Sustainability Science

4/28/2014 Sustainability Science - Geography - Oxford Bibliographies -

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199874002/obo-9780199874002-0100.xml?result=66&rskey=BJynmX&print 1/17

Sustainability Science

Eric Clark

Introduction

Thought concerned with sustaining what we in the early 21st century call societal metabolism andlife-support systems can be traced back through millennia. Human-environment relations have long been researched in thesynthetic disciplines of geography, cultural and human ecology, environmental anthropology, and more recently in politicalecology and ecological economics. The new field of sustainability science emerges in part from these antecedents but alsofrom the rise of theory on complex adaptive systems, global environmental change, and coevolution of coupled social-ecological systems, and more broadly from social movements, policy agendas, and political debates on environmentalproblems, pushing sustainability issues to front stage. Geographers have been highly influential in the emergence ofsustainability science, perhaps most notably William Clark, Robert Kates, Tim O’Riordan, and Billie Turner II. Sustainability isabout keeping the future navigable for coming generations. Human-induced environmental problems such as degradation ofland, air, water, and biodiversity threaten to reduce the scope of navigable pathways toward a sustainable future.Sustainability science aims not only to understand the dynamics of social-ecological systems and to bridge natural, social,and cultural sciences but also to forge bridges between science and society and between knowledge and action. Problem-driven, practice-oriented, and contextually sensitive, sustainability science involves linking critical research approaches withproblem-solving approaches, ideally appreciative of various perspectives including local/traditional knowledge for framingproblems, and for design, implementation, and evaluation of solutions. Some critical research into power relations andenvironmental politics argues that predominant sustainability discourse is more conducive to sustaining neoliberal ideology,neocolonial practices, and the hegemony of finance capital than to sustaining metabolic support systems and livelihoods ofthe poor, as hierarchies of knowledge play out beyond academia, the physical sciences and mainstream economicsmarginalizing political, social, and cultural issues and perspectives. The widely echoed calls in sustainability science formoving beyond multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research to transdisciplinary research—and for developing andpracticing critical, deliberative, participatory, and problem-solving methodologies—indicate major challenges and signpostsfor sustainability science, revealing its key characteristic as “post-normal science.” This bibliography intersects with those onthe Oxford Bibliographies articles Cultural Ecology and Human Ecology, Political Ecology, and Development Theory.

General Overviews

Newly emergent, sustainability science has as yet only one concise and comprehensive overview in de Vries 2013, a usefultextbook for advanced undergraduate and graduate-level courses. Another useful textbook for advanced undergraduate andgraduate-level courses is Castree, et al. 2009, with overviews of core concepts, methodologies, and contrastingperspectives. For substantive overviews of sustainability science at work on a global scale, Steffen, et al. 2004 and theedited volume Costanza, et al. 2007 provide penetrating historical analyses of earth system and socio-ecological dynamics.Scoones 1999 summarizes new approaches to ecology in the social sciences that build upon a non-equilibriumunderstanding of socio-ecological systems. Worldwatch Institute 2013 provides a wide-ranging and accessible overview,useful for undergraduate courses and seminar readings to spur discussion. Torsten Hägerstrand was one of the mostformative geographers of the 20th century, a holistic synthesizer who struggled to unify science and geography as theydisintegrated into narrow disciplines and sub-disciplines. Hägerstrand 2009 is an effort to develop a framework forcontextually grasping ecological processes.



Castree, Noel, David Demeritt, Diana Liverman, and Bruce Rhoads, eds. A Companion to Environmental Geography.

Chichester, UK: Blackwell, 2009.

Thirty-three chapters by authoritative researchers outline key concepts, approaches, practices, and core topics of

environmental geography, highlighting critical analyses of sustainability, sustainable development, and sustainability

science.

Costanza, Robert, Lisa J. Graumlich, and Will Steffen, eds. Sustainability or Collapse? As Integrated History and Future

of People on Earth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.

Provides historical analyses integrating socio-environmental interactions at millennial, centennial, and decadal timescales

and future scenarios of human-environment systems.

de Vries, Bert. Sustainability Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

The most comprehensive overview of sustainability science to date, primarily from a system dynamics approach, de Vries

provides a historical overview and chapters covering themes such as energy, population, and human behavior, agro-food

systems, and renewable and non-renewable resources, with many useful maps, diagrams, tables, boxes, and an extensive

glossary.

Hägerstrand, Torsten. Tillvaroväven. Edited by Kajsa Ellegård and Uno Svedin. Stockholm: Formas, 2009.

In this posthumously published book, Hägerstrand develops a conceptual framework for deepening understanding of

ecological processes in the “all-ekologi” of living beings and non-living material. Building on time-geography, Hägerstrand

expounds on basic concepts and core hypotheses providing guidance for sustainability. Translation to English is

forthcoming.

Scoones, Ian. “New Ecology and the Social Sciences: What Prospects for a Fruitful Engagement?” Annual Review of

Anthropology 28 (1999): 479–507.

Briefly outlines articulations of a new ecology in environmental anthropology, political ecology, ecological economics, and

nature-culture debates. Three approaches transcending dominant equilibrial conceptions are reviewed: historical analyses

of spatial and temporal dynamics;; structuration analyses emphasizing dialectical relations between structures, agents,

institutions and scale;; and analyses of social-ecological complexity and uncertainty.

Steffen, Will, Angelina Sanderson, Peter D. Tyson, et al. Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under

Pressure. Berlin: Springer, 2004.

Comprehensively reviews earth-system dynamics in a non-human dominated world, how human activities are changing

earth-system dynamics into a modified earth-system dynamics, the consequences this has for human well-being and earth-

system stability, and the move toward earth-system science and global sustainability.

