Knowledge For Sustainable Development

Environ Dev Sustain (2013) 15:687–709
DOI 10.1007/s10668-012-9401-5
Knowledge for sustainable development: a worldviews

perspective
Maarten Van Opstal • Jean Hugé
Received: 28 February 2012 / Accepted: 4 October 2012 / Published online: 17 October 2012
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract A huge tension exists between recognizing sustainable development (SD) as a

meta-discourse and accepting a limitless interpretational width. We analyse the impacts of
diversity of worldviews on the interpretation of SD—as a knowledge-based concept—
through a critical literature review, resulting in recommendations on the topic. We apply a
social-constructionist approach, appreciating the complex socio-ecological interactions at
the heart of SD. Only recently worldviews are recognized as constitutive elements of SD.
Little attention has been given to the impacts on generated knowledge for SD. Variety of
worldviews induces a variety of knowledge claims and needs. To retain SD’s ‘universal’
appeal as practical decision-guiding strategy for policy and action, we propose an inte-
grative approach towards knowledge for SD—entailing an explicit pluralization of
knowledge. SD should be re-interpreted as a joint worldviews construct, embracing a
diversity of views in collaborative research and co-production of knowledge. Interpreting
M. Van Opstal (&)

Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: mavopsta@vub.ac.be; Maarten.Van.Opstal@vub.ac.be
M. Van Opstal
Laboratory of Systems Ecology and Resource Management (Biocomplexity Research Team),
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt 50, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
M. Van Opstal J. Hugé

Laboratory of General Botany and Nature Management, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2,
1050 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: Jean.Huge@UGent.be
J. Hugé
Centre for Sustainable Development, Universiteit Gent, Poel 16, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
J. Hugé
Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200e,
3001 Leuven-Heverlee, Belgium
J. Hugé
Institute for Environment and Sustainable Development (IMDO), University of Antwerp,
Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium
123
688 M. Van Opstal, J. Hugé
SD as a joint endeavour is necessary to overcome historical obstacles like cultural hege-

mony and a hierarchy of knowledge systems. We identified the following requirements for
an inclusive knowledge for SD paradigm: re-interpretation of SD as a worldview constructs
in progress; interpretative flexibility; co-production of knowledge; subjectivity awareness
and self-reflexivity; respect for a diversity of worldviews/knowledges; identifying shared
goals; collaborative research; a systems approach; transdisciplinarity; and recognition of
contextuality. Further research—concerning potential methodologies and typologies—to
reconcile variety of worldviews and knowledge systems in a joint SD worldviews construct
is urgently needed.
Keywords Sustainable development Worldviews Knowledge Participation

