Search

The severity of the two deeply correlated crises, the environmental and the economic ones, needs to be faced also in theoretical terms; thus, the authors propose a model yielding a global “stationary state”, following the idea of a “steady-state economics” by Georgescu-Rogen and Herman Daly, by constructing only one dynamical system of ecological and economic coupled variables. This is possible resorting to the generalized Volterra model, that, translated in the Hamiltonian formalism and its Hamilton equations, makes possible to “conjugate” every pair of variables, one economic, the other one ecological, in describing the behavior in time of a unique dynamical system. Applying the model to two of the most relevant ecological-economic pairs of variables leads to a suggestive geometry in the “phase space” of the model: the trajectories are curves wrapping a “donut”, their set is the “stationary state” we were looking for. Those trajectories are “quasi-periodic motions”, characterized by two frequencies, for whose values a good estimate is provided in the “small oscillations” approximation. A more general, but more abstract, “stationary state” is defined by virtue of the stability of the solutions of the Hamilton equations, just in this article recognized. The global character of the model is assured when world data of variables are used. A very interesting feature of the model is that the path to a scenario of sustainability is given in terms analogous to the Newtonian Dynamics.

Over recent decades, education policy has been preoccupied with economic growth while paying insufficient heed to global sustainability challenges. International initiatives to promote education for sustainable development (ESD) have been hampered by a lack of clarity on how to implement this form of education. To address this concern, a Rounder Sense of Purpose (RSP) began as a three-year EU-funded project that set out to develop a practical accreditation model for educators working on ESD. Expert and user opinion was sought through several rounds of structured consultation with over 500 people, chiefly using a Delphi approach, to develop and validate the model. The resulting framework comprises 12 competences, each with three learning outcomes and several underpinning components. This is supported by a range of activities largely reflecting a constructivist pedagogy. A range of assessment techniques have also been piloted within the project although this remains an area for further enquiry. Ultimately, it was decided not to design a single qualification template because defining the award to such a level of detail would make it more difficult to apply across multiple jurisdictions. Partners also felt that such an approach would atomize learning in a way that runs counter to the holistic principles of sustainability. RSP provided a rich learning experience for those involved and has already demonstrated its potential to extend its impact well beyond the original participants.

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.

The present paper proposes and describes a new method, called L2A (listen-to-apprise), conceived of in order to improve the commitment of all the participants involved in an educational process specifically dedicated to sustainability and the green economy. The first stage consists in listening to the students and, when possible, in listening to the environment, the people, and the territory, while, in the second stage, the acquired information is used to exploit everyone's talents and to achieve the maximum advantage and satisfaction for all. The first phase of L2A is mainly dedicated to listening to the students via the submission of an on-line questionnaire that measures their learning preferences, self-efficacy and sensitivity to the themes of sustainability and the green economy. The investigation has been extended from Italy to Honduras, where the authors are involved in the development of major projects concerning sustainability. The results of the survey have been analyzed by means of standard significance and correlation analysis, and therefore, significant differences among the groups and correlations within each group have been detected. The results have been discussed in order to explain how the L2A method works and how useful and powerful a tool it could be to improve teaching, learning and practical activities. © 2014 by the authors.