Worldwatch Institute. State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? Washington, DC: Island Press, 2013.

Contains thirty-four chapters written by leading scholars on a wide array of themes, including fisheries, energy, cultures,

corporations, agriculture, indigenous peoples, political strategies, governance, resistance, geo-engineering, climate change,

and resilience.



Bibliographies

Kates 2010 is currently the only comprehensive annotated bibliography on sustainability science. Also included here is a

useful bibliography available at the Resilience Alliance website, more extensive in number of citations, but not annotated

and primarily focused on resilience literature.

Kates, Robert W., ed. Readings in Sustainability Science and Technology. CID Working Paper No. 213. Cambridge, MA:

Center for International Development, Harvard University, 2010.

This is an annotated bibliography covering ninety-four articles and book chapters sorted under the three headings of

sustainable development, sustainability science and technology, and knowledge into action, with many thematic

subheadings.

Resilience Alliance: Bibliography.

Database containing selected publications of Resilience Alliance members and collaborators. Lists 1,232 records.

Journals

Many journals publish articles on sustainability. One recent bibliometric study reveals seventy-six journals with over one

hundred articles on sustainability. Those selected here are highly ranked and cited geography or interdisciplinary journals

that either specialize in or have special sections dedicated to sustainability science or core themes of sustainability science.

Geoforum and Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers are broad geographic journals with strong records of

publishing sustainability research. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, and Global Environmental Change:

Human and Policy Dimensions are interdisciplinary journals covering a wide range of research related to sustainability

science. Journals more specialized in sustainability science research include Ecological Economics, Sustainable

Development, Sustainability Science, and the regular section on sustainability science in Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 1976–.

This highly ranked journal publishes authoritative reviews of a wide range of topics pertaining to sustainability science.

Ecological Economics. 1989–.

The transdisciplinary journal of the International Society for Ecological Economics publishes research broadly aimed at

integrating ecology and economics, which is central to sustainability science.

Geoforum. 1970–.

This leading interdisciplinary journal maintains a broad focus on the organization of social, environmental, economic, and

political systems, including political ecology, environmental justice, and resources management, all themes in the core of

sustainability science.

Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions. 1991–.

This interdisciplinary journal publishes research across the field of global environmental change, and has been instrumental



in the emergence of sustainability science.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

This high-profile interdisciplinary journal launched a special section on sustainability science in 2006, having previously

published many articles on issues concerning sustainability science, collected in the sustainability science portal on the

journal website.

Sustainability Science. 2006–.

This relatively new transdisciplinary journal provides a platform for the emerging discipline, promoting especially problem

and policy-oriented research, with some emphasis on the needs of developing countries.

Sustainable Development. 1993–.

Interdisciplinary in scope, this journal covers dimensions of sustainability science from the philosophical to the practical.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 1935–.

A pillar of geographic research publications, this journal covers all aspects of geographic research, including sustainability

science.

Historical Antecedents

Historical antecedents to sustainability science include histories of thought on nature, culture and society, and empirical

investigations into human impact on environments. Glacken 1967 is a history of Western thought on nature and culture that

spans twenty-three centuries, ultimately showing that while “the association of the idea of progress with the environmental

limitations of the earth” (p. 654) did arise during the Enlightenment, concern over anthropogenic environmental change

developed later. Worster 1994 continues where Glacken ends, tracing the rise of the “age of ecology,” while Hay 2002

provides a comprehensive overview of main currents in Western environmental thought during the period when

sustainability rose to prominence and from which sustainability science emerges. Empirical studies on human-induced

environmental change have had great impact on environmental thought, underlying the notion of the anthropocene and the

emergence of sustainability science. Three landmark studies are included here: Marsh 2003, Thomas 1956, and Turner, et

al. 1990.

Glacken, Clarence J. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to theEnd of the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.

This magisterial treatise examines Western thought on relations between nature and culture from the 5th century BC to the

18th-century Enlightenment, showing that the idea that a deteriorating environment resulting from “long human settlement,

might offer hard choices in the future” (p. 654) arose only after the Enlightenment.

Hay, Peter. Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2002.

Hay outlines the histories of strands of Western environmental thought, especially as these evolved in the late 20th century,

including ecofeminism, spiritual movements, conservative traditions, environmental liberalism and socialist traditions,

elements of which sustainability science draws upon.



Marsh, George Perkins. Man and Nature. Edited by David Lowenthal. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003.

This extraordinarily erudite work has become a classic text on conservation. Marsh analyzed human impacts on flora and

fauna, forests, waters, sands and landscapes, challenging the idea of an inexhaustible world and warning modern society

against reenacting the ruinous history of ancient civilizations. First edition published 1864.

Thomas, William L., Jr., ed. Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth: An International Symposium under the Co-chairmanship of Carl O. Sauer, Marston Bates, Lewis Mumford. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Over 1,200 pages in total, the three parts of this tome—“retrospect,” “process,” and “prospect”—document a landmark

symposium held at Princeton in 1955, considered the world’s first interdisciplinary conference on environmental issues of

human origin. Some tensions evident in this meeting continue to color debate over half a century later.

Turner, B. L., II, William C. Clark, Robert W. Kates, et al., eds. The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global andRegional Changes in the Biosphere in the Past 300 Years. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Successor to Marsh 2003 and Thomas 1956, this third global stocktaking presents proceedings of a 1987 conference at

Clark University, on the themes of changes in population and society, transformations of the global environment (land, water,

oceans and atmosphere, biota, chemicals, and radiation), regional studies of transformations, and understanding

transformations.

Worster, Donald. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. 2d ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press, 1994.

