otherwise be constrained to constant consideration on an individual basis, where every individual case might be deemed to entail few negative consequences. Yet it is the sum of multiple minor actions that can lead to ecologically and resource-related fatal consequences. We argue that it is not sufficient to increase efficiency in phosphorus uptake per individual plant, because if crop cultivation is expanded to previously unused areas, for instance via greater animal feed crop production (due to globally rising meat consumption) or via bioenergy plant production, it will be impossible to achieve the necessary absolute phosphorus application reductions. We conclude that this will eventually lead to an important new awareness in environmental policy: administrative legislation and efficiency by themselves tend not to solve resource problems or quantity problems if at the same time global production increases or remains at a constant high level.

SESSION IV

48

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

SESSION V Sustainability Science education

Chair: Lennart Olsson, Lund University Co-chair: Mino Takashi, University of Tokyo

Lennart Olsson, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Science (LUCSUS)

I have a mixed educational background in geography and social anthropology and is Professor of Physical Geography and founding Director of LUCSUS Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies. In my research I am particularly interested in human-nature interactions in the context of land degradation, climate change and food security in Africa and globally. I have held research positions in Australia, USA and Hong Kong and participated in several international assignments including the IPCC and UNEP-GEO assessment reports. Over the coming few years I will be coordinating lead author for the chapter on climate change impacts on livelihoods and poverty in the fourth assessment report of the IPCC.

Sustainability Science as social transformations

It is urgent in science and society to address climate change and other global sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, deforestation, depletion of marine fish stocks, global ill-health, land degradation, land use change and water scarcity. Sustainability science (SS) is an attempt to bridge the natural and social sciences in order to seek creative solutions to these complex challenges. This article proposes a research agenda that advances the methodological and theoretical understanding of what SS can be, how it can be pursued, and what it can contribute. The key focus is on knowledge structuring and its conditions in SS. For that purpose we design a generic research platform organised in a three-dimensional matrix comprising three components: core themes (scientific understanding, sustainability goals, sustainability pathways); cross-cutting critical and problem-solving approaches; and any combination of sustainability challenges. As an example we insert four of the sustainability challenges above into the matrix (biodiversity loss, climate change, land use changes, water scarcity). Based on the matrix with the four challenges we discuss three core issues for advancing theory and methodology in SS: how new and unique synergies across natural and social sciences can be created; how integrated theories for understanding and responding to complex sustainability issues can be developed; and how concepts from areas such as economics, gender studies, geography, political science and sociology apply in SS. The generic research platform is a forceful tool for structuring and creating new knowledge in SS and can be used for exploring any set of sustainability challenges.

Mino Takashi, Division of Environmental Studies, The University of Tokyo

MINO Takashi is currently Chair and Professor of Division of Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo (Todai). He is also serving as Senior Advisor to Graduate Program in Sustainability Science and Adjunct Professor at Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S) responsible for Joint Educational Program of IR3S. He got PhD at Graduate School of Engineering at Todai and originally majors in wastewater treatment technology. Now, his interest stays around sustainability education. A wine lover, a good cook and a funny musician.

SESSION V

50

Sustainability Science - transdisciplinarity: Diversity, trans-disciplinarity and sustainability

Global, social and human systems are closely linked with each other. However, relations or interactions among components in these systems may not be easily recognized or understood by stakeholders who are facing with actual problems critical to sustainability of these systems. This is because one tends to stick to ones own cultural or disciplinary thinking and hardly see cultural or disciplinary diversity. It is very important in sustainability science education to identify how to let the students have a holistic view and a transdisciplinary thinking. The present lecture shows how diversity and trans-disciplinarity issues have been and will be dealt with in IPoS Intensive Program on Sustainability, an international short-term summer program run by The University of Tokyo (Todai) and Asian Institute of Technology, and also in GPSS - Graduate Program in Sustainability Science, a formal masters and doctoral program at Todai.

Dr Michelle Audouin Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Dr. Audouin is a Senior Researcher at the CSIR in the Natural Resources and the Environment Division. She has a BSc. (Town and Regional Planning) degree and an M (Phil) in Environmental Science. Michelle obtained her PhD through Stellenbosch University with her thesis entitled Modernism, Environmental Assessment and the Sustainability Argument: Moving towards and New Approach to Project-based Decision-making in South Africa. She is a recognised authority in the field of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and was the lead author of South Africas first SEA Guidelines published by the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Michelle has been involved in the presentation of several courses on SEA in South Africa and in various countries in Africa. In the last 4 years, she has focused on the development of sustainability science research within the CSIR and has been actively involved in the establishment of the Tsama Hub.