Science for sustainable development
1 Introduction
The aim of this article is to reflect on the relation between worldviews and sustainable
development (SD). In this perspective, we will apply a social-constructionist approach
(Arts and Buizer 2009), an approach that appreciates the complex social interactions that
are at the heart of policy-making processes for SD (Wetherell et al. 2001; Hajer and
Versteeg 2005). Through the application of a worldviews perspective, the diversity of
collective and individual views on sustainability will be illuminated. Based on critical
literature review, we aim at contributing to the interpretative debate surrounding SD by
introducing a new integrative perspective on the topic.
Worldviews are defined as a combination of a person’s value orientation and his or her
view on how to understand the world and the capabilities it offers. They are the lens
through which the world is seen (van Egmond and de Vries 2011: 855). The kind of (often
unconscious) mental habits, frames and assumptions, of which worldviews are composed,
might not immediately seem to be relevant to contributors of the SD debate, but exactly
these kinds of cultural mechanisms or ‘filters’ are the basis on which humans decide how to
act, according to their perception of the environment and reality. It shapes their beliefs in
nature and in the world-as-a-whole (Schlitz et al. 2010).
Until recently, very little attention has been given to the role that worldviews play in the
potential success of SD initiatives. There has been little understanding about their impact
on the effectiveness of SD and on the knowledge that has to be generated to implement SD
(McEwen and Schmidt 2007). Can we use, integrate or amalgamate the divergent symbolic
constructs, experiences, insights and knowledge of individuals, peoples and communities
in the scope of SD or is such an approach counterproductive for the inherent normative
intentions of the concept of SD itself?
Its frequent appearance as one of the more popular buzzwords is a good illustration of the
wide variety of interpretations of SD. For an exhaustive overview of the evolution in inter-
pretation of the SD concept and the discourses that guided these interpretations, see Redclift
(1992, 2005). The most accepted and frequently cited definition of SD as ‘development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs’ was proposed by the Brundtland Commission in its landmark report Our
Common Future (WCED 1987). Notwithstanding its enormous influence on the sustainability
debate, this definition immediately raises questions on the interpretation of vaguely descriptive
terms like ‘needs’, ‘future’ and ‘compromising’. These terms incorporate a wide variety of
possible interpretations, and none of them is inherently inconsistent with the Brundtland
123
Knowledge for sustainable development 689
definition of SD. (Jepson Jr. 2004) Almost any referent can be assigned to ‘underdefined’ terms
in an ad hoc fashion (Blommaert and Verschueren 1998: 35). Jepson Jr. (2004) states that the
concept of SD already accommodates two very different kinds of worldviews in itself:
expansionist and ecological worldviews. This duality/diversity of views raises questions on
how to reach an integral or integrative view on SD (van Egmond and de Vries 2011). Others
have described SD as a contradiction of terms, an oxymoron or even a lie because of its alleged
contradictory conceptualization (Achterhuis 1994; Redclift 2005).
This paper aims at gaining additional insights on (1) the potential and need of a plu-
ralistic or integrative worldviews perspective for SD; (2) the impacts of hegemony of
worldviews on the conceptualization of SD; and (3) the knowledge and epistemologies that
are needed for SD’s translation into policy and action. We start with a theoretical reflection
on worldviews and different perspectives on SD, knowledge and science. Throughout this
attempt to gain new perspectives, we explore the communications, the semantic fluctuation
of concepts and the sociocultural contexts through and in which knowledge creation and
knowledge exchange takes place (Hajer and Versteeg 2005).
2 Methodological approach
This paper is rooted in a critical literature review. However, as more than 3,000 papers are
published in the field of sustainability annually (Kayikawa et al. 2007), we focused on a
synthesis and refinement of existing analyses, typologies and paradigms instead of per-
forming an exhaustive document analysis. The relevance of the publications feeding the
interpretative discussion of worldviews, sustainability and knowledge was motivated by:
• published selections of milestone sustainability publications (as compiled in Quental
et al. 2011; Waas et al. 2011)
• journals in the field of sustainability—sensu lato—served as partial inspiration for this
paper (See Redclift 1992, 2005; Sneddon et al. 2006)
• the authors’ knowledge of the field of sustainability publications, worldviews literature,
sociolinguistics, development studies, cognitive/cultural anthropology and the over-
view of the academic landscape of sustainability sciences by Kayikawa et al. (2007)
3 History and milestones of the political emergence of SD
The modern idea of SD has gradually emerged since the 1960s/1970s. SD grew out of the
melting pot of ideas about progress, environmental protection, economic growth and
development over many years (DuPisani 2006), and it is not limited to environmental
issues. In less than 50 years, SD has grown from an alternative view on development
towards a broadly acknowledged—yet heatedly debated—and formally politically sup-
ported concept. Several internationally endorsed milestones dot the modern re-emergence
of SD (Waas et al. 2011). These milestones include the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment (1972), the report The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972), the
World Conservation Strategy (1980), Our Common Future (WCED 1987),1 the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, the
1
Our Common Future serves as a vital milestone in the current SD debate for at least four reasons: (1) its
famous mission statement, balancing the fulfilment of current human needs with the needs of future
123
United Nations Millennium Summit (2000), the Earth Charter (2000) and the United
Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (2002). This selec-
tion is not meant to be exhaustive; for an overview, we refer to (Quental et al. 2011). More
recently, influential reports such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), the
Stern Review (Stern 2006), the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC 2007) and the Report on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB
2010) all strongly reflect the institutional sustainability agenda.
4 Worldviews as constitutive elements of sustainable development
A worldview is perceived as a map that people use to orient and explain the world, and
from which they evaluate and act, and put forward prognosis and visions on the future
(Aerts et al. 1994; van Egmond and de Vries 2011).2 Worldviews are cognitive, perceptual
and affective maps that people continuously use to make sense of the social landscape and
to find their ways to whatever goals they seek.3 They are developed throughout a person’s
lifetime through socialization and social action. Yet, they are usually unconsciously taken
for granted as the way things are (Hart 2010).
The bias to a specific worldview of concepts, like sustainability, is only recently
admitted by their proponents (de Vries and Petersen 2009; van Egmond and de Vries 2011;
Fischer and Young 2007; Haverkort and Reijntjes 2007). Human beings all behave within
different contexts. These contexts influence our behaviour in diverse context-specific ways.
Apostel (2002) tried to clarify with his worldviews perspective that our approach towards
our own existence is partially derived from our perspective on reality as a whole.4 As a
consequence, this perspective on reality is biased by our attitude in concrete everyday
existence and/or vice versa. Since decades, academics have postulated theories on the
existence of different worldviews (Pepper 1966; Douglas 1970; Dilthey 1977; Aerts et al.
Footnote 1 continued
generations, is the trigger of the bulk of sustainability initiatives worldwide, (2) it established SD as a
substantial component of international development thinking and practice, (3) it initiated an explosion of
work on the theme (Sneddon et al. 2006), and (4) it represents the worldwide breakthrough and populari-
zation of the sustainability concept. Picking up ideas from previous milestones, the report might be less
intellectually innovative, but it is remarkably so politically (Dresner 2002). (Based on Waas et al. 2011).
2
Haverkort and Reijntjes (2007: 431) apply worldviews to environmental issues and provide the following
definition: ‘Worldview: (or cosmovision) the way a certain population perceives the world (or cosmos). It
includes assumed relationships between the human world, the natural world and the spiritual world. It
describes the perceived role of supernatural powers, the relationship between humans and nature, and the
way natural processes take place. It embodies the premises on which people organise themselves, and
determines the moral and scientific basis for intervention in nature’.
3
Within a worldview, two kinds of assumptions about the world can be distinguished: (1) prescriptive
assumptions, which are subjective/personal and refer to value orientations (to the question about the
importance of certain things over others); (2) descriptive assumptions—which have a more shared and
objective character—refer to mental maps about how the world functions (to belief systems). The latter
frame the way in which the ‘chosen’ prescriptive assumptions can be reached or maintained. (Rokeach
1973).
4
Apostel (2002: 35) based his theory on the following postulates:
– totality exists
– we can all partially know and understand this totality
– we must try (as good as we can) to know and understand this totality as a whole
– by doing so, we can (1) choose and act in a more correct way; (2) have a more broad and rich value-
experience and emotional life; (3) partially and temporarily forget all human suffering by this insight.
123
1994; Heylighen 2000; Naugle 2002; Hawley et al. 2004; Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas 2006;
Haverkort and Rist 2007; Vidal 2007; Haverkort and Reijntjes 2007; de Vries and Petersen
2009; van Egmond and de Vries 2011).5 Apostel (2002) emphasized the link between
worldviews and our ethical systems. Our answers on ethical questions (e.g. sustainability-
related issues) are coloured by our worldview (Naugle 2002; Heylighen 2000; Vidal 2007).
Worldviews are unfinished, and this dynamic incorporates the possibility of change and
amelioration of our personal view on the world (van Egmond and de Vries 2011: 862).
Worldview construction is collective work that is not identifiable with only one individual
person, but tries to connect shared goals—or in the scope of SD a sustainable worldview—
with acceptable and specific views of these individuals or the social groups they are living
in (Aerts et al. 1994). The definition of SD proposed by the Brundlandt Commission as
‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs’ is the most widely excepted and frequently
cited one. As such, it will continue to serve as the guide towards future ‘sustainability’. As