Worster traces the history of ecological thought from the 18th century through six episodes to the contemporary “age of

ecology,” giving historical depth to tensions and debates that have formed the meaning of ecology and subsequently

sustainability science. First edition published in 1977.

Emergence of Sustainability Science

Sustainability science has emerged as a new field of scientific endeavor. Kates, et al. 2001;; Clark and Dickson 2003;;

Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006;; and Clark 2007 are frequently cited promulgations that succinctly outline its character and

identify core questions directing its research activities. A more comprehensive effort to delineate the research core and

scope of sustainability science is found in Kajikawa 2008, while Miller 2013 identifies emerging perspectives and research

trajectories in the field. The emergence and evolution of sustainability science is reflected in bibliometric data analyzed in

Bettencourt and Kaur 2011, and in the formation of institutional collaborative networks analyzed in Yarime, et al. 2010.

Jerneck, et al. 2011 (cited under Transdisicplinarity) is also of relevance here for its proposed matrix for structuring


Bettencourt, Luis M. A., and Jasleen Kaur. “Evolution and Structure of Sustainability Science.” Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 108.49 (2011): 19540–19545.

Presents an empirical bibliometric analysis of collaboration network structures and the temporal and geographic evolution of


Clark, William C. “Sustainability Science: A Room of its Own.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104.6(2007): 1737–1738.



In this editorial, Clark positions emerging sustainability science as use-inspired basic research and presents motivations forlaunching the PNAS special section on sustainability science.

Clark, William C., and Nancy M. Dickson. “Sustainability Science: The Emerging Research Program.” Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences 100.14 (2003): 8059–8061.

An early programmatic text briefly summarizing the emergence of sustainability science, its scope and problem-orientation,and activities promoting its development. Illustrates how social change affects the environment and how environmentalchange affects society.

Kajikawa, Yuya. “Research Core and Framework of Sustainability Science.” Sustainability Science 3.2 (2008): 215–239.

Reviews research in the domains of climate, biodiversity, agriculture, fishery, forestry, energy and resources, water,economic development, health, and lifestyle. Proposes a research framework for sustainability science, emphasizing theimportance of problem–solution chain analysis.

Kates, Robert W., William C. Clark, Robert Corell, et al. “Sustainability Science.” Science 292.5517 (2001): 641–642.

Twenty-three leading sustainability researchers announce the new field of sustainability science, briefly presenting corequestions, research strategies and institutions to connect global and local issues, spanning the global North and South.

Komiyama, Hiroshi, and Kazuhiko Takeuchi. “Sustainability Science: Building a New Discipline.” Sustainability Science1.1 (2006): 1–6.

Presents the rationale for launching the journal Sustainability Science, emphasizing transdisciplinarity.

Miller, Thaddeus. “Constructing Sustainability Science: Emerging Perspectives and Research Trajectories.”

Sustainability Science 8.2 (2013): 279–293.

Based on interviews with leading researchers, Miller summarizes definitions of sustainability (universalist and procedural),research agendas (coupled systems and social change approaches), and how knowledge is linked to action (knowledge-first and process-oriented approaches).

Yarime, Masaru, Yoshiyuki Takeda, and Yuya Kajikawa. “Towards Institutional Analysis of Sustainability Science: A

Quantitative Examination of the Patterns of Research Collaboration.” Sustainability Science 5.1 (2010): 115–125.

Presents a cluster analysis of bibliometric data showing increasing international collaboration and differences betweencountries regarding thematic specialization in the emerging discipline of sustainability science.

Transdisicplinarity

Sustainability science is not alone in its efforts to bridge established disciplines with the aim to progressively integrateknowledge production. Experiences from related interdisciplines such as human ecology and ecological economics providevaluable lessons, as shown in the assessment by Kastenhofer, et al. 2011. Achieving transdisciplinarity poses considerablechallenges given the regimented institutional structures of higher education and research. Empirical analyses by Wiek 2007;;Lang, et al. 2012;; Gardner 2013;; and Mooney, et al. 2013 reveal some of these challenges to be disciplinary status and



knowledge hierarchies, paradigmatic assumptions, insufficient problem framing, conflicting methodological standards,

discontinuous participation, and fear to fail. Principles, frameworks, and practices to guide the boundary work of effectively

achieving transdisciplinarity are proposed in Wiek 2007;; Ness, et al. 2010;; Jerneck, et al. 2011;; and Lang, et al. 2012. Turner

and Robbins 2008 features exemplary cross-disciplinary dialogue upon which movement toward transdisciplinarity

depends. Mooney, et al. 2013 shows how such progress has been made in the case of developing global change research

programs, including a timeline from 1979 to 2012.

Gardner, Susan K. “Paradigmatic Differences, Power, and Status: A Qualitative Investigation of Faculty in OneInterdisciplinary Research Collaboration on Sustainability Science.” Sustainability Science 8.2 (2013): 241–252.

Based on interviews with collaborators in an interdisciplinary research project, Gardner identifies issues that arose

concerning disciplinary status, hierarchy between soft and hard sciences, paradigmatic assumptions, and interest to cross-

disciplinary boundaries.

Jerneck, Anne, Lennart Olsson, Barry Ness, et al. “Structuring Sustainability Science.” Sustainability Science 6.1(2011): 69–82.

Forwards a three-dimensional matrix for structuring sustainability science, in which sustainability challenges are addressed

through integrating problem-solving and critical approaches with three core themes: scientific understandings of social-

ecological systems, sustainability goals, and sustainability pathways, strategies, and implementation;; and outlines a path

from multidisciplinarity over interdisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity.

Kastenhofer, Karen, Ulrike Bechtold, and Harald Wilfing. “Sustaining Sustainability Science: The Role of EstablishedInter-disciplines.” Ecological Economics 70.4 (2011): 835–843.