Sustainability Competencies: A View from Inside the Tsama Hub

In this presentation, I aim to contribute to the ongoing international discourse on sustainability competencies, through responding to the current debate on this topic, as represented in Dr Arnim Wieks presentation. This response is based on our experience in establishing the Tsama Hub PhD Transdisciplinary Programme into which the first cohort of 12 students has been accepted. The Tsama Hub (A Transdisciplinary Sustainability Analysis, Modelling and Assessment Hub), which is a centre of Stellenbosch University in South Africa, has been established as a formal institutional mechanism for the coordination of transdisciplinary research across an array of institutions and knowledge types. In addition to Stellenbosch University, equal partners in the Hub include the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), the Sustainability Institute (Non-Governmental Organisation) and the Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies (based at Stellenbosch University), as well as other organisations as the context requires. The current course modules being presented as part of the Tsama Hub PhD programme include Complexity Theory, Social Science Methods, Transdisciplinarity and Sustainability. These modules, as well as my own experience as a practitioner, for over 12 years, in the field of sustainability and environmental management at the CSIR, will inform my brief critical review of- and contribution to- the international debate on core sustainability competencies.

SESSION V

51

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Prof. Dr. Roland W. Scholz & Dr. Michael Stauffacher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions, Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI)
Roland W. Scholz holds the Chair of Environmental Sciences: Natural and Social Science Interface at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich, Switzerland). He is adjunct professor of Psychology at the University of Zurich (Privatdozent) and was elected as the fifth holder of the King Carl XVI Gustafs Professorship 2001/2002 hosted at the Center of Environment and Sustainability of Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenborg University (Sweden). Since 2002, he is the speaker of the International Transdisciplinarity Network on Case Study Teaching (ITdNet). Scholz graduated in Mathematics, Psychology, and Educational Sciences (Dipl.-Math.), Social Psychology (Dr. phil., University of Mannheim), and Cognitive Psychology (Dr. phil. habil.,). Scholz specialized in decision sciences and systems analysis, cognitive and organizational psychology, and environmental modeling, evaluation and risk assessment. His current research field is environmental decision making in human-environment interactions and the theory, methodology and practice of transdisciplinary sustainable transition processes. Since 1994 he hosts annual transdisciplinary ETH-UNS case studies on sustainable urban, regional, and organizational development.

Transdisciplinary Case Studies (TdCS) as a means of higher education in sustainable transitions

Transdisciplinarity has been defined as an effective way for managing complexity and as the methodology [1] for organizing sustainable transitions [2]. Since 1993, TdCS are an important element of the masters program of Environmental Sciences at the ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. Students with different educational backgrounds in natural, engineering and environmental sciences at the bachelor level and with basic knowledge in social sciences contribute to the organization and execution of a transdisciplinary process on sustainable transitions of regional, urban and organizational systems and of policy processes. Transdisciplinarity is essentially different from interdisciplinarity and includes according to the Zurich 2000 definition [1] - processes of mutual learning among science and society. Td processes challenge students to deal with ill-defined, societally relevant, real-world problems. The key component of transdisciplinary processes is knowledge integration. The goal and product of TdCS is to develop robust orientations for coping with barriers towards sustainable development. This talk briefly introduces the (a) key concepts of the ETH-TdCS [2] and (b) reflects on the roles of students and teachers [3], (c) the mutual learning between theory and practice at the student level and (d) the role of methods for structuring and facilitating transdisciplinary processes [4]. [1] Thompson Klein, J., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R. W., & Welti, M. (Eds.). (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Basel: Birkhuser. [2] Scholz, R. W. (in press). Environmental literacy in science and society: From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3] Stauffacher, M., Walter, A. I., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W. (2006). Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: The transdisciplinary case study approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 252275. [4] Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SESSION V

52

Arnim Wiek, Arizona State University, School of Sustainability

Dr. Wiek is an Assistant Professor at the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. He has conducted sustainability research on emerging technologies, urban development, land use conflicts, resource governance, and climate change in Europe, Canada, USA, Sri Lanka, and Costa Rica. He carries out research in close collaboration with non-academic partners from government, business, and the civil society. He had prior research engagements at ETH Zurich, the University of British Columbia, and the University of Tokyo.

Sustainability Science What are the core competences?