already mentioned in the introduction of this paper, Jepson Jr. (2004) raises the potentially
problematic character of this definition, because of the use of many ‘underdefined’ terms
(neither interpretation of these terms is inherently inconsistent with the definition itself).
‘This definition raises as many questions as it answers’ (Jepson Jr. 2004: 6). On the other
hand, it is left as a concept that is open to interpretation and to the integration of different
perspectives/worldviews. Interpretative flexibility (Robinson 2004) can be of special
interest for SD, as it has to be applied and implemented according to specific problems and
in particular (locally) varying contexts. Variation in the interpretation of the sustainability
concept ‘allows for a multitude of actors, possibly the whole of society, to be involved,
encouraging local solutions’ (Kemp and Martens 2007).6 In other words, it allows different
worldviews to co-evolve—through joint worldviews construction—towards co-produced
interpretations of SD that can generate sustainable transformation of all worldviews. As a
person’s worldview transforms, awareness can expand leading to enhanced ‘prosocial’
experiences and behaviour. Increased social consciousness can in turn stimulate further
transformations in worldview towards sustainability (Schlitz et al. 2010). Hence, World-
view transformation should not be limited to a change in one’s particular view on the world
alone, but—as strategies, policies and generated actions are partially driven by world-
views—this transformation should be translated in concrete decision-guiding strategies or
action-generating policies that actively integrate a worldviews perspective, in order to
enable worldview transformation to come into effect.
To illustrate our vision on SD as a particular worldview in itself and a construct ‘in
progress’ (rather than a concrete and static concept), we want to elaborate further on this
matter. In broad terms, the concept of sustainable development is an attempt to combine
growing concerns about a range of environmental issues with socio-economic issues
(Hopwood et al. 2005). Jepson Jr. (2004) questioned what he called an inherently
anthropocentric approach in the Brundlandt definition (WCED 1987), and the problematic
character of this perspective for the integration of environmental concerns. Despite its clear
inadequacy for reconciling environmental and ‘human’ concerns, he sees it as the ‘only
5
For an exhaustive overview of the history of the worldviews concept, we refer to Naugle (2002).
6
Blommaert and Verschueren (1998: 35) suggest (referring to Obermeier 1986 on the notion of ‘human
rights’) that the avoidance of definitions entails an enormous strategic potential, because almost any referent
can be assigned to ‘undefined’ terms in an ad hoc fashion. ‘One result of this ‘flexibility’ is that terms may
acquire a contextual meaning which deviates considerably from the meaning which language users would
take for granted, without the deviation being noticed’.
123
definition that is possible, given the current competition—at both the social and the
individual levels—between the expansionist and ecological worldviews’ (Jepson Jr. 2004).
A part of the reason for the difficulty of incorporating SD into local planning in the form of
policies and programs is this continuing competition between two worldviews: the
expansionist and ecological. We can link this with the tension that exists between the
different views of weak and strong sustainability (Dietz and Neumayer 2007). Jepson Jr.
(2004) proposes the incremental integration of both worldviews in the practice of SD. As
SD is already a construct of different worldviews in itself, evolution towards a balanced
integral worldview is needed to make it workable in specific contexts. This search for an
integral worldview can be widened to the integration of all underlying worldviews con-
cerned, through dialogue and representation (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2008), co-evolving
towards an integrated or inclusive worldview under the common denominator of sus-
tainable development, respecting different perspectives, contexts and epistemologies. In
such a process, different existing worldviews, ontologies and their epistemologies can
dialogue to reach an inclusive worldview together through, for example, intercultural
communication (Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas 2006). SD can then evolve towards a shared
worldview—in progress—instead of a vaguely descriptive statement that becomes the only
acceptable ‘true’ definition of sustainable development.
The connection between worldview transformation and local visions can be the basis of
(participatory) decision-making and is a potential way for a transition towards SD that generates
local action and influences individual behaviour, connecting it with social consciousness and
the views of the people who have to put SD into effect. SD is often seen as a worldview that can
or wants to accomplish a universal consensual view—let us say a worldviews construct—on
living good lives in harmony with nature (Meadows 1998). But a consensual approach—rather
than enhancing complementarity or inclusiveness through reconciliation of different views on
SD—also incorporates the risk of trade-offs, reductionism, cultural hegemony7 and neglect of
complementary aspects/interdependencies (Robinson 2004; Sneddon et al. 2006). It is of major
importance that SD acknowledges that different worldviews co-exist and are dynamic and that
these different visions are not isolated. More than once, the conceptualization of SD has been
categorized as a contradiction of terms or even a lie (see Redclift 2005 on SD as an oxymoron),
stating that the blurred contours of the concept and its different interpretations by new users
might work against the inherent good intentions of the initiators of SD in the end (Achterhuis
1994). It is necessary to fully understand the impact of different worldviews and their different
interpretations of SD, to avoid turning SD into a ‘meaningless’ concept—because of a forced
consensus dominated by particular worldviews and led by cultural hegemony, instead of a co-
produced and shared interpretation that reconciles all different views on SD that are involved.
Interpretative openness and semantic inflation unavoidably leads to linguistic confusion about
the SD concept—spreading all over the world purely because of the connotation of turning the
world into a better place—but as Donella Meadows states about the concept of sustainability:
‘… that’s where we are right now … It’s a mess. But social transformations are messy’ (cited in
Dresner 2002: 66).
Language is no longer only interpreted as a way of (empirical) description since many
decades. It is more and more accepted as an integral part of reality—a communicative
practice—that is actively and thoroughly shaping our view on reality, our worldview (Arts
and Buizer 2009; Fischer 2003; Hajer and Versteeg 2005).8 This growing consciousness of
7
one particular (e.g. majority) vision dominating other (e.g. minority) visions.
8
‘language profoundly shapes our view of the world and reality, instead of being a neutral medium
mirroring it’ (Hajer and Versteeg 2005).
123
the influence of language and worldviews on concepts creates far-going consequences for
the practice of SD and policy-making. Van Herzele (2006: 674) states that issues are
discursively raised, related and combined in specific ways. These issues then become
recognized as more—or less—important policy problems. Therefore, it has become
important to approach SD in a more socially constructed way. The construct of SD is part
of a social practice. In this way, it also has been advanced by Nurse (2006), who proposes
to operate from a methodological standpoint that the meaning of sustainability in the
different contexts to which it is being applied should be the central concern. The common
starting point of Nurse’s approach and our fundamental perspective on SD is context
dependence. The actual interest is in what people working towards SD think SD is—what
they call SD (Lafferty and Meadowcroft 2000). This constructive ambiguity of SD
(Robinson 2004) does not have to be a problem as such, as long as it remains within the—
partly—dynamic interpretational limits of SD (Waas et al. 2011).9 This is where the
inherently normative character of SD pops up.
We introduced the worldview concept because of its particular and essential influence
on the process of interpretation of SD, a semantic process that is consciously or uncon-
sciously affecting societal processes and particular discourses (Arts and Buizer 2009:
342).10 In our rapidly globalizing world, we increasingly interact with many different
cultures, but even with subcultures and fragments of (own) cultures, leading to dynamic
pluralization of culture and growing complexity (Aerts et al. 1994; Vertovec 2006). Each
worldview is composed of a set of concepts in relation to how an individual (or group of
individuals) views the world and how it works. As an example of how different approaches
of reality might help us to gain new insights on the (re-)interpretation of SD as a potentially
universal concept in progress, an illustration of the view on the world through the lens of
indigenous people and their different interpretations of concepts such as knowledge, truth,
land, humanity—resulting from these views—is discussed in Box 1. Concepts like ‘nature’,
‘man’, ‘resources’, ‘knowledge’, ‘the universe’ are interpreted differently from the per-
spective of a specific worldview (Dryzek 2005). Changes in concepts that are particularly
closely tied to a worldview will result in the end in a change in worldview and vice versa
(Schlitz et al. 2010). It is of utter importance for the SD researcher and practitioner to
realize that individuals or groups may have different concepts (or interpretations) of var-
ious issues like SD, socio-ecological interaction and its challenges. Without this awareness,
stakeholders can be discussing a topic for ages, without understanding that they are talking
about different things. Through a series of focus group discussions with members of the
general public in Scotland, Fischer and Young (2007) found participants to express rich
mental concepts of biodiversity, irrespective of their scientific knowledge. Fisher and
Young’s study highlighted that a better understanding of these mental constructs—linked
to their attitudes and worldviews—is essential for the design of policies that are supported
by the public. Participation in decision-making is increasingly seen as essential for SD
(O’Faircheallaigh 2010; UN 1993: 219), but scientists argue that a lack of public
9
Interpretative flexibility does not have to mean absolute relativism—which is self-contradictory—if it
takes place within these interpretational limits.
10
We recognize an inherent difference between worldview and the more linguistic features of discourse.
We understand discourse as ‘language-in-use’ (Wetherell et al. 2001) or to cite Van Dijk (1988 cited in
Wodak 1996: 14) ‘both a specific form of language use, and as a specific form of social interaction,
interpreted as a communicative event in a social situation’. We will—for the sake of clarity—not further
elaborate on discourse and its implications for the interpretation of SD. For studies on the relation between
SD and discourse we refer to Hajer and Versteeg (2005), Dryzek (2005), Dryzek and Niemeyer (2008) and
Van Herzele (2006).
123
Box 1 Indigenous worldviews