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

Purpose: In the context of progress of sustainability science, life cycle thinking and, in particular, life cycle sustainability assessment may play a crucial role. Environmental, economic and social implications of the whole supply chain of products, both goods and services, their use and waste management, i.e. their entire life cycle from "cradle to grave" have to be considered to achieve more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Progress toward sustainability requires enhancing the methodologies for integrated assessment and mainstreaming of life cycle thinking from product development to strategic policy support. Life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC) and social LCA (sLCA) already attempt to cover sustainability pillars, notwithstanding different levels of methodological development. An increasing concern on how to deal with the complexity of sustainability has promoted the development of life cycle sustainability frameworks. As a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate after the Rio+20 conference, this paper aims to present and discuss the state of the art of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), giving recommendations for its further development in line with ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects of sustainability science. Methods: Building on the review about the state of the art of sustainability science and sustainability assessment methods presented in part I, this paper discuss LCA, LCC, sLCA and LCSA against ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects of ongoing scientific debate on sustainability. Strengths and weaknesses of existing life cycle-based methodologies and methods are presented. Besides, existing frameworks for LCSA are evaluated against the criteria defined in part I in order to highlight coherence with sustainability science progress and to support better integration and mainstreaming of sustainability concepts. Conclusions and outlook: LCSA represents a promising approach for developing a transparent, robust and comprehensive assessment. Nevertheless, the ongoing developments should be in line with the most advanced scientific discussion on sustainability science, attempting to bridge the gaps between the current methods and methodologies for sustainability assessment. LCSA should develop so as to be hierarchically different from LCA, LCC and sLCA. It should represent the holistic approach which integrates (and not substitutes) the reductionist approach of the single part of the analysis. This implies maintaining the balance between analytical and descriptive approaches towards a goal and solution-oriented decision support methodology. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Sustainability science is being developed in constructive tension between a descriptive–analytical and a transformational mode. The first is concerned with analyzing problems in coupled human–environment systems, whereas the second conducts research on practical solutions to those problems. Transformational sustainability research is confronted with the challenges of generating actionable knowledge, incorporating knowledge from outside academia, and dealing with different values and political interests. This study approaches the theory and promise of sustainability science through a comparative appraisal of five empirical sustainability science projects. We exemplarily appraise in how far sustainability science succeeds and fails in yielding solution options for sustainability problems based on an evaluative framework (that accounts for the particularities of sustainability science). The selected sustainability projects cover a range of topics (water, bioenergy, land use, solar energy, urban development), regions (from coastal to mountainous, from rural to urban areas, in several countries in Africa, Europe, and South and North America), spatial levels (from village to country levels), and research approaches. The comparative results indicate accomplishments regarding problem focus and basic transformational research methodology, but also highlight deficits regarding stakeholder participation, actionable results, and larger impacts. We conclude with suggestions on how to fully realize the potential of sustainability science as a solution-oriented endeavor, including advanced collaborative research settings, advances in transformational research methodologies, cross-case generalization, as well as reducing institutional barriers.

Within the last decade there have been significant discussions and initiatives on use of biofuels as alternatives to fossil fuels. Primarily, the interest in biofuels as alternative fuels has been prompted by their perceived ease of availability and increasing world oil prices. In Africa biofuel programmes have been seen to have the added advantage of catalyzing rural development. Brazil has frequently been cited as an example of what a biofuel programme can add to the development of struggling and infant economies in Africa. At the same time, a cautious approach for the implementation of biofuel programmes in Africa has been advocated by a number of civil societies and international organizations. Countries have been warned of the existence of risks that come hand in hand with the perceived benefits of biofuel programmes. Such concerns have spurred governments and institutions in Africa and elsewhere to come up with biofuel strategies for ensuring implementable and sustainable biofuel programmes. This chapter discusses some of the major social impacts of implementation of biofuel programmes in Africa, and makes recommendations on issues that need to be addressed for biofuel programmes to be sustainable in Africa.

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.

Purpose: Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definition of a common scientific paradigm in which integration and interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to sustainability assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for sustainability assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive sustainability assessment. Methods: The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on sustainability assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those life cycle based, supports the discussion on the main challenges for a comprehensive and robust approach to sustainability assessment. Starting from the results of the meta-review, we identified specific features of sustainable development-oriented methods: firstly, highlighting key issues towards robust methods for SS and, secondly, capitalising on the findings of each review's paper. For each issue, a recommendation towards a robust sustainability assessment method is given. Existing limitations of sectorial academic inquiries and proposal for better integration and mainstreaming of SS are the key points under discussion. Discussion: In the reviewed papers, LCT and its basic principles are acknowledged as relevant for sustainability assessment. Nevertheless, LCT is not considered as a reference approach in which other methods could also find a place. This aspect has to be further explored, addressing the lack of multi-disciplinary exchange and putting the mainstreaming of LCT as a priority on the agenda of both life cycle assessment and sustainability assessment experts. Crucial issues for further developing sustainability assessment methodologies and methods have been identified and can be summarised as follows: holistic and system wide approaches, shift from multi- towards trans-disciplinarity; multi-scale (temporal and geographical) perspectives; and better involvement and participation of stakeholders. Conclusions: Those are also the main challenges posed to LCSA in terms of progress of ontology, epistemology and methodology in line with the progress of SS. The life cycle-based methodologies should be broadened from comparing alternatives and avoiding negative impacts, to also proactively enhancing positive impacts, and towards the achievement of sustainability goals. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.