The emerging academic field focused on sustainability has been engaged in a rich and converging debate to define the field by identifying what key competencies distinguish it from other fields and those considered critical for graduating students to possess. For more than a decade sustainability courses have been developed and taught in higher education, yet, comprehensive academic programs in sustainability, on the undergraduate and graduate level, have only emerged over the last few years. Considering this recent institutional momentum, the time is seemingly right to synthesize the discussion about key competencies in sustainability in order to support these relatively young academic programs in shaping their profiles and achieving their ambitious missions. This talk presents the results of a broad literature review. The review identifies the relevant literature on key competencies in sustainability; synthesizes the substantive contributions in a coherent framework of sustainability research and problem solving competence; and addresses critical gaps in the conceptualization of key competencies in sustainability. Insights from this study lay the groundwork for institutional advancements in designing and revising academic programs; teaching and learning evaluations; as well as hiring and training faculty and staff.

SESSION V

53

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

SESSION VI Synthesis, cross-cutting Issues and Future of Sustainability Science

Chair: J.L. Buizer, Arizona State University Background Paper

a) Synthesis and Crosscutting Issues

Sustainability Science is by its very nature highly complex, involving multiple disciplines, integrated communities, diverse knowledge, innovative methodologies, and the production of integrated research-based solution options for consideration by decision-makers. This session will provide an opportunity to identify and discuss the many issues that cut across the themes addressed in the previous 5 sessions and Panels. Panelists will give brief overviews, followed by a vigorous discussion involving all participants

b)Future of Sustainability Science

The ICSS have provided valuable forums for dynamic discussions, which have served to further the evolution of this emerging field. Success in advancing sustainability science and the communities involved, depends on the ability to arrive at generally agreed-upon framing of the issues and methodologies employed, and identification of ways to overcome the many barriers our culture, traditions, values, and institutions pose. This session is dedicated to exploring where sustainability science is going as a field. Panelists will give brief overviews, followed by a vigorous discussion involving all participants

James Buizer, Arizona State University

James Buizer is Science Policy Advisor to the President of Arizona State University. Jim led the design and initiation of the University-wide Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS) and its School of Sustainability, launched fall 2006. He serves as its Director for Sustainability Solutions, and as Director of the Center for Integrated Solutions to Climate Challenges. He is Professor of Practice in Climate Adaptation Policy in the School of Geographical Sciences and Planning. Prior to this, he served as Director of the Climate and Societal Interactions Office at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington, D.C. In his personal capacity he serves on the Boards of Directors at the National Council for Science and the Environment, and at Second Nature Inc., and as Strategic Advisor to Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P. His degrees are from the University of Washington.

SESSION VI

54

OPEN FORUM ON SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE

PANEL I - Industry and Academia for a transition towards Sustainability Chair: Fabio Orecchini, CIRPS-Sapienza University of Rome Background Paper
Preface According to latest forecasts of the United Nations, world population is projected to reach 7 billion in late 2011, up from the 6.8 in 2008, and surpass 9 billion people by 2050. From a business perspective this is a good news as it will deliver billion of new consumers. However, the bad news is that increasing scarcity of resources and concerns about economic pressure on the environment and society, will necessarily influence the ability of all 9 billion to attain or sustain present compsumptive lifestyles and standard of living of developed countries. In order to keep the world on track towards sustainability and to make it live within the limits of the planet, it must be developed a long term vision aimed at including all actors, from consumers, to policy makers, till producers. Generally speaking, it is evident that industry plays a crucial role and needs to adopt new business strategies that ensure profits, but respect interests and values of environment and society. More in particular, industry will have to face several challenges like contributing to education enablement and economic empowerment, particularly of women; Developing radically more eco-efficient solutions, lifestyles and behavior; Taking into account the cost of externalities following the life-cycle approach; Doubling of agricultural output without increasing the amount of land or water used; Strongly reduce carbon emissions worldwide through a shift to low-carbon economy; Delivering a four-to-tenfold improvement in the use of resources and materials. To do so effectively and to accelerate the process, a close collaboration with scientist is not only needed, but represents a win win solution for both, industry and academia. This virtuous cycle will benefit and be supported by the three main innovative characteristics of Sustainability Science that firstly, addresses complexity with a trans-disciplinary approach, secondly, is problem-driven and it uses both, scientific and local knowledge, to resolve contextualized problems and thirdly, it promotes the active involvement of the different stakeholders - civil society, the private sector and policy makers - in a process of scientific co-production. The objective The main goal of the Panel is to enhance the collaboration between industry and academic representatives for the achievement of a sustainable world. This process has been initiated in the previous edition of ICSS and aims at making possible a joint foundation of Sustainability Science and at defining future steps for an enduring cooperation. The objectives of the Panel are the following: To clarify what sustainability means from a business perspective To identify what industry asks and offers to Sustainability Science: exploring room for collaboration with academia To provide a toolkit for sustainability To share a definition of Sustainability Science: going beyond sustainable development To edit a Paper of wills synthesizing results and challenges of the Panel and to pave the way forward: next steps towards New York meeting (USA, October 2010) and continuative collaboration.