There appear to be many commonalities between indigenous worldviews (Gill 2002; Rice 2005). For the
sake of clarity, we consider generalities at the expense of specifics. Indigenous worldviews emerged as
a result of the people’s close relationship with the environment. McKenzie and Morrissette (2003) and
Simpson (2000) brought some of the principles and metaphysical beliefs that are at the basis of this
relationship together
McKenzie and Morrissette (2003) outlined six metaphysical beliefs that have shaped this relationship:
Existence according to the principle of survival
Natural energy of the earth
The existence of a grand design
Everything has a role to play to guarantee the overall well-being of life
Everything is an extension of the grand design (contains the same essence)
This essence is understood as ‘spirit’, being the ultimate link between all things and to Creation
Simpson (2000) outlined seven principles of indigenous worldviews:
The holistic and cyclic character of knowledge, dependent upon relationships and connections to living
and non-living beings and entities
Truths are manifold and they depend upon individual experiences
Everything is alive
All things are equal
The land is sacred
Importance of the relation between people and the spiritual world
Human beings are least important in the world
Both studies on indigenous worldviews highlight a strong indigenous focus on people and entities in a
relational sense. People and entities come together to help and support one another in their relationship.
Graham (2002) calls this a relational worldview. Key in this view on the world is the emphasis on spirit
and spirituality; a sense of a community tied together by familial relations and the families’
commitment to it; and respectful individualism as a way of being where an individual enjoys great
freedom in self-expression because it is recognized by the society that individuals consider and act on
the needs of this society, opposed to acting solely based on self-interest (Gross 2003)
From a worldviews perspective, it is clear that how people act towards nature depends on what people
think about themselves in relation to the surrounding environment. Conservation-oriented practices of
these ecosystem people tend to be grounded in their human-as-part-of-nature worldview which
requires respect for other beings even as they are disturbed, cut, killed or consumed (Berkes et al.
1995). An alternative worldview—involving a web of relationships—is significant for SD because it
resembles the systems view in modern ecology (Bell and Morse 2008)
understanding of the issues involved is a barrier to effective participation. Fischer and

Young (2007) show that these arguments often use scientific knowledge as the sole
measure of public understanding11 and fail to account for individuals’ constructs of, for
example, SD.
SD practitioners, decision-makers and researchers should realize that their concep-
tualization of certain issues may not match with the conceptualization of the same issue
by a community they serve and that concepts resulting from or interpreted through
different worldviews are not per definition the same. Understanding worldviews, mental
constructs and concepts held by the different groups involved is a conditio sine qua non
for SD.
11
qualifying knowledge as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ in relation to scientific definitions.
123
5 Variety of worldviews: hierarchy of knowledge or the potential of working

towards an integral view
A major challenge for the re-interpretation of SD—as a universally workable paradigm,

carried by the wide variety of people who have to bring SD into effect—is the reconcil-
iation of seemingly conflicting perspectives on sustainability issues. Differences in
worldviews exist within societies (e.g. between ideologies, communities, individuals, etc.),
as well as between different societies (e.g. modern worldviews and indigenous views).
It has been suggested that in any society or group there is a dominant worldview that is
held by most members of that society or group (Olsen et al. 1992). Alternative worldviews
exist, but they are usually not held by a majority. Research showed that many common-
alities of indigenous worldviews (Box 1) differ largely from commonalities of the domi-
nant worldviews in modern societies (Little Bear 2000; Walker 2004; Hart 2010;
Haverkort and Reijntjes 2007). In order to help advance mutual understanding in dialogues
between indigenous and modern worldviews, an indicative typology of potentially con-
flicting perspectives—developed by the authors—is proposed in Box 2, on which both
views can be compared and contrasted. The list is neither exhaustive nor definitive,
emphasizing the dynamic character of worldviews. Characteristics of worldviews that are
dominant in modern societies are different from features of indigenous views, as they are
often rather materialistic, anthropocentric and dualistic. But, as Nakashima and Roué
(2002) stated, ‘there is no sound basis for deciding that one worldview offers a superior
reference point for ‘reality’ than another’.
When stakeholders or ontological communities disagree with one another about how,
for example, the human–environment interface should be managed, a framework is needed
that translates the concept of SD across the all-too-often narrow and partial perspectives
held both by their own managers/decision-makers and by diverse stakeholders in tradi-
tional/subsistence, industrializing and post-industrial economies. Boutilier (2005) presents
a typology of SD perspectives and shows how they can either conflict with or align with
one another. In order to help advance mutual understanding in dialogues between tradi-
tional and modern and postmodern societies, Boutilier developed his typology of distinct
versions of the ideal human–environment relationship, based on which different views can
Box 2 Typology of potentially conflicting perspectives between modern and indigenous worldviews
Modern Indigenous
Linear notion of time , Nonlinear time perception (often cyclic or