Assesses the role of established interdisciplines such as ecological economics, human ecology, and science and

technology studies within a comprehensive sustainability science agenda. Conclusions emphasize lack of cross-reference

between the interdisciplines and reluctance to apply participatory methods and to propose specific recommendations.

Lang, Daniel J., Arnim Wiek, Matthias Bergmann, et al. “Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science: Practice,Principles, and Challenges.” Sustainability Science 7.1 (2012): 25–43.

Provides an overview of design principles for transdisciplinary research in sustainability science, and applies them in an

analysis of illustrative examples of challenges encountered in research projects around the world.

Mooney, Harald A., Anantha Duraiappah, and Anne Larigauderie. “Evolution of Natural and Social Science Interactionsin Global Change Research Programs.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.1 (2013): 3665–3672.

Reviewing the evolution of interactions between natural and social sciences in earth- system and sustainability science,

Mooney and coauthors argue that progress has been made in overcoming the impediments to integrative transdisciplinary

research with the emergence of unifying methodologies and conceptual frameworks and present a timeline of this

development.

Ness, Barry, Stefan Anderberg, and Lennart Olsson. “Structuring Problems in Sustainability Science: The Multi-levelDPSIR Framework.” Geoforum 41.3 (2010): 479–488.

Using the example of Baltic Sea eutrophication, the authors propose merging the Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response

(DPSIR) scheme with Hägerstrand’s system of nested domains, to structure problems of unsustainability by integrating

knowledge across disciplines and scales.



Turner, B. L., II, and Paul Robbins. “Land-Change Science and Political Ecology: Similarities, Differences, and

Implications for Sustainability Science.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33.1 (2008): 295–316.

The complementary approaches of land-change science and political ecology, both interdisciplinary and sharing concern forinterrelated human-environment systems, meet here. This is an effort by two leading scholars to engage in cross-disciplinarydialogue, revealing points of divergence and convergence and identifying issues for further research.

Wiek, Arnim. “Challenges of Transdisciplinary Research as Interactive Knowledge Generation—Experiences from

Transdisciplinary Case Study Research.” GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 16.1 (2007): 52–57.

Provides an empirical analysis of challenges, pitfalls, and good practices in qualities of interactions in transdisciplinaryresearch, and proposes a form of mediated negotiation in the interface between scientists and local experts.

Sustainability

The concept of sustainability addresses issues of long-term societal metabolism and human-environment relations, keepingthe future navigable for future generations. Evidence of serious environmental problems abound. For good reasons,sustainability and sustainable development have engaged political and scientific awareness. At the same time, theirpopularity affords them being put to use as value-enhancing empty signifiers for advertising, corporate and city branding,spicing applications, and claiming moral high ground. Consequently, also for good reasons, sustainability and sustainabledevelopment have become highly contested concepts. This section selects publications focused on epistemologies ofsustainability and participation in sustainability. Kates, et al. 2005 provides an excellent introduction. They argue that theambiguities of sustainability and sustainable development are a sign of strength, allowing for creative tensions andopenness to different contexts. Other good entries into conceptualizing sustainability are found in de Vries 2013 (see underGeneral Overviews) and Norgaard 1994 (see under Coevolution). Norton 2005 offers a meticulous analysis ofepistemological issues surrounding sustainability based on the philosophy of pragmatism. Harvey 1996, Hornborg 2003,and Redclift 2005 deliver incisive critiques of cornucopian neoliberal assumptions underlying notions of sustainable growthand ecological modernization. (See also the chapter by Swyngedouw in Krueger and Gibbs 2007, cited under UrbanSustainability.) From different perspectives, Robinson 2004, Norton 2005, and Scheman 2012 engage in efforts toreformulate viable epistemologies for sustainability, emphasizing participation as key to sustainability. Relatedly, Clark andClark 2012 argues that participation in sustainability can be strengthened by understanding that evolution is participatory:we are as much sources as products of evolutionary change. See also entries under the section Sustainable Development inthe Oxford Bibliographies article Development Theory.

Clark, Thomas L., and Eric Clark. “Participation in Evolution and Sustainability.” Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 37.4 (2012): 563–577.

Critiques the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics as ahistorical and incomplete in neglecting the agency oforganisms. The authors argue that a more complete origin myth that recognizes our ancestors and ourselves as participantsin evolution would leverage sustainability efforts by animating responsibilities that come with our deft inventiveness.

Harvey, David. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996.

This influential work by a prominent dialectical Marxist critically engages with ecological movements, environmental issuesand sustainability, critiques capital accumulation through commodification of nature, and fundamentally problematizes thesustainability of capitalist societies.

Hornborg, Alf. “Cornucopia or Zero-Sum Game? The Epistemology of Sustainability.” Journal of World-Systems



Research 9.2 (2003): 205–216.

Hornborg scrutinizes the epistemological foundations of neoclassical economics (cornucopia) in which economic growth is

considered a prerequisite for sustainability and argues for the epistemology of world-system theory (zero-sum game), which

perceives growth as involving displacement of ecological problems to the global periphery.

Kates, Robert W., Thomas M. Parris, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz. “What is Sustainable Development? Goals,

Indicators, Values and Practice.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47.4 (2005): 8–21.

Presents antecedents to and definitions of sustainability, established goals, types of indicators, underlying values, and

practices of social movements and institutions.

Norton, Bryan G. Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 2005.

Provides an analysis of the epistemological issues underlying ecosystem management and the barriers to integrative

solutions and decision making. The book emphasizes the philosophy of pragmatism and its potential role in forming

environmental policy.

Redclift, Michael. “Sustainable Development (1987–2005): An Oxymoron Comes of Age.” Sustainable Development13.4 (2005): 212–227.