OPEN FORUM ON SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE - PANEL I -

55

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Modus operandi: the structure of collaboration The central idea behind the Panel is to follow a fully cooperative way of working, by ensuring the involvement of all participants in the process of structuring of collaboration and in the definition of content to be discussed. To do so Academia provided a background documentation which served as a first input to participants:

Guidelines giving necessary information about objectives of the Panel and panelists role prior, during and after the conference Working Points Concept Paper outlining central themes of the Panel discussion and guiding the invited panelist to the preparation of their contributions for the session

The documents have been afterwards revised by panelists, who sent their feedback to the Secretariat, that took care about the editing of shared version of Concept Paper weighting on the different comments and input. After the Panel, the participants will jointly contribute to the editing of a Paper of Wills summarising key results and future challenges, including future steps, further issues to be discussed and Joint Initiatives to be launched in order to concretize the cooperation. Moreover, work and documentation of the all process will serve as a base contribute to the editing of a Sustainability Guidelines Report, providing a sound and robust scientific base concerning sustainability. A synthetic description of the modus operandi is given by the figure here below:

Cooperation

Paper of Wills Joint Initiatives

Sustainability Guidelines Report

After the Conference a Paper of Wills will summarise key results of the Panel and the future steps for and enduring collaboration trough the launch of Joint Intitiaves A

Sustainability Guidelines Report will provide a sound and robust scientific base concerning sustainability

Industry Feedback

Industry feedback

Shared Working Points

Panelist feedback ensure a cooperative approach for the editing of a shared version of the Working Point Concept Paper to be discussed at the Panel

The Secretariat edits a shared version of the Concept Paper

Acedemic

Guidelines

Working Points

Guidelines

provide information about Panel objectives and panelists role/tasks

The Working Points Concept Paper outlines main issues of discussion and guiding the invited panelist to the preparation of their contributions

Chair: Fabio Orecchini, CIRPS-Sapienza University of Rome

Professor of Energy Systems, PhD. Founder and Coordinator of the Research Unit Sustainability of Energy and Mobility Systems at CIRPS - Sapienza University of Rome. Director of DME -Department of Mechanics and Energy, Guglielmo Marconi University, Rome, Italy. Scientific coordinator of international research projects. Editor of the Scientific Journal Sustainability Science, Springer. Author of scientific books and publications on Sustainability Science, Energy sustainability, the concepts of Closed cycles of resources and Energy vectors.

- PANEL I -

56

PANEL II - People to Science to People: experiences from civil society Chair: Silvio Funtowicz University, European Commission - Joint Research Centre EC-JRC Co-chair: Alice Benessia, University of Torino Background Paper
Waiting for sustainability
The term sustainability was born to address an explicit concern about the continuity and stability of humanitys future on this planet. In its original meaning, it implied the necessity to constrain present actions to avoid compromising the future wellbeing of successive generations. Such emphasis on the future, privileges sciences predictive abilities as the primary epistemic tool for shaping policies and actions to conform to politically responsible that is to say, sustainable ways.

In this sense sustainability has therefore been defined within the shared and implicit cultural frame of modernity, according to which waiting for the unequivocal and certain opinion of science is a fundamental requirement for legitimate and responsible action. This means giving up our agency as members of civil society and most importantly a continuous procrastination, because the future is, in fact, irreducibly uncertain and intrinsically complex. Waiting for sustainability, as we will see and we would like to further explore, reflects the awareness that the notion of sustainability in itself and its relationship with science and technology are indeed multifaceted, ambiguous and they can be characterized by a number of tensions and contradictions, such as the one just stated: relying on the predictive power of science and technology to make sound decisions for a sustainable future, whereas our future is more and more unpredictable precisely because of our greater scientific and technological power to act. The precautionary principle can be seen in this context as an attempt to solve the contradiction without discussing its implicit roots. It aims to fill the gap of governance legitimacy arising from the radical uncertainty involved in the decision-making process, without modifying the underlying assumptions that legitimize the policy action. A second level of contradiction and ambiguity consists on another idea embedded in the same cultural frame of modernity: the firm conviction that, by their own existence and development, science and science-based innovation lead the way to progress (life improvement and preservation on the planet). Our unprecedented power to manipulate matter, energy, life and information by which we experiment irreversibly over large space and time-scale, is taken to be the way out of the ecological and socio-economical impasse that we are facing. In other words, the very same cause of the actual hyper-complexity and therefore extreme vulnerability of our lifesupporting systems on the one side, and of the massive expropriation and deterioration of natural and cultural systems on the other is considered as the main and only possible cure. Here again persisting within the same paradigm, as with the case of the precautionary attempt, both the understandings of science and technology as cause and cure rely on the modern assumption that traditional scientific and technological practices are valuefree knowledge production and implementation systems based on reason, as opposed to passion based cultural constructs, subjected to human economic, social and political values and interests along with the constraints of refractory natural and social realities. A third level of contradiction is grounded in the still widespread modernist ideal of the epistemic privilege of Western science, as conveying a universal and ubiquitous, therefore in principle more effective, type of knowledge, in the face of the actual radical complexity, indeterminacy and context-dependency of the problems arising from the very same application of its principles to the real world. What we mean by contradiction here is a set of problems or tasks that cannot be resolved within the (modern) frame of reference in which they are conceived. A desirable way out of contradiction in these terms is a creative resolution through an open-ended dialogue between different kinds of knowledge, arising from a cultural and natural diversity. A (responsible) reflection and action based on a constant feed-back between short and