spiral)
Anthropocentrism , Human beings are least important in the world
Dualism , Non-dualism
Secular or monotheistic assumptions , Spirituality and holiness
Formality , Informality
Disciplinarity , Holism
Materialism and mechanistic approaches , Everything is alive
Ownership of land , Sacredness of land
Superiority of mankind , All things are equal
Methods of knowledge creation focus on: rationale, , Focus on alternative methods of knowledge
quantification or verifiable qualitative research creation (e.g. Intuitive and meditative
methods)
123
be compared, contrasted and then used to unravel the misapprehensions and misgivings
that decision-makers encounter when trying to apply the concept of SD.
Van Egmond and de Vries (2011) argue that different worldviews that shape society
appear to be part of an overall integral worldview. This umbrella view can be deduced
from societal enquiries and from the experiences of history and philosophy over many
centuries. It is defined by the vertical contrast between idealism and materialism and the
horizontal contrast between uniformity and diversity. ‘Due to a number of societal and
psychological centrifugal forces, worldviews become one-sided and finally end in funda-
mentalist value orientations which are synonym with overshoot, collapse and crisis’ (van
Egmond and de Vries 2011: 853). The solution to sustainability problems has to be found
in the timely recognition and compensation of these destabilizing centrifugal forces with
shared goals (through reconciliation) as new targets for an integral sustainable worldview.
De Vries and Petersen (2009) suggest thorough analysis of people’s value orientations,
worldviews and the way in which they interpret SD. The next step is to translate these
worldviews into model-based narratives, like scenarios. A major challenge is then to
identify which positive and negative impacts (trade-offs) of proposed choices (inevitable in
policy-making for SD) one can expect, in order to identify options that may be robust
under a variety of worldviews.
As the diversity and dynamics in worldviews make the description of one particular
perfectly balanced worldview impracticable (or even undesirable),12 this makes their
integration into methodologies, strategies or assessments extremely difficult. On the other
hand, we can speak with familiarity about our own worldview in which we are fully
indoctrinated, but talking about/describing other worldviews incorporates some risks like
ethnocentrism and researcher bias, as ‘other’ worldviews are mostly still analysed through
the lens of one’s particular view on the world or through a particular way of approaching
and identifying ‘the other’ as subject of investigation (Danek et al. 2008).
First, there is the generalized critique on Orientalism of Said (1993, 1995) and on
Occidentalism of Buruma and Margalit (2004). Second, from a methodological stance, it
can be questioned whether divergent worldviews can be thoroughly understood through the
lens of one’s own view. According to the old modernist views on (social) science, the
researcher had complete control over the quality of the research process. Positivistic theory
claimed that the scientist can objectify from the outside. Modern phenomenologists
claimed that the researcher could adopt the worldview of his research subject—to study it
from within—through empathy.13 Both approaches accused each other from ‘unscientific’
behaviour.14 In both the positions of the positivist and the phenomenologist, the scientist
adopts an epistemological stand where he/she is the only one to define the rules and
conditions of scientific knowledge. Bourdieu (1981) went beyond this struggle by claiming
that any social or cultural study is dealing with human beings that can lie, hide, com-
municate, manipulate and feel sympathy or antipathy with the scientist who is performing
research. Any research then becomes dependent on the quality of interaction between
scientist and subject (see also Campbell 1973). When the subject does not truly enter into
12
Worldview construction needs to be interpreted as an undertaking that corrects and redirects itself
constantly, and therefore, it has to renounce every definite character (Apostel and Vanlandschoot 1988: 33).
This interpretation can than be linked with the dynamism principle of SD: the idea of SD as a process of
directed change or an ongoing evolutionary process, and not as a defined end-state (Lafferty and Mead-
owcroft 2000; Waas et al. 2011; Robinson 2004).
13
Anthropologists use the terms emic and etic to refer to the inside and outside perspective on a culture.
14
This struggle was known as the ‘struggle over methods’ or ‘Methodenstreit’.
123
the research process, it is either objectified (from without) or by-passed (through the false
claim of an inside view) (see also Banerjee 2004). As explained above, since the (e.g. non-
indigenous) researcher conducts research in a manner which subordinates the subject and
denies her the due voice in constructing knowledge about her, we believe that we have to
learn to do research not so much about, but with the subjects whose worldviews we study.
Collaboration and co-creation of knowledge on different worldviews and their perspectives
on SD becomes a key element in overcoming hegemony and a renewed ‘colonial attitude’
(Pinxten 2007) or ethnocentric approach towards different (indigenous) worldviews and
their epistemologies.
Eurocentric thought and research of other worldviews historically came to mediate the
world to the point where worldviews, knowledge systems, learning and teaching that are
different from the dominant modern worldviews were pushed to the periphery (Hart 2010;
Molenaar 2007; Haverkort and Reijntjes 2007; Said 1993, 1995). The International Council
for Science (ICS 2002) found that also in most traditional societies, traditional knowledges
have a marginal position. Haverkort and Reijntjes (2007) state that anthropological
research and a number of initiatives (Nuffic and MOST 1999, 2002; Selin 1977) currently
started documenting indigenous knowledges—resulting in many publications—but these
‘data bases’ should still be seen as ex-situ information systems. They continue studying
indigenous knowledge mainly from the perspective of the western researcher or donor
agencies. Indigenous knowledge is generally not studied as a holistic system, but as a set of
practices of which only the empirical aspects are of interest. ‘In general, by isolating
elements from such a holistic worldview one runs the risk of misrepresenting both the
elements and the whole’ (ICS 2002). Indigenous knowledge is then assessed from criteria
primarily based on science which are fundamentally different from criteria of the com-
munity from which the knowledge originated (see also Fischer and Young 2007 on mental
constructs as discussed earlier in this article). Other worldviews deserve to be studied and
understood without being prejudged using one’s own narrow (and sometimes intolerant)
beliefs and values.
Despite claims of a paradigm shift, scientists argue that the widely institutionalized SD
paradigm—as endorsed by many U.N. documents—remains based on a modern normal
scientific and classical economic rationality, incorporating dominance of some worldviews
instead of thorough integration of different views with variety serving as a basis for
sustainability. Jepson Jr. (2004) discussed the continuing competition between expan-
sionist and ecological worldviews, dominated by the expansionist perspective. Banerjee
(2003) argues that the SD paradigm is based on an economic, not ecological, rationality.
Discourses of SD embody a view of nature specified by modern economic thought, and
Banerjee (2003) sees its imposition as ‘a regime of truth’ on developing countries as highly
problematic. Sabau (2010) states that most economic analyses of the knowledge-based
economy and SD still use the analytical framework provided by neo-classical economics.
Hart (2010) speaks of a blinding and marginalization of the indigenous worldviews in the
development arena. Haverkort and Reijntjes (2007) speak of indigenous views and
knowledge being pushed to the periphery.
6 Impacts on knowledge creation and science: the knowledge impasse
The discussed variety of worldviews induces a variety of knowledge claims and knowledge
needs. In order for SD to retain its (universal) appeal as practical decision-guiding strategy,
we propose an integrative approach towards knowledge/science for SD—entailing an
123
explicit pluralization of knowledge for SD. This epistemological dimension of variety of