This critical examination of the liberal assumptions underlying the concept of sustainable development argues that the focus

on rights, rather than needs, serves neoliberal agendas, strengthened by a predominant focus on biology and natural

science.

Robinson, John. “Squaring the Circle? Some Thoughts on the Idea of Sustainable Development.” EcologicalEconomics 48.4 (2004): 369–384.

In response to three main critiques of the concept of sustainable development as being vague, attracting hypocrites, and

fostering delusions, Robinson advances an integrative and action-oriented understanding of sustainability that moves

beyond technical fixes, acknowledges the social construction of sustainability, and engages communities.

Scheman, Naomi. “Toward a Sustainable Epistemology.” Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture andPolicy 26.3–4 (2012): 471–489.

Emphasizing matters of concern, perspectives of those engaged in the work of care, and the importance of place, Scheman

argues for naturalizing normativity in support of practices of inquiry with commitment to attending to those in positions of

vulnerability.

Coevolution

Coevolution in biology denote reciprocal evolutionary influences between ecologically interacting species (see the Oxford

Bibliographies article Coevolution). In sustainability science, ecological economics and other inter-disciplines, coevolution is

invoked to refine theory on human-environment and social-ecological relations. Norgaard 1994 provides an excellent

overview of coevolutionary environmental history, elaborates a framework for explaining coevolution of environment and

culture, and advances “a coevolving cultural patchwork quilt” perspective based on democratizing knowledge and progress.

Gual and Norgaard 2010 and Kallis and Norgaard 2010 provide updated overviews, refine coevolutionary theory, and

sketch policy implications rooted in pragmatism (compare Norton 2005, cited under Sustainability). A related perspective on



coevolution from ecological economics is Gowdy 2007. Weisz 2011 develops a different perspective on society-nature

coevolution, integrating Niklas Luhmann’s theory of communication systems to re-specify Darwinian evolution for social

systems understood as communication systems: it also clarifies its theoretical implications for understanding cultural

evolution. Yet another approach to coevolution is Harvey 2010 with its political-economic analysis of crises in capitalist

societies. Not satisfied with understanding crises as inherent to capitalist coevolution, Harvey examines a co-revolutionary

potential to coevolve toward a sustainable social order. Insights into relations between biological and cultural diversity are

being integrated, centering on the concept of biocultural diversity, resonating with Norgaard’s coevolving patchwork quilt.

Maffi 2005 and Pretty, et al. 2009 provide valuable entries into this growing field of research, with far-reaching implications

for Governing Sustainability and Bridging Knowledge and Action.

Gowdy, John. “Avoiding Self-Organized Extinction: Toward a Coevolutionary Economics of Sustainability.”International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14.1 (2007): 27–36.

Gowdy forwards the notion of “generalized Darwinism” to analyze the cultural selection of unsustainable behavior and the

coevolution of individual behavior, culture and economic institutions.

Gual, Miguel A., and Richard B. Norgaard. “Bridging Ecological and Social Systems Coevolution: A Review and aProposal.” Ecological Economics 69.4 (2010): 707–717.

Reviews evolutionary and coevolutionary theory in biological and social sciences and proposes a common theoretical

framework, informed by tenets that emerge from the review, and structured by three modes of coevolution: coevolution

through systemic influence, coevolution through cultural selection forces, and forced coevolution through genetic

manipulation.

Harvey, David. The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. London: Profile, 2010.

Harvey develops a dialectical analysis of coevolution between activity spheres—technological and organizational forms,

social relations, relations to nature, production systems and labor processes, the reproduction of daily life, and mental

conceptions of the world—to explain recurring crises in capitalist societies.

Kallis, Giorgos, and Richard B. Norgaard. “Coevolutionary Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 69.4 (2010):690–699.

Summarizes coevolutionary mechanisms and epistemology, identifies themes consistently emerging from coevolutionary

research, and charts a research agenda addressing the key questions of hierarchical levels of coevolution, boundaries,

power and inequalities, and rates of change and crises, closing with reflections on how coevolutionary understanding can

guide policy.

Maffi, Luisa. “Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 34.1 (2005): 599–617.

The synchronous loss of linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity is considered in this review of research as interrelated

processes within a complex and coevolving socio-ecological adaptive system.

Norgaard, Richard B. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future.London: Routledge, 1994.

Starting with a critique of dominant beliefs and thought patterns concerning progress and development, Norgaard outlines

sustainability challenges, advances a coevolutionary understanding of environmental history, and elaborates a theory of

coevolutionary processes in which values, organization, knowledge, environment, and technology coevolve.



Pretty, Jules, Bill Adams, Fikret Berkes, et al. “The Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity:

Towards Integration.” Conservation and Society 7.2 (2009): 100–112.

Noting the growing number of subdisciplines researching connections between biological and cultural diversity, the authorsexplore four linking bridges: beliefs and worldviews, livelihoods and practices, knowledge bases and languages, and normsand institutions. Drivers threatening both types of diversity are identified, and policy responses targeting both arerecommended.

Weisz, Helga. “The Probability of the Improbable: Society-Nature Coevolution.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human

Geography 93.4 (2011): 325–336.

Weisz’s contribution to a special issue on society-nature coevolution as interdisciplinary concept for sustainability draws onevolutionary theory, Luhmann’s systems theory of communication and Hägerstrand’s time-geography to develop acoevolutionary theory of social metabolism.