- PANEL II -

57

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

long-term concerns, between natural and cultural-specific needs and global issues, between the place-specific knowledge resources of local communities and the science based innovation, can be achieved by sharing the experiences of scientists, artists, policy-makers and the civil society, all coming from our dappled world. A live performance will set the stage for our dialogue, opening up the possibility for intuition and unmediated involvement to be part of the process. As Beckett and Camus put it toward the end of modernist theatre, a way out of the Absurd (although, for them, only to step into a more operational and dignified Tragedy) is the very awareness of its ironic nature. This is precisely what we would like to explore here together, through the expression of diverse, globally relevant, communities and ecosystems crises, seen as opportunities for present action and change. Finally and more generally, the approach that we would like to consider together entails implementing in time a variety of operational and pragmatic definitions of sustainability, as opposed to waiting for a single satisfactory ontological and semantic definition to rely upon for future action. References - Beckett S. 1952. En attendant Godot, Paris: Editions de Minuit - Camus A. 1942; Le Mythe of Sisyfe, Paris: Gallimard, coll. Folio Essais - Cartwright N. 1999. The Dappled World. A Study of the Boundaries of Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - Dovers S.R. et al. 1993. Contradictions in sustainability, Environmental Conservation Vol. 20, No.3, pp.217-222. - Funtowicz S., Ravetz J. and O Connor M. 1998. Challenges in the use of science for sustainable development, Int. J. Sustainable Development, Vol.1, No.1, pp.99-107. - Ravetz J. 2006, Post normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability, Ecological Complexity 3 pp.275-284.

- PANEL II -

58

Chair: Silvio Funtowicz

Silvio Funtowicz taught mathematics, logic and research methodology in Buenos Aires, Argentina. During the decade of 1980 he was a Research Fellow at the University of Leeds, England. He is now a scientific officer at the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC), European Commission - Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC). He is the author of Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (1990 Springer; 2009 Chinese translation) in collaboration with Jerry Ravetz, and numerous papers in the field of environmental and technological risks and policy-related research. He has lectured extensively and he is a member of the editorial board of several publications and the scientific committee of many projects and international conferences.

Co-chair: Alice Benessia

M.F.A in Photography and Related Media, School of Visual Arts New York. M.A. in Philosophical Foundations of Physics, Columbia University New York. Member of the Steering Committee of IRIS (Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Sustainability) based at the University of Torino (www.iris.unito.it). Member of the Science and Democracy Network, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sdn/ ). My interdisciplinary research deals with epistemological issues arising in the framework of art, science and sustainability. My PhD dissertation is based on an epistemological and normative analysis of the dominant imaginaries of science and technology, in the framework of post-normal science. In parallel, my artistic research revolves around the use of photography as a participatory tool.

Charito P. Medina, MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development), Philippines

Charito P. Medina holds a PhD degree in environmental biology from the University of Guelph, Canada. He is currently involved in rural development as the national coordinator of MASIPAG, a Philippine network of farmers, Scientists, and NGOs working for the empowerment of resource-poor farmers through farmer-led research and crop/native livestock improvement through participatory breeding. He is also part time faculty in two universities in the Philippines teaching ecology, biodiversity conservation, systems analysis, environmental planning, and natural resource management.