worldviews is of utter importance for SD, as it has also been discussed as one of SD’s
multiple dimensions that need urgent attention (Redclift 1992). Because of the suggested
dominance of particular worldviews in a society (Olsen et al. 1992), accompanied by
potential hegemony of specific forms of knowledge—related to these worldviews—
(Escobar 1995)15 and researcher bias in approaching other forms of knowledge (Pinxten
2007; Bourdieu 1981), any researcher on SD has to be fully aware of the impacts of these
issues on knowledge that is generated for SD and its decision-guiding strategies. Such a
consciousness should lead to thorough scrutinization of conventional concepts and
knowledge creation in general and of one’s own approaches towards knowledge in
particular.
Science’s method is a set of tools and approaches that makes research systematic and
replicable, and tends towards the discovery of truths. The scientific method may be varied
and complex, but it does nevertheless allow a level of consistency. The result is that only
scientists can arrive about ‘truths’ about the natural world. One by-product of this view was
that scientists were afforded an essentialist, privileged position in society as they were seen
to give impartial, rational advice (Smith 2009: 6). Science and technology studies, as a
research discipline, stem from an understanding that science and technology are funda-
mentally social activities. It rejects the essentialist view that scientific knowledge is
somehow more ‘pure’, exemplary or ‘truthful’ than other types of knowledge (Smith 2009:
8). The idea of a linear trajectory from one stage to another, from pre-technological to
technological, from traditional to modern, from indigenous to scientific is implicit within
most mainstream development thinking, leading to a tendency towards technological
determinism (Smith 2009). For example, indigenous or traditional knowledge is often
conceived as something quite distinct from scientific knowledge. ‘Modern scientific
knowledge is centralized and associated with the machinery of the state; and those who are
its bearers believe in its superiority. Indigenous technical knowledge, in contrast, is
scattered and associated with low-prestige rural life; even those who are its bearers may
believe it to be inferior’ (Chambers 1980: 2 cited in Smith 2009: 68). This idea of a
hierarchy of knowledge and the tension between knowledge systems may have far-going
consequences for generated knowledge, for example, in the context of creating decision-
guiding strategies for SD. How we perceive knowledge, as ‘truth’—or otherwise as, for
example, scientific or indigenous—fundamentally shapes how we interact with it. In this
interaction, there is the risk that we create artificial boundaries or delineate new hierar-
chies. The innovation systems approach (ISA) recognizes these highly problematic
shortcomings of earlier transfer-of-technology approaches and the focus on the primacy of
scientific knowledge. On the other hand, it actively aims at overcoming ‘knowledge def-
icits’.16 Thinking about knowledge and how it is valued in a broader, contextualized way—
trying to understand how it partially originates from worldviews and how it flows and
transforms—makes us conclude that the value of knowledge lies primarily in its context,
which asks for a moving away from unhelpful and sometimes arbitrary distinctions
between scientific or indigenous knowledge. ‘Knowledge should not be valued for its
15
Escobar (1995) states that development discourses have coalesced to develop a ‘regime of truth’, an
accepted way of describing and interacting with developing countries.
16
Smith (2009: 77) identifies three principles of ISA: (1) Innovation requires knowledge from multiple
sources, including from users of that knowledge; (2) It involves those different sources of knowledge
interacting with each other in order to share and combine ideas; (3) These interactions and processes are
normally very specific to a particular context, shaped by, for example, worldview.
123
subjective appeal, but inherently and contextually in its application and relevance’ Smith
2009: 91). Therefore, we propose an active pluralization of knowledge for SD, in which
available forms of knowledges are approached on an equal basis and evaluated on a basis
of applicability and relevance within the specific context that SD—and its decision-guiding
strategies—has to be applied.
We think that SD could become more ‘effective’ as a decision-guiding strategy when it
takes note of the historic and social backgrounds of the development concept, modern
science and the discussed possibility of a hierarchy or ‘regime’ of knowledge, often
accompanied by claims of universal validity.17 This consciousness can help the SD debate
by opening up to allow real dialogue with other worldviews and their epistemologies,
evolving towards explicit pluralization of knowledge for SD and innovation. The world-
view behind most scientific and development concepts and practice often remains the
worldview of modernity, acting as its sole basis (Haverkort and Reijntjes 2007). It is
assumed that ‘our’ system of acquiring knowledge in the North, through the application of
scientific principles, is a universal epistemology. ‘The ubiquitousness of Western science,
however, has led to traditional knowledge becoming ‘‘fragmented knowledge’’ in the South
toda1992y, increasingly divorced from that of the dominant scientific paradigm’ (Redclift :
402). Abstracting concepts like (sustainable) development, science and knowledge from
their historical and cultural backgrounds—let us say contexts—is hiding them from what is
happening in reality. In the following paragraphs, we will argue further on this idea of
hegemony of worldviews and knowledge and its impacts on science, SD and knowledge
for SD by analysing some specific characteristics.
Hegemony of purely (neo-)positivistic modern worldviews—accompanied by potential
risks of ethnocentrism and marginalization of diverging alternative worldviews as dis-
cussed in chapter 5—might have a devastating effect on SD as a potentially universal and
inclusive concept in general, and on generated knowledge for SD in specific. Especially in
the scope of participatory approaches of SD and new insights of post-modern science, this
hegemony of one perspective is alarming (Fischer and Young 2007). Ongoing hegemony
of one worldview among others might be explained by the societal and psychological
forces—as discussed by van Egmond and de Vries (2011: 853)—that create the tendency
of particular worldviews to become one-sided and finally end in fundamentalist value
orientations. We reflect shortly on the historical and cultural evolutions within the ‘sci-
entific worldview’ and its context.
SD—among other concepts—has brought man and nature more together and many
scientists propose a moving away from purely positivist science to address sustainability
issues (Kemp and Martens 2007; Müller 2003; Funtowicz et al. 1998). The nineteenth- and
twentieth-century context—guided by industrial assumptions and a modernist knowledge
paradigm that narrowed expertise only to so-called ‘specially gifted people’—shifts in the
twenty-first century towards the recognition of a world that is increasingly defined by
diversity of people, cultures, knowledges and skills (Peat 2002). Anthropological insights
gained throughout the twentieth century led to the acknowledgement of a wide variety of
specific local histories emerging from particular local contexts, accompanied by specific
ontologies and epistemologies. Cognitive and symbolic anthropology has been breaking
away from any former principal division between Western and non-Western thinking,
which was based on a false interpretation of evolutionary theory (the nineteenth-century
racism and later Spencerian approaches) or on the false claim that other cultures would be
17
With ‘effective’ we mean ‘effective in creating an equal and solid basis to enable a constructive dia-
logue—towards sustainability—between different worldviews’.
123
Fig. 1 Potential impacts of traditional normal scientific assumptions on generated knowledge. For the
author’s idea of the ‘normal’ scientist as ex-nominated player, we refer to the concept of ex-nomination
introduced by Barthes (1973) to illustrate how determinants of a society are often absent from or literally un-
named in representations of that society (O’Sullivan et al. 2006: 110–112). The figure is based on insights
from Kemp and Martens (2007), Müller (2003), Funtowicz et al. (1998), Peat (2002)
pre-logical in one sense or another (Pinxten 2007: 97). These insights ask for renewed
paradigms for global designs like SD that acknowledge and try to reconcile different
particular (local) worldviews and their epistemologies, by starting up an intercultural
dialogue on an equal basis (Mignolo 2000).
We identify the following potentially negative characteristics of knowledge that is
solely generated by ‘conventional’/neo-positivistic scientific assumptions: de-contextual-
ization, fragmentation, privileged, ideological and outside lived experience (Fig. 1). In
modern society, knowledge needs to be re-used continuously. Knowledge only comes to
life in the minds of people. ‘In a sense, codified knowledge stored in books and websites is
no longer knowledge. It is decontextualised and devoid of meaning. It is mere information,
to be tapped only by those who know how to access it’ (Molenaar 2007: 131). When
information is tapped and internalized from the ‘global stock of information’, it comes to
live again and merges with the worldviews (insights, concepts, …) of the persons
involved.18 It grows, mutates and takes new forms and meanings. In this scope, we
understand knowledge that is disposed of its context as dead knowledge. In this per-
spective, knowledge generated by purely modernist research paradigms—which aspire to
universal validity—may be seen as disembedded knowledge. In this way, it immensely
differentiates itself from traditional or indigenous knowledge that is intimately tied to
localized cultures and traditions (Berkes 1999; Van der Ploeg 1993).
7 The shifting context of science and development: the emergence of a science for SD
Until this day, the idea that there is only one superior way of knowing—based on mod-
ernist assumptions of rationality, objectivity, logic, etc.—seems to remain widespread
(Haverkort and Reijntjes 2007). Yet, different people perceive reality in different ways,
and this leads—according to their worldviews—to varying ways of knowing and learning.
Within a specific knowledge community, people come to a specific consensus about what
18
Molenaar (2007) sees the so-called ‘global stock of knowledge’ as a misnomer. Notwithstanding the
global scope and ‘pretention’ of such knowledge or information, it is nevertheless derived from a social
process of knowledge production. ‘… all knowledge systems from whatever culture or time, including the
temporary technosciences, are based on local knowledge’ (Turnbull 1997: 485 cited in Molenaar 2007).
123
is valid and acceptable knowledge (Molenaar 2007). Knowledges (and the diversity in the
sciences of these days) therefore have a plurality of dynamics and ways of expressing,
dependant on their cultural contexts, worldviews and the communities from which they
originate. Each ‘science-community’ is coloured by its own history, a specific worldview, a
theoretical framework and its socio-cultural dynamics as well.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, materialistic and mechanistic paradigms of
positivistic science are being challenged by new scientific insights. The changing inter-
pretation of knowledges from other cultures, next to emerging concepts like cultural rel-
ativity, social constructivism, Einstein’s relativity, quantum physics and chaos theory
(Prigonine and Stengers 1984), diversified the western modernist perspective on knowl-
edge, leading to the emergence of post-modern sciences. These sciences do not belong to
one single paradigm any more and can be based on very different epistemologies instead of
one big theory. They transcend a positivistic modernist worldview of materialism and
embrace a plurality of methods. Absolute truth is no longer seen as the ultimate goal of
science, only approximation of it can be science’s highest intention (Haverkort and Re-
ijntjes 2007). The world is no longer limited to mechanistic and materialistic interpreta-
tions. The outcome of social learning, participatory research and qualitative information is
gaining validity, next to solely quantitative measurements.19
Rather than the generic principles/values and the universal science of the modern era,
we find in post-modernity conditions like uncertainty (Peat 2002), growing complexity
(Sabau 2010; Funtowicz et al. 1998), diversity (Geertz 1994; Vertovec 2006), chaos
(Prigonine and Stengers 1984), synergy and holism (Müller 2003). For a better under-
standing of the type of knowledge generation needed to implement SD, one has to keep in
mind these features that define the context in which sustainability has to be realized. From
the recognition of these contextual factors that shape SD in reality, new scientific
approaches emerged in the sustainability arena. These include concepts like sustainability
science, Mode-2 science and post-normal science. Proponents of these ‘sciences for SD’
have opened promising avenues for addressing the shortcomings of classical modern
science (Kemp and Martens 2007; Müller 2003).
The two main features of post-modernity are complexity and the emergence of global
and complex systems. Funtowicz et al. (1998) mention two key properties of these com-
plex systems: the presence of multiple sorts of uncertainty and the multiplicity of legiti-
mate viewpoints on an issue. Convinced that conventional normal scientific methodologies
are no longer effective for finding solutions of such complexity, Funtowicz and Ravetz
(1991) propose a second-order science or post-normal science, ‘where facts are uncertain,
values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ (Ravetz 1999). Kemp and Martens
(2007) speak of normal science as mode 1 science being academic, mono-disciplinary,
technocratic, certain and predictive; versus sustainability science (Martens 2006) or mode
2 science (Gibbons et al. 1994) being academic and social, interdisciplinary, participative,
uncertain and exploratory. Sustainability science is then defined as an integrative science,
which aims at the integration of different disciplines, viewpoints and knowledges.
Although it is not yet clearly defined, its central elements have recently been clarified in
literature: ‘Inter- and intradisciplinary research; coproduction of knowledge, a systems
perspective with attention to the co-evolution of complex systems and their environments;
learning-by-doing (and learning-by-using) as an important basis of acquiring experience,
besides learning-by-learning (learning through detached analysis); attention to system
19
We want to emphasize the complementary character of both approaches, instead of creating the idea of an
antagonism.
123
innovation and transitions’ (Kemp and Martens 2007). These new kinds of concepts of
science integrate, validate and require the involvement of laymen.
Knowledge for sustainability needs to analyse a system’s deeper-lying structures, needs
to project into the future, needs to assess the impact of decisions and has to lead to the
design of new strategies for solutions (Kemp and Martens 2007). The outputs of science for
SD or sustainability science are to go beyond traditional science, which aims at drafting—
technical—solutions for well-defined problems. SD’s normative character and its long-
term horizon result in specific demands for science (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993).
Knowledge for SD has to consist of (Laes and Maes 2008): (1) diagnostic knowledge (with
regard to the causes leading to un-sustainability); (2) explanatory knowledge (with regard
to the interactions between social activities and sustainability impacts); (3) orientation
knowledge (with regard to normative justification arguments); (4) knowledge for action
(with regard to finding solutions to un-sustainable situations.
This situation demands a particular way of knowledge creation. In the context of SD,
Grist (2008) states that ‘knowledge creation (…) is far from the rational, cognitive and
technical procedures of science as previously understood. Instead, knowledge creation is
perceived as a process or practice. Post-modern perspectives embrace an awareness of
multiple knowledges, situated specificities, discourse and narrative analysis and com-
plexities of actor-institutional interactions’. In order to be relevant for SD, the legitimacy
of knowledge depends on the process by which that knowledge is generated. Knowledge
needs to be:
(a) co-produced and provisional, thereby challenging normal academic science.
(b) It demands a systems approach, which emphasizes the primacy of the whole.20
(c) A systems approach requires inter-disciplinarity (and other levels of cross-and trans-
disciplinary interaction), a key characteristic of sustainability science.21
(d) As knowledge will always be provisional and incomplete in its descriptive aspects, as
well as depending on changing normative expectations, sustainability science needs
to be reflexive.22
(e) Alternative problem framings are an essential element of sustainability governance.23
(f) Adopting a level of subjectivity awareness is key, so as to make careful and
transparent knowledge claims, which do not specify absolute closure.
20
Senge et al. (1994) in Bell and Morse (2008) state that ‘a system is a perceived whole whose elements
hang together because they continually affect each other over time and operate toward a common purpose’.
A systems approach is often compared to the contrasting reductionist approach where the well-defined
problem is in the mind of the scientist and a part of a complex whole is analysed. In a systems approach, the
problem is shared by legitimate stakeholders, has flexible boundaries and is reviewed as a whole (Bell and
Morse 2008).
21
It is an evolving process of knowledge construction (through the sharing of approaches) requiring deep
co-operation between disciplines to arrive at a shared understanding of issues at hand (Blanchard and
Vanderlinden 2010). Hulme and Toye (2006) speak of knowledge communities instead of disciplines. They
argue that what matters is consensus on aims and methods within the community.
22
Blanchard and Vanderlinden (2010) and Jepson Jr. (2004) elaborate on reflexivity: sustainability sci-
ence’s key interdisciplinarity feature implies that disciplines not only differ in subjects and methods, but also
have different visions of the world. One has to transcend unconscious thinking processes by reflecting on
one’s personal values, interests and representations. Reconciling different worldviews and assumptions on
reality require innovative mechanisms (Sumner and Tribe 2008).
23
It will actually lead to ‘outside the box’ thinking and to the realisation of innovative solutions to respond
to complex societal challenges.
123
8 Recommendations and challenges for knowledge-based SD from a worldviews