Vulnerability and Resilience

Sustaining societal metabolism and socio-ecological life-support systems encompasses issues concerning exposure andsensitivity to risks of harmful events and perturbations (vulnerability) and capacities to absorb, respond, and adapt todisturbances (resilience). Vulnerability and resilience analyses are consequently central elements of sustainability science.The research literature on each of these alone is voluminous, and increasingly they are being integrated in theory and inempirical analyses. Agder 2006 and Folke 2006 present succinct overviews, while Turner, et al. 2003;; Agder 2006;; andTurner 2010 elucidate relations between them. Plieninger and Bieling 2012 is an excellent collection combining empiricalanalyses with critical theoretical elaborations. The resilience of communities and societies to severe events is founded upontraditional knowledge and cultural practices accumulated over generations and social relations characterized by reciprocityand trust, conducive to effective collective action. Gómez-Baggethun, et al. 2012 is one insightful example among manyempirical studies that confirm the importance of these aspects for social-ecological resilience. Resilience has ascended toprominence in many policy fields, including finance and urban and national security, as an operational strategy of riskmanagement. The resilience discourse portrays adaptation through endogenous crises as a necessity, how the “real world”works. Walker and Cooper 2011 critically examines “genealogies” of resilience and its relation to the proliferation ofneoliberal principles and policies. Hornborg 2013 advances a similar critique of the uses of resilience discourse but goes onto identify potentially radical implications of resilience theory for rethinking progress, globalization, and development. Seealso Young 2010, cited under Governing Sustainability and Costanza, et al. 2007 and de Vries 2013, cited under GeneralOverviews, and the resilience bibliography under Bibliographies. On vulnerability, see also the Oxford bibliographies articlesVulnerability to Climate Change and Vulnerability, Risk, and Hazards.

Agder, W. Neil. “Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16.3 (2006): 268–281.

Reviews the evolution of diverse approaches to vulnerability and identifies three challenges for vulnerability research:developing sound measures, incorporating perceptual dimensions, and integrating governance aspects of vulnerability. Anappendix presents a generalized measure of social vulnerability including proportional vulnerability, vulnerability gap, andvulnerability severity.

Folke, Carl. “Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses.” Global

Environmental Change 16.3 (2006): 253–267.

Summarizes the origin and development of the resilience perspective emphasizing dynamics of complex adaptive social-ecological systems. The panarchy model of nested adaptive renewal cycles with cross-scale interplay is presented,understanding resilience as capacity not only to absorb disturbances but also to develop through opportunities opened by



disturbances.

Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, Victoria Reyes-García, Per Olsson, and Carlos Montes. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge andCommunity Resilience to Environmental Extremes: A Case Study in Doñana, SW Spain.” Global Environmental

Change 22.3 (2012): 640–650.

Drawing on historical archives, interviews, and focus groups, this empirical analysis of thirteen villages confirms thesignificant role of traditional knowledge, shared systems of belief, and associated institutions as a base for long-termcommunal memory, collective action, and social-ecological resilience to environmental disturbances.

Hornborg, Alf. “Revelations of Resilience: From the Ideological Disarmament of Disaster to the RevolutionaryImplications of (P)anarchy.” Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 1.2 (2013): 116–129.

While acknowledging the potential of resilience theory to confront power relations, this article critiques the role of resiliencetheory in maintaining power relations and practices associated with neoliberal ideology. It advances a strategy for socio-ecological resilience based on a bicentric economy that distinguishes local-versus- global spheres of exchange.

Plieninger, Tobias, and Claudia Bieling, eds. Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and ManagingChange in Human-Shaped Environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Aiming to reciprocally advance cultural landscape and resilience research, this book includes conceptual chapters linkingcultural landscape and resilience, and empirical case studies in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Australia analyzinglandscape resilience and forms of landscape management for resilience.

Turner, Billie L., II. “Vulnerability and Resilience: Coalescing or Paralleling Approaches for Sustainability Science?”Global Environmental Change 20.4 (2010): 570–576.

Identifies three foundational pivots of sustainability science—coupled human-environment systems, environmental services,and trade-offs—relating these to vulnerability and resilience, finding distinctions and complementarities. Turner argues thatconceptual integration between vulnerability and resilience research can be enhanced by focusing on trade-offs.

Turner, Billie L., II, Roger E. Kasperson, and Pamela A. Matson, et al. “A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis inSustainability Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.14 (2003): 8074–8079.

Recognizing that vulnerability involves more than mere exposure to risk, the authors hone a framework for vulnerabilityanalysis of coupled human-environment systems in which resilience of systems to experiences of hazards plays a key role.

Walker, Jeremy, and Melinda Cooper. “Genealogies of Resilience: From Systems Ecology to the Political Economy ofCrisis Adaptation.” Security Dialogue 42.2 (2011): 143–160.

This critical history of resilience, from origins in critique of orthodox resource management to pervasive methodology ofgovernance, relates the rise of complex systems theory with the parallel rise of neoliberal doctrines. Ideological fit withneoliberal policies, Walker and Cooper argue, facilitated dissemination of resilience across disciplines and policy fields.

Governing Sustainability

If understanding complex interactions in socio-ecological systems poses a formidable challenge, forming and transforming



institutions capable of effectively governing societal transition to sustainability is even more daunting. Paralleling

extraordinary growth in research on sustainability is the growth of national and international regimes for environmental

governance. The essays in Agder and Jordan 2009 provide an excellent overview of complex issues surrounding

governance for sustainability, revealing pitfalls and challenges as well as successes. Biermann and Pattberg 2008

examines trends in global environmental governance and identifies a set of key issues to enhance the quality and

effectiveness of global institutions for sustainability. Biermann, et al. 2012 presents a proposal for improving the institutional

framework for earth-system governance. Institutional dynamics is not separate from socio-ecological systems but rather part

of them. Acknowledging this, Young advances an analysis of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation of environmental

regimes focusing on institutional stresses and stress management. A vital area of environmental governance research deals

with commons and forms of resource management based neither on private property rights nor on state authority. Path-

breaking research by Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom reveals great diversity in ways communities self-organize to manage

common-pool resources, often devising long-term sustainable institutions for governing their use. Dietz, et al. 2003 outlines

requirements for devising institutional arrangements that can establish conditions favorable to self-organized community-

based governance and suggests strategies for meeting the requirements of adaptive governance of commons.