Democratizing Sustainability Science

A partnership between farmers and a handful of scientists and non-government organizations in the Philippines was initiated in 1986 to develop more sustainable agricultural methods as alternative to the chemical farming introduced as green revolution. With farmers empowerment as the main goal, the partnership has now evolved into a farmer-led research and development in agriculture through agrodiversity conservation, breeding, technology generation, and farmer-to-farmer technology diffusion. The farmer-scientist collaboration in using scientific breeding methods has developed more than 60 rice and corn farmer-breeders and produced more than 1,000 new rice selections. Through trial farms managed by farmers organizations, they have selected locally adapted varieties. Being trained in the rudiments of science and technology development, farmers had been developing their own farming technologies, and sharing the approaches to other farmers. An assessment in the agricultural productivity, farmers income and food security revealed positive results of the development initiative. The experience suggests that involvement of farmers in agricultural science and technology development is possible, and sustainability of farming is enhanced.

- PANEL II -

59

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

G.A. Bradshaw Ph.D, Ph.D, Director, The Kerulos Center, USA

G.A. Bradshaw Ph.D., Ph.D., is founder and Executive Director of The Kerulos Center (www. kerulos.org) and author of Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us About Humanity (Yale University Press, 2009). Her work focuses on animal psychological trauma and wildlife cultural self-determination.

Living Like Animals: Sustainability and Animal Self-Determination

Sustainable futures are largely defined by western human values and vision. Proposed solutions do not generally include conservation of traditional indigenous human and animal cultures. Animals are denied participation in shaping policies that affect their lives. Landscapes are carved into pieces to make suitable habitat for elephants, grizzly bears, bonobos, and other wildlife. Their societies are similarly fitted to human needs through translocation and culling (systematic killing)all without consultation. Human privilege is justified using the rationale that other species lack higher-order capacities considered uniquely human. However, science now demonstrates otherwise: animals exhibit mental and moral continuity with humans to include language. This science links wildlife disenfranchisement and the present environmental crisis to the agenda of modern human culture. When humans did not seek control over other species, planet sustainability was not an issue. Sustainability, therefore, is rooted in the status of animal self-determination. Sustainable living entails shedding those aspects of human civilization that impair animal self-determination and learning how to live like animals again. Living like animals involves creating language, values, and meaning shared across species to reconcile earth. This defines sustainability.

Ernesto F. Rez-Luna, CSA Science & Development Director, Environmental Sustainability Centre, Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University (CSA)
Tropical biologist and political ecologist. 10+ years leading conservation-&-development projects in the Neotropics. Lifetime commitment to indigenous rights. Practitioner of the ecosystem approach inspired by James Kay and complex-system theories. Winner of the Whitley Conservation Award 2008, presented by Princess Ann (donated by WWF-UK). Current focus on multi-billion dollar mega-projects (dams, hydro-ways, and penetration roads) under development in Amazon headwaters and major tributaries. Their aggregated and synergistic impacts pose unprecedented threats to ecosystem health and indigenous peoples survival; in the context of climate change, cross-scale inequalities, and extractive booms.

The Non-dialogue of Myths: Amazonian Indians / Sustainability / Science / Development

Indigenous peoples are faced with sweeping global changes that challenge their multiple identity (indigeneities) and turn it into a moving target. In the Amazon, climate change provokes extreme ecological oscillations on rainforests that provide livelihood and cultural survival. Brazil emerges as a neo-colonial power, deploying mega-investments in dams and roads over its neighboring countries, opening access to the remotest natural resources and native territories. Information technologies and economic opportunities from extractive booms can be embraced as tools of ethnic resistance, while old internal differences within the indigenous movement act against political cohesion and coherence. The myth of the noble savage confronts the myth of the tribal, backward Indian; the myth of development adopts contradictory forms; and the myths of science and sustaina-

- PANEL II -

60

bility are used, discarded or distorted to suit shifting political agendas. Use of these myths (rather than indigenous myths, for instance) also frames debates within the reductionist boundaries of Western hegemony. Noisy non-dialogue and pseudo-science prevail, while cultural and natural erosion continue. Public science and citizen collective action can promote a new democracy of knowledge or make the work of hegemony even deeper. I provide examples from a Colombian project and from current conflicts regarding the role of the Peruvian Amazon and its indigenous peoples in national development.

Francesca Ferri, O Thiasos TeatroNatura, Rome ITALY

Francesca Ferri, composer and music director, writes and directs music for theater and live performances. She established and co-directed O Thiasos TeatroNatura, a pioneer acting company often performing vocal polyphony in natural environment. Her composition is based on a rigorous study of ancient traditional songs. Often sung in open-space venues, these songs investigate the kinship between human beings and their territory. Her work is also based on several field trips in Italy during her apprenticeship with Giovanna Marini and on collaborations with performing artists from other traditional contexts. She also founded Trio Francesca Ferri together with Camilla DellAgnola and Valentina Turrini, focused on a traditional and original repertoir. Coming soon her original CD In questo mondo. Musiche per teatro (Zone di Musica). She is currently engaged in an interdisciplinary research and editorial project on art, science and sustainability.