perspective
Starting from a theoretical reflection on diversity of worldviews and its consequences for
the interpretation of SD, we evolved towards taking a more normative stance on how to re-
interpret the SD concept and how knowledge for SD—that can serve to guide decisions—
should be generated from a perspective that aims at reconciling a wide variety of world-
views and at generating evidence-based policy advices. Through pluralization of knowl-
edge for SD (motivated by the discussed diversity of available worldviews), we can
redirect SD towards a workable concept that aims at being useful and acceptable for ‘all’ of
us, notwithstanding SD’s interpretative width. Generating knowledge for SD should be
interpreted as constructive dialogue between different knowledge communities, be it
within science, between ontological or epistemic communities, within societies, cultures or
subcultures, etc. Based on document analysis and insights gained throughout our argu-
mentation, we identified three general recommendations, needs and challenges for a
knowledge-based re-interpretation of SD through a worldviews lens. These are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
8.1 Worldview construction as worldviews transformation
Instead of losing oneself in definitional battles, searching for a vaguely descriptive state-
ment that might become the only acceptable ‘true’ definition of sustainable development,
SD has to be re-interpreted as a worldview construct. Worldviews are unfinished and
dynamic, incorporating the possibility of change and collaborative action towards shared
worldview transformation (Schlitz et al. 2010). Worldview construction is collective work
that is not identifiable with only one individual person, but tries to connect shared goals
with acceptable and specific views of groups or individuals. In this perspective, interpre-
tative flexibility can be of special interest for SD, as it ‘allows for a multitude of actors,
possibly the whole of society, to be involved, encouraging local solutions’ (Kemp and
Martens 2007). This interpretative flexibility and the constructive ambiguity of SD does
not have to be a problem for the inherently normative character of SD, as long as it remains
within the partly dynamic interpretational limits of SD (Waas et al. 2011).
SD can evolve towards a truly shared worldview—in our rapidly globalizing and
diversifying societies—if it consciously aims at reconciling diversity of worldviews within
its paradigm. Frameworks and methodologies are urgently needed to guide these processes
of reconciling different views, by, for example, identifying typologies of potentially
conflicting perspectives (van Egmond and de Vries 2011; de Vries and Petersen 2009;
Boutilier 2005). Worldview construction and transformation towards sustainability should
be seen as learning together. Dialogue between ontological communities in view of sus-
tainability has to be the basis of a SD concept in progress. The main aim is the will to
communicate through intercultural dialogue. First, the interrelationship must be based on a
process of deliberation that should at least involve the interrelated dimensions of practice,
values and worldviews. Second, the agreement on fundamental ethical principles is a
necessary condition before starting intercultural dialogue (Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas 2006:
473). Another necessary condition is an intracultural dialogue of all parties to gain higher
levels of reflexivity and insights in the ontological foundations of their own forms of
knowledge, to ensure the possibility to achieve a dialogue on an equal basis. A major goal
to enable successful dialogues between worldviews is to enhance worldview literacy and
understanding of SD through, for example, sustainability education (Schlitz et al. 2010;
123
Lynam 2012). We want to emphasize that we do not suggest the proposition of absolute
relativism, which is self-contradictory. Cultural diversity—through reconciliation of a
variety of worldviews—is more than mere differences in culture (UNESCO 2002). It is a
value that recognizes that differences in people are part of systems and relations. Without
cultural values or worldviews aspects, a truly sustainable view on development is
impossible, as it is not based on the moral dedication of the executors of development
which are all part of specific cultural and epistemological communities.
8.2 Participation as collaboration
Hawley et al. (2004) state that co-management arrangements have had limited success due
to the failure to accommodate differences in worldviews. When, for example, indigenous
peoples’ worldviews are not taken into account, they might be inhibited from fully com-
mitting to joint endeavours. Simultaneously, scepticism among conservation managers
inhibits the latter’s full commitment to joint endeavours as well. Hawley et al. identify six
main obstacles to co-management: cultural imperialism; the cultural shadowland; the place
of specific views on management in society; characteristics of information and knowledge;
language and interpretation; and views on management of the environment and people.
The authors suggest six areas of emphasis in pursuing SD as a joint endeavour that
actively aims at helping disenfranchized social groups by ensuring a broad-based world-
views perspective:
• Respect for different worldviews
• Respect for different knowledge
• Communication as the most fundamental aspect of knowledge sharing
• Learning arising from good communication
• Identifying shared goals
• Collaborative research to avoid researcher bias or neo-colonial attitudes
8.3 Interscience
SD’s normative character and its long-term horizon result in specific demands for science
and a specific way of knowledge creation, as discussed in chapter 7. The legitimacy of this
knowledge depends on the process by which it is generated. It needs to be co-produced and
provisional, by aiming at bridging epistemologies (Maffi 2006) and viewpoints that are
relevant for the context in which SD has to be applied in order to generate ‘best available’
knowledge and know-how to address the sustainability issues involved. Science for SD is
then defined as an integrative science, aiming at transcending and reconciling different
disciplines, viewpoints and knowledges towards generating shared and co-produced
knowledge in the scope of an integral and balanced view on sustainability. As discussed in
this paper and elaborated by concepts like, for example, sustainability science, it demands
a systems approach, emphasizing the primacy of the whole. This requires thorough
transdisciplinarity that is not limited to the combination of different sciences within a
science field or to the compilation of different disciplines without true interaction or
integration (Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas 2006: 471). Transdisciplinarity acknowledges that
science is part of the processes it describes and is therefore focusing on a systemic view of
social and natural dynamics that are shaping the world. It also recognizes the plurality of
forms of knowing, worldviews and the values connected to them within different social and
cultural groups (Scholz et al. 2000). A certain amount of subjectivity awareness and
123
recognition of contextuality is a key element in achieving transdisciplinary knowledge for