Environmental governance seldom consists of pure market, state, or community regimes but rather involve hybrid modes of

governance. Lemos and Agrawal 2006 focuses on emerging hybrid modes that cross state-market-community divisions,

providing insight into co-management (state-community), public-private partnership (state-market) and private-social

(community-market) forms of environmental governance. In a similar vein, O’Riordan 2004 sees sustainability partnerships

between government, capital, and civil society as potentially transcending antagonistic political agendas. O’Riordan, a

leading scholar of sustainability governance (Agder and Jordan 2009 is based on a conference marking his retirement),

boldly calls for incorporation of themes largely implicit in sustainability research—transcendentation, spirituality, and

bonding self and cosmos—closing with the claim that the “ultimate governance for sustainability must surely lie in our souls.”

Corporate capital has increasingly engaged in issues of environmental governance, effectively exercising power and

authority as global environmental regulators. Too powerful to ignore, Dauvergne and Lister 2012 analyzes the rise of big

brand sustainability and its implications for global environmental governance.

Agder, W. Neil, and Andrew Jordan, eds. Governing Sustainability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

This excellent overview critically examines governance issues surrounding relations between society and the state,

citizenship, knowledge production, public participation and precautionary practice, environmental and ecological

economics, welfare concerns and substitutability of capital, the slipperiness of sustainability, and the crucial problem that,

empirically, governance has proven to be unsuitable for sustainability.

Biermann, F., K. Abbott, S. Andresen, et al. “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance.”Science 335 (2012): 1306–1307.

Proposes building blocks for a new institutional framework for governing the transition to sustainability based on a

comprehensive assessment by the Earth System Governance Project, including reformation of UN agencies, strengthening

reliance on majority voting, accountability, equity concerns, and integration of the social, economic, and environmental

dimensions of sustainability.

Biermann, Frank, and Philipp Pattberg. “Global Environmental Governance: Taking Stock, Moving Forward.” AnnualReview of Environment and Resources 33.1 (2008): 277–294.

Distinguishes between analytical, programmatic, and critical interpretations of global environmental governance,

highlighting three characteristics differentiating global environmental governance from traditional international

environmental politics: new types of agency, new mechanisms and institutions, and increasing segmentation and

fragmentation of governance.

Dauvergne, Peter, and Jane Lister. “Big Brand Sustainability: Governance Prospects and Environmental Limits.”



Global Environmental Change 22.1 (2012): 36–45.

Analyzes how multinational corporations brand themselves as global sustainability champions, defining sustainability incorporate terms, leveraging sustainability for profit and growth, and effectively acting as global environmental regulators.Argues for stronger state regulations, responsible consumerism and international legal constraints on multinationalcorporations to achieve transformational sustainability governance.

Dietz, Thomas, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. “The Struggle to Govern the Commons.” Science 302 (2003): 1907–1912.

Clarifies oversimplifications in “the tragedy of the commons.” And, based on the existing wealth of empirically analyzedexperiences in forms of common-pool resource management, this article identifies key requirements of adaptive governancein complex systems and three general principles for robust governance institutions—analytic deliberation, nesting, andinstitutional variety—with associated strategies.

Lemos, Maria Carmen, and Arun Agrawal. “Environmental Governance.” Annual Review of Environment andResources 31.1 (2006): 297–325.

Reviews research literature on emerging trends shaping environmental governance: globalization, decentralization, market-and agent-focused instruments, and cross-scale environmental governance. Highlights emerging hybrid modes ofgovernance connecting state, market, and communities and analyzes their limits and challenges exemplified in the fields ofclimate change and ecosystem degradation.

O’Riordan, Tim. “Environmental Science, Sustainability and Politics.” Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 29.2 (2004): 234–247.

Observing how established power and economic hegemony pervade sustainability politics, O’Riordan draws on criticalanalyses to identify key issues for the formation of new arrangements between government, private capital, and civilassociations to transcend antagonistic political frameworks and transition toward a sustainable self-aware society.

Young, Oran R. “Institutional Dynamics: Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptation in Environmental and Resource

Regimes.” Global Environmental Change 20.3 (2010): 378–385.

From a socio-ecological systems perspective, this article analyzes institutional dynamics of environmental regimes in termsof resilience and vulnerability, identifies forms of institutional stress, how these are managed, and consequences of stressmanagement failure. Explains how apparently ill-adapted regimes can prevail and why radical institutional changesometimes occurs abruptly.

Urban Sustainability

Cities have been portrayed as inherently unsustainable, and as necessary for sustainability. What is certain is that with themajority of global population living in cities, pathways to sustainability must involve engagement with knowledge productionon and the politics of urban sustainability. From the perspective of a “coevolving cultural patchwork quilt” (Norgaard 1994,cited under Coevolution), cities constitute important nodes in the quilt. The seminal work of Campbell 1996 (reprinted inseveral books) positions urban planning amid the abiding contradictions of sustainable development. United NationsHuman Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) 2006 gives a useful introductory overview of the issues surrounding urbansustainability, appropriate for undergraduate courses. Haas 2012 provides a comprehensive overview with greater depth,more appropriate for upper-level undergraduate and graduate level courses. This can be complemented with Vojnovic 2013,which provides a wealth of case studies from around the world covering a broad range of themes. Research on GoverningSustainability reveals the need for social and institutional innovations for transitioning to sustainability pathways. Meig and



Töpfer 2013 analyzes aspects of social and institutional innovations in the context of sustainable urban development,

including the role of science and innovating toward Transdisicplinarity. The example of “slow cities” as innovative urban

development regime is examined in Mayer and Knox 2006. For critical perspectives on urban political economy and political

ecology, central to urban sustainability, Heynen, et al. 2006 and Krueger and Gibbs 2007 are especially insightful;; excellent

books for advanced undergraduate- and graduate-level courses. See also the section Urban Environments in the Oxford

Bibliographies article Political Ecology.

