Search

The current intensification of efforts to develop post-carbon solutions to the global food/energy security problems is developing a highly contested policy/technology/production/consumption arena. The paper examines how current attempts to resolve these new productivist priorities are embedded in combinations of sustainability, security, sovereignty and resource governance concerns. These concerns are coming together with the new contested framings of the bio-economy and the eco-economy. The framings hold different implications for social and spatial development. The paper argues that it is important to apply and connect a critical ‘post normal’ sustainability science approach to developing the place-making properties of the eco-economy model, as well as examining the implications of the wider and more dominant bio-economic framing. The analysis shows that to achieve synergies between sustainability, security, sovereignty and effective resource governance, a more place-based eco-economic model needs to be progressed.

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

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

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