SD. In this context, Burgman et al. (2011) suggest broadening the definition of expertise.
Molenaar (2007) speaks of articulating the global and the local.
9 Conclusion
A huge tension exists between the recognition of SD as a meta-discourse and the accep-
tance of a limitless interpretational width. There is an urgent need for cross-referencing
between apparently separate worldviews, cultures and paradigms of understanding. Part of
the problem of SD is the inability of different groups/agencies/individuals to espouse
different worldviews and assumptions about how the world works and to translate this
variety of views into practical decision-guiding strategies, policies and action (Bell and
Morse 2008). This often results in the development of antipathies, incomprehension or
conflict between stakeholder groups. Authors have expressed the need for a ‘culture
change’ (Bell and Morse 2008: 155–156) and a comparative consciousness (Nader 1993) in
which one’s culture is more inclusive and tolerant of other viewpoints, recognizing that
variety of worldviews functions as a basis of sustainability (de Vries and Petersen 2009).
Instead of reaching one immutable ‘true’ definition of SD, the conceptualization of SD
should aim at collaborative worldviews construction—emphasizing shared goals rather
than differences—to co-evolve towards a potentially universal paradigm ‘in progress’ that
may be robust under the variety of available worldviews and epistemologies. A paradigm
shift—that actively avoids historical obstacles (like cultural hegemony)—and methodo-
logical frameworks for reconciling different perspectives and epistemologies are urgently
needed for future SD, as successful joint endeavours. By ensuring equal dialogue between
different perspectives, SD can evolve towards a more globally accepted and conflict-
reducing concept that is grounded on the values and beliefs of all people who have to bring
it into effect.
We identified the following needs of such a renewed knowledge for SD paradigm: re-
interpretation of SD as a worldviews construct in progress towards shared worldview
transformation; interpretative flexibility; co-production of knowledge as shared learning
and collaborative action; subjectivity awareness and self-reflexivity; respect for a diversity
of worldviews and epistemologies; identifying shared goals; collaborative research; a
systems approach; transdisciplinarity; and recognition of contextuality.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Human Ecology Department (Vrije Universiteit
Brussel, Brussels, Belgium) for partial financial and other kinds of support. We would also like to thank
three anonymous reviewers for their critical comments and constructive advices that helped us in shaping a
revised and improved paper.
References
Achterhuis, H. (1994). The lie of sustainability. In W. Zweers, & J. J. Boersema (Eds.), Ecology, technology
and culture. Essays in environmental philosophy (pp. 198–203). Cambridge: The White Horse Press.
Aerts, D., Apostel, L., De Moor, B., Hellemans, S., Maex, E., Van Belle, H., et al. (1994). World views.
From fragmentation to integration. Brussels: VUB Press.
Apostel, L. (2002). Wereldbeelden en ethische stelsels. Brussels: Vubpress. (In Dutch).
Apostel, L., & Vanlandschoot, J. (1988). Interdisciplinariteit, wereldbeeldenconstructie en diepe verspre-
iding als tegenzetten in een kultuurcrisis. Brussels: Centrum Leo Apostel (CLEA), Vrije Universiteit
Brussel. (In Dutch).
123
Arts, B., & Buizer, M. (2009). Forests, discourses, institutions. A discursive-institutional analysis of global
forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 340–347.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of
nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143–180.
Banerjee, S. B. (2004). Masking subversion: Neocolonial embeddedness in anthropological accounts of
indigenous management. Human Relations, 57(2), 221–247.
Barthes, R. (1973). Le plaisir du texte. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (In French).
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability indicators—measuring the immeasurable (2nd ed.). London:
Earthscan.
Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Phila-
delphia: Taylor and Francis.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1995). Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and
sustainability. In C. A. Perrings, et al. (Eds.), Biodiversity Conservation (pp. 281–299). The Nether-
lands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Blanchard, A., & Vanderlinden, J. P. (2010). Dissipating the fuzziness around interdisciplinarity: The case
of climate change research. Sapiens, 3, 65–70.
Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (1998). Debating diversity. Analysing the discourse of tolerance. London:
Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1981). Le sens pratique. Paris: Ed.Minuit.
Boutilier, R. G. (2005). Views of sustainable development. A typology of stakeholders conflicting per-
spectives. In M. Starik, Sharma, S. Egri, C., & R. Bunch (Eds.), New horizons in research in sus-
tainable organizations: Emerging ideas, approaches, and tools for practitioners and researchers.
Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. (downloadable from http://ssrn.com/author=331926).
Burgman, M., Carr, A., Godden, L., Gregory, R., McBride, M., Flander, L., et al. (2011). Redefining
expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conservation Letters, 4, 81–87.
Buruma, I., & Margalit, A. (2004). Occidentalism: A short history of anti-Westernism. London: Atlantic
Books.
Campbell, D. T. (1973). Quasi-experimental research. New York: Rand McNally.
Chambers, R. (1980). Understanding professionals: small farmers and scientists. IADS Occasional Paper,
International Agriculture Development Service, New York.
Danek, P., Navratilova, A., Hildebrandova, M., & Stojanov, J. (2008). Approaching the other: The four
projects of western domination. Olomouc: Palacky University press.
de Vries, B. J. M., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable development: An assessment
methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecological Economics, 68,
1006–1019.
Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E. (2007). Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement.
Ecological Economics, 61(4), 617–626.
Dilthey, W. (1977). Gesammelte Schriften VIII, Weltanschauungslehre. Göttingen: B.G. Taubner Stuttgart,
Vandenhecke en Ruppucht. (In German).
Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. New York: Pantheon Books.
Dresner, S. (2002). The principles of sustainability. London: Earthscan.
Dryzek, J. S. (2005). Politics of the earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4),
481–493.
DuPisani, J. (2006). Sustainable development—historical roots of the concept. Journal of Integrative
Environmental Sciences, 3, 83–96.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development. The making and unmaking of the third World. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fischer, A., & Young, J. C. (2007). Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for
biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation, 136, 271–282.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R.
Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability. New York:
Colombia University Press.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal
science. In S. Krimsky, & D. Golden (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–273). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., & O’Connor, M. (1998). Challenges in the use of science for sustainable
development. International Journal for Sustainable Development, 1, 99–107.
123
Geertz, C. (1994). The use of diversity. In R. Borofsky (Ed.), Assessing cultural anthropology (pp.
454–467). New York: McGrawhill.
Gibbons, M., Limogenes, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary science. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Gill, J. H. (2002). Native American worldviews: An introduction. New York: Humanity Press.
Graham, T. C. (2002). Using reason for living to connect American Indian healing traditions. Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, XXIX(1), 55–75.
Grist, N. (2008). Positioning climate change in sustainable development discourse. Journal of International
Development, 20, 783–803.
Gross, L. W. (2003). Cultural sovereignty and Native American hermeneutics in the interpretation of the
sacred stories of the Anishinaabe. Wicazo Sa Review, 18(3), 127–134.
Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements,
challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7, 175–184.
Hart, M. A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of an indigenous
research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1), 1–16.
Haverkort, B., & Reijntjes, C. (Eds.). (2007). Moving worldviews. Reshaping sciences, policies and prac-
tices for endogenous sustainable development. Leusden: ETC./Compas, Compas series on Worlviews
and sciences 4.
Haverkort, B., & Rist, S. (2007). Endogenous development and bio-cultural diversity. The interplay of
worldviews, globalization and locality. Leusden: Compas/CDE.
Hawley, A. W. L., Sherry, E. E., & Johnson, C. J. (2004). A biologists’ perspective on amalgamating
traditional environmental knowledge and resource management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and
Management, 5(1), 36–50.
Heylighen, F. (2000). World View. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Principia Cybernetica Web.
http://pcp.lanl.gov/WORLVIEW.html. Accessed February 27, 2012.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches.
Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52.
Hulme, D., & Toye, J. (2006). The case for cross-disciplinary social science research on poverty, inequality
and well-being. Journal of Development Studies, 42, 1085–1107.
ICS - International Council for Science. (2002). Science and traditional knowledge. ISCU.
IPCC. (2007). In R. K. Pachauri, & A. Reisinger (Eds.), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Contribution of
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Core Writing Team IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.
Jepson, E. J., Jr. (2004). Human nature and sustainable development: A strategic challenge for planners.
Journal of Planning Literature, 19(1), 3–15. doi:10.1177/0885412204264529.
Kayikawa, Y., Ohno, J., Takeda, Y., Matsushima, K., & Komiyama, H. (2007). Creating an academic
landscape of sustainability science: An analysis of the citation network. Sustainability Science, 2,
221–231.
Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2007). Sustainable development: how to manage something that is subjective and
never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 3, 5–14.
Laes, E., & Maes, F. (2008). Sustainability assessment: concepts and methodology. SEPIA Deliverable 1.1a.
Research Programme ‘Science for a Sustainable Development’. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy.
Lafferty, W. M., & Meadowcroft, J. (2000). Implementing sustainable development. Strategies and initia-
tives in high consumption societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged worldview collide. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and
vision (pp. 77–89). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press.
Lynam, A. (2012). Navigating a geography of sustainability worldviews: A developmental map. Journal of
Sustainability Education, 3.
Maffi, L. (2006). Bio-cultural diversity for endogenous development: Lessons from research and on-the-
ground experience. In Paper presented at the international conference on endogenous development
and bio-cultural diversity, October 3–5, 2006, Geneva, Switzerland. www.bioculturaldiversity.net/
papers.htm (last retrieved 9-6-2012).
Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: Science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice and policy, 2, 36–41.
McEwen, C. A., & Schmidt, J. D. (2007). Leadership and the corporate sustainability challenge: Mindsets in
action. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1118071.
McKenzie, B., & Morrissette, V. (2003). Social work practice with Canadians of aboriginal background:
Guidelines for respectful social work. In A. Al-Krenawi & J. R. Grahams (Eds.), Multicultural social
work in Canada: Working with diverse ethno-racial communities (pp. 251–282). Don Mills, Ontario,
Canada: Oxford University Press.
123
Meadows, D. H. (1998). Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. Hartland Four
Corners, VT: Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.
Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories, global designs. Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border
thinking. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Molenaar, H. (2007). Communicating worldviews: articulating global and local knowledge. In B. Haverkort,
& C. Reijntjes (Eds.), Moving worldviews. Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous
sustainable development (pp. 117–135). Leusden: ETC./Compas, Compas series on Worlviews and
sciences 4.
Müller, A. (2003). A flower in full blossom? Ecological economics at the crossroads between normal and
post-normal science. Ecological Economics, 45, 19–27.
Nader, L. (1993). Comparative consciousness. In R. Borofsky (Ed.), Assessing cultural anthropology. New
York: MacGrawhill.
Nakashima, D., & Roué, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge, peoples and sustainable practice. In T. Munn
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of global environmental change. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Naugle, D. K. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
NUFFIC (IK-Unit) and MOST. (1999). Best practices using indigenous knowledge. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/most/Bpindi.htm.
NUFFIC (IK-Unit) and MOST. (2002). Best practices using indigenous knowledge. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/most/Bpikpub2.pdf.
Nurse, K. (2006). Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. London: Commonwealth
Secretariat.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, impli-
cations and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 19–27.
O’Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M., & Fiske, J. (2006). Key concepts in commu-
nication and cultural studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Obermeier, K. K. (1986). Human rights: An international linguistic hyperbole. In N. Schweda-Nicholson
(Ed.), Languages in the international perspective (pp. 105–114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Olsen, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically. San Francisco:
Westview Press.
Peat, F. D. (2002). From certainty to uncertainty. The story of science and ideas in the twentieth century.
Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Pepper, S. C. (1966). World hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pinxten, R. (2007). Contemporary comparative cultural studies: Theory, contexts and trends. In E. K. Boon
& L. Hens (Eds.), Indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable development: Relevance for Africa
(pp. 93–99). Delhi: Kamla-Raj Enterprises.
Prigonine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York:
Bantam Books.
Quental, N., Lourenço, J. M., & da Silva, F. N. (2011). Sustainable development policy: Goals, targets and
political cycles. Sustainable Development, 19, 15–29.
Ravetz, J. (1999). Post-normal science—an insight now maturing. Futures, 31, 641–646.
Redclift, M. (1992). The meaning of sustainable development. Geoforum, 23(3), 395–403.
Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable
Development, 13(4), 212–227.
Rice, B. (2005). Seeing the world with aboriginal eyes: A four dimensional perspective on human and non-
human values, cultures and relationships on Turtle Iland. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Aboriginal
Issues Press.
Rist, S., & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2006). Ethnosciences—a step towards the integration of scientific and
indigenous forms of knowledge in the management of natural resources for the future. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 8, 467–493.
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological
Economics, 48, 369–384.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Sabau, G. L. (2010). Know, live and let live: Towards a redefinition of the knowledge-based economy—
sustainable development nexus. Ecological Economics, 69, 1193–1201.
Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. London: Chatto and Windus.
Said, E. (1995). Orientalism (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Schlitz, M. M., Vieten, C., & Miller, E. M. (2010). Worldview transformation and the development of social
consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(7–8), 18–36.
123
Scholz, R. W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., & Welti, M. (Eds.). (2000). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving
among science, technology and society. Zürich: Haffmanns Verlag.
Selin, H. (1977). Encyclopedia of the history of science, technology and medicine in nonwestern cultures.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.
Senge, P., Ross, R., Roberts, C., Smith, B., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies
and tools for building a learning organization. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Simpson, L. (2000). Anishinaabe ways of knowing. In J. Oakes, R. Ries, S. Koolage, L. Simpson, & N.
Schuster (Eds.), Aboriginal health, identity and resources (pp. 165–185). Winnipeg, Manitoba, Can-
ada: Native Studies Press.
Smith, J. (2009). Science and technology for development. London: Zed Books.
Sneddon, C., Howarth, R., & Norgaard, R. (2006). Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world.
Ecological Economics, 57, 253–268.
Stern, N. (2006). Stern review on the economics of climate change (pre-publication edition). Executive
summary. London: HM Treasury.
Sumner, A., & Tribe, M. (2008). Development studies and cross-disciplinarity: Research at the social
science–physical science interface. Journal of International Development, 20(6), 751–767.
TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity—mainstreaming the economics of nature: a
synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Turnbull, D. (1997). Knowledge systems: Local knowledge. In H. Selin (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of the history
of science, technology and medicine in Non-Western Cultures (pp. 485–490). Dordrecht/Boston/
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
UN (United Nations). (1993). Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. New York:
United Nations Department of Public Information.
UNESCO. (2002). UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity. France: UNESCO.
Van der Ploeg, J. (1993). Potatoes and knowledge. In M. Hobart (Ed.), An anthropological critique of
development (pp. 209–227). London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Egmond, N. D., & de Vries, H. J. M. (2011). Sustainability: The search for the integral worldview.
Futures, 43, 853–867.
Van Herzele, A. (2006). A forest for each city and town: Story lines in the policy debate for urban forests in
Flanders. Urban Studies, 43, 673–696.
Vertovec, S. (2006). The emergence of super-diversity in Britain. Oxford: Centre for Migration, Policy and
Society, working paper nr. 25, University of Oxford.
Vidal, C. (2007). An enduring philosophical agenda. Worldview construction as a philosophical method.
Working paper. Brussels: Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Group (ECCO), Vrije Universiteit
Brussel.
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A., & Wright, T. (2011). Sustainable development: A bird’s eye view.
Sustainability, 3, 737–761.
Walker, P. (2004). Decolonizing conflict resolution. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3 & 4), 527–549.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Published as Annex to the General Assembly Document A/42/427, United Nations.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, J. (2001). Discourse theory and practice. A reader. London: Sage.
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.
123

Knowledge For Sustainable Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge For Sustainable Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environ Dev Sustain (2013) 15:687–709

Knowledge for sustainable development: a worldviews

Maarten Van Opstal • Jean Hugé

Abstract A huge tension exists between recognizing sustainable development (SD) as a

M. Van Opstal (&)

M. Van Opstal J. Hugé

SD as a joint endeavour is necessary to overcome historical obstacles like cultural hege-

Keywords Sustainable development Worldviews Knowledge Participation

3 History and milestones of the political emergence of SD

4 Worldviews as constitutive elements of sustainable development

Box 1 Indigenous worldviews

understanding of the issues involved is a barrier to effective participation. Fischer and

5 Variety of worldviews: hierarchy of knowledge or the potential of working

A major challenge for the re-interpretation of SD—as a universally workable paradigm,

Linear notion of time , Nonlinear time perception (often cyclic or

6 Impacts on knowledge creation and science: the knowledge impasse

explicit pluralization of knowledge for SD. This epistemological dimension of variety of

8 Recommendations and challenges for knowledge-based SD from a worldviews

8.1 Worldview construction as worldviews transformation

8.2 Participation as collaboration

recognition of contextuality is a key element in achieving transdisciplinary knowledge for

You might also like