VALENTINA TURRINI O Thiasos TeatroNatura Rome

Actress and vocal performer. B.A. in Antropology of Theater, University of Bologna, DAMS. Dissertation on siberian shamanism, with specific regards to Tuvinian culture. In 2005, she sets up the company Le Strologhe with Carla Taglietti. Their repertoir is based on tales, music and songs from different folk traditions, performed for young children. She works with O Thiasos TeatroNatura since 2007. She has been studying traditional singing from the Italian and Eastern European tradition with Francesca Ferri She is a member of the Trio Francesca Ferri.

The texture of voice. Local knowledge and traditional singing

In traditional singing, the flaws, the less discernible and standardized features of voice tones, silences and breaths - reveal the mark of a complex and stratified knowledge. The capacity to deduce a complex reality from experimental data, the faculty to create a narrative from them, maybe the idea of narration in itself was born for the first time in a society of hunters, from the experience of decoding traces (Ginzburg C., 1986). Traditional vocal polyphony develops and requires a constant adaptation to the sound landscapes, creates a dialogue between external and internal spaces (the different expressions of the soul), and, in its continuous adaptation it creates a contact to which the place will respond. These songs constitute an immaterial epistemic heritage that we can decode and enhance, looking for sound traces (as the hunters). They are fragments of embodied life, able to awake the capacity to listen, so they carry not only an aesthetical function, but mostly an ethical one. The current experience of vocal performance in theaters is ordinarily based on standardized aesthetic concerns, sterilizing the experiential and epistemic content of listening and its essential dialogue with life. This creates a false dichotomy between high and low culture. Finally, in this scenario, in their experiential and performative forms, both art and science can aim to universal

- PANEL II -

61

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

types of knowledge, precisely when their search is based on qualitative and circumstantial evidence. Today we will introduce theses themes by singing traditional songs over the photographic work of Alice Benessia, in a performative dialogue.

Ph.D. Seminar on Sustainability Science Chair: YARIME Masaru, University of Tokyo Co-Chair: Arnim WIEK, Arizona State University Background Paper
In coping with the challenges of sustainability, it is crucial to make effective use of knowledge and information on diverse aspects of sustainability, ranging from natural environment and artifacts to economy and culture. The emerging field of sustainability science aims at understanding the fundamental characteristics of complex and dynamic interactions between natural, human, and social systems, and to develop solutions for the pressing sustainability challenges our societies face. Since sustainability science cuts across different academic disciplines, various concepts and methodologies have been proposed to address multifaceted aspects of sustainability. This diversity poses a challenge to those involved in developing sustainability science as an academic field, particularly young researchers who will play a crucial role in the future. We are facing similar institutional challenges in developing academic programs on sustainability science in research institutes around the world. The challenges we need to cope with include establishing sustainability science as an academic field (convergence of paradigm); collaboration between researchers across disciplines and beyond academia; and development of career paths for students and young researchers. Objectives The goal of the Ph.D. Seminar is to provide an interactive forum for participants to exchange, share, and discuss diverse approaches, concepts, and methodologies used in the field of sustainability science, as well as to explore opportunities for mutual collaboration in establishing and institutionalizing the academic field of sustainability science. Students studying in doctoral programs in sustainability science in selected universities will discuss their own research with other students, addressing the set of guiding questions below. With differences and similarities recognized, students are encouraged to engage in a constructive discussion on how to improve their research. Participants will also discuss a scope for complementarities and collaborative activities for broadening and strengthening the academic basis of sustainability science in the future.

Ph. D. SESSION

62

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Guiding Questions
The following elements have been identified in literature as important questions in sustainability science. Participants in the Ph.D. Seminar are asked to address these guiding questions in discussing their research: 1. Problem Orientation: What sustainability problem does your research address? 2. Systemic Complexity: Does your research explicitly address issues of systemic complexity (interdependency, nonlinearity, tipping points, inertia, heterogeneity, diversity, cross-domain interactions, etc.)? 3. Dynamics: Does your research explicitly address issues of dynamics (feedback, path-dependency, reciprocity, threshold, legacy, time lag, resilience, etc.)? 4. Long-term Perspective: Does your research explicitly reflect a long-term perspective (inter-generational equity, future generations, long-term impact, etc.)? 5. Inter-/Transdisciplinarity: What inter-/transdisciplinary approach do you adopt in your research? 6. Anticipation: What future-oriented/anticipatory knowledge do you generate or incorporate, and what methods of anticipation (e.g., scenario analysis) do you apply or rely on in your research? 7. Normativity: What value-laden, normative knowledge (sustainability goals, targets, criteria, etc.) do you generate or incorporate, and what assessment methods (e.g., multi-criteria sustainability assessment) do you apply or rely on in your research? 8. Action-orientation: What action-oriented/strategic knowledge do you generate or incorporate and what methods do you apply or rely on in order to solve the addressed problem in your research? 9. Knowledge Co-production: Have knowledge and practical solutions been co-produced between scientists and practitioners/decision-makers through your research?

Guiding Questions

64

Poster Session
All participants are expected to make poster presentations at 12:00-13:00 following the Ph.D. Seminar to discuss their own research further with other participants in the conference.

Chair: Yarime Masaru, University of Tokyo

Yarime Masaru is Associate Professor of the Graduate Program in Sustainability Science of the Graduate School of Frontier Sciences of the University of Tokyo. His research interests include corporate strategy, public policy, and institutional design for sustainability innovation, university-industry collaboration, and structural analysis of knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization. He contributes to international sustainability initiatives, including IR3S, AAAS, IEEE, and ESSG, serving as an editor for the journal Sustainability Science.

Co-Chair: Arnim WIEK, Arizona State University

Participants in the Ph.D. Session, ICSS 2010, Rome, Italy, June 25, 2010
Name, School/University, Country, E-mail Christian Binz Cirus Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG) Switzerland christian.binz@eawag.ch Jampel DellAngelo Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development (CIRPS) Sapienza University of Rome Italy Jampel.dellangelo@uniroma1.it Barbara DIppolito Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development (CIRPS) Sapienza University of Rome Italy barbaradippolito@gmail.com Sara Evangelisti Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development (CIRPS) Sapienza University of Rome Italy sara.evangelisti@uniroma1.it Kana Hashimoto Department of Urban Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, University of Tokyo Japan k_hashimoto@env.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp Tracy-Ann Hyman Graduate Program in Sustainability Science, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences University of Tokyo Japan hymannic@yahoo.com

Poster Session - Partecipants

65

Book of abstrac ts

ICSS 2010

Aida Karapinjalli Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development (CIRPS) Sapienza University of Rome Italy aida_k@hotmail.com Keisuke Kuroda Department of Urban Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering University of Tokyo & Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG) Japan, Switzerland k_kuroda@env.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp Emmanuel Mutisya Graduate Program in Sustainability Science, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences University of Tokyo Japan emmanuel.mutisya@yahoo.com Daniel Nzengya School of Sustainability Arizona State University USA dnzengya@asu.edu Vladimiro Pelliciardi Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development (CIRPS) Sapienza University of Rome Italy vladimiropelliciardi@tiscali.it Liana Ricci Department of Architecture and Urban Planning Sapienza University of Rome Italy liana.ricci@gmail.com Viviana Rozo Barajas Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development (CIRPS) Sapienza University of Rome Italy arq.vivirozo@gmail.com Niranji Satanarachchi Graduate Program in Sustainability Science, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences University of Tokyo Japan niranji_s@yahoo.com Izuho Sotani Graduate Program in Sustainability Science, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences University of Tokyo Japan isotani14@yahoo.co.jp Takanori Tomozawa Department of Technology Management for Innovation University of Tokyo Japan takanori.t@gmail.com Annemarie van Zeijl-Rozema International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development (ICIS) Maastricht University The Netherlands a.vanzeijl@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Partecipants

66

ICSS 2012 at Arizona State University The next ICSS will be hosted at Arizona State University (ASU) in Phoenix, Arizona, United States. Following the tradition of convening ICSS every 18 months, the next meeting will be early 2012, at a specific date to be announced. ASU is the proud home of the first School of Sustainability in the USA. You are cordially invited to participate in this third ICSS; which promises to be as informative and productive as the first two. We look forward to seeing you there.

CONTACTS SESSION I
Arnim Wiek, PhD School of Sustainability Arizona State University E-mail: arnim.wiek@asu.edu Phone: +1.480.965-2387 Francesca Farioli, PhD CIRPS & Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable Development Sapienza Universit di Roma E-mail: francesca.farioli@uniroma1.it Phone: +39.06.46204022

PANEL Industry&Academia
Valeria Valitutti valeria.valitutti@uniroma1.it Giorgio Vitali grgvitali@gmail.com Phone: +39 0644585310

Secretariat ICSS Piazza San Pietro in Vincoli, 10 - 00184 Rome (Italy) www.icss2010.net scientific@icss2010.net

ICSS 2012

67