Campbell, Scott. “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable

Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association 62.3 (1996): 296–312.

Critiquing common appeals to sustainability as vaguely holistic, this article seeks to contextually position sustainable

development in the core of a planner’s triangle formed by social, economic, and environmental goals and the property,

resource and development conflicts between them, outlining procedural and substantive paths to conflict resolution and

sustainable development.

Haas, Tigran, ed. Sustainable Urbanism and Beyond: Rethinking Cities for the Future. New York: Rizzoli, 2012.

Bringing together researchers, planners, architects, and practitioners in a wide scope of urban issues, this book includes

fifty-seven chapters ranging from climate change and resilience, mobility and informatics, to environmental justice, urban

planning and design, and scenarios of urban futures.

Heynen, Nik, Maria Kaika, and Erik Swyngedouw, eds. In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics ofUrban Metabolism. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Confronting the split between humanity and environment, this book analyzes the politics of urban metabolism, advancing

urban political ecology and perspectives on cities as socio-ecological processes. It includes empirical analyses on issues

ranging from water and waste management, environmental justice and hunger, to monoculture and war.

Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs, eds. The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the UnitedStates and Europe. New York: Guilford, 2007.

From a critical political economy perspective, this book emphasizes the political nature of sustainability, problematizes

sustainability politics as both resistance to and mainstreamed by neoliberal ideology, and presents empirical studies

focused on US and European contexts. It includes a chapter (pp. 66–94) on the politics of gender in sustainability theory and

practice.

Mayer, Heike, and Paul L. Knox. “Slow Cities: Sustainable Places in a Fast World.” Journal of Urban Affairs 28.4 (2006):321–334.

Focusing on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of urban sustainability, this article analyzes two German

cases of certified “slow cities” with strong alternative urban development strategies that contest corporate driven regimes,

and considers the contexts contributing to their success and the transferability of slow city strategies.

Meig, Harald A., and Klaus Töpfer, eds. Institutional and Social Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development. NewYork: Routledge, 2013.

This anthology presents research into the role of social and institutional innovations for sustainable urban development.



United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT). The State of the World’s Cities 2006/7: The MillenniumDevelopment Goals and Urban Sustainability. London: Earthscan, 2006.

Focused primarily on slum issues, this report offers an accessible overview positioning cities in the front line of achieving themillennium development goals. Includes many graphs and tables and a statistical annex.

Vojnovic, Igor, ed. Urban Sustainability: A Global Perspective. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2013.

With emphasis on social dimensions of sustainability, this collection of empirically rich case studies from around the world isa valuable resource for cross-cultural and multi-scalar comparative analysis of urban sustainability.

Bridging Knowledge and Action

Linking knowledge to action is increasingly recognized as the greatest challenge for transitioning to sustainability. Theaccumulated evidence from sustainability research makes it increasingly clear that sustainability transitioning will requireprofound societal transformations. The mainstreaming of sustainability and sustainable development has, however, resultedin a situation in which sustainability discourse and politics are dominated by powerful actors (also within research andhigher education) with interests in maintaining status quo. Hopwood, et al. 2005 and O’Brien 2012 examine attitudes towardchange and the inertia stemming from “big assumptions” underlying mainstream sustainability discourse and policies. Thereare, however, valuable efforts being made to bridge knowledge and transformative action. Assessing these efforts isimportant in seeking viable ways forward. Wiek, et al. 2012 presents a useful evaluation of sustainability science projectswith transformational ambitions. From a vulnerability and resilience perspective, Kasperson and Berberian 2011 assessesknowledge and practice geared to close the science/practice gap. Jerneck and Olsson 2011 advances a methodology forbridging critical and problem-solving research, with examples from the field of health challenges. More programmatic incharacter, Miller, et al. 2014 places research for change on center stage for the future of sustainability science. Relevant tobridging knowledge with action is also Agder and Jordan 2009, cited under Governing Sustainability. These works andrelated works on societal transformation for sustainability transitioning should be core readings in courses on sustainabilityscience.

Hopwood, Bill, Mary Mellor, and Geoff O’Brien. “Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches.”Sustainable Development 13.1 (2005): 38–52.

Provides a critical and insightful mapping of perspectives on sustainable development and societal change along social andenvironmental dimensions, highlighting differences and tensions between proponents of various versions of status quo,reform, and societal transformation.

Jerneck, Anne, and Lennart Olsson. “Breaking out of Sustainability Impasses: How to Apply Frame Analysis,Reframing and Transition Theory to Global Health Challenges.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1.2(2011): 255–271.

Utilizes frame analysis and transition theory to analyze three global health problems (HIV/AIDS, malaria, and indoor air-pollution) combining critical and problem-solving research. Reframing is advanced as a creative process, opening up newpathways for addressing sustainability challenges while facilitating the process of problem resolution by bridging scienceand society.

Kasperson, Roger E., and Mimi Berberian, eds. Integrating Science and Policy: Vulnerability and Resilience in GlobalEnvironmental Change. London: Earthscan, 2011.

Characterizes the science/practice gap, summarizes previous research and experience, includes empirical analyses from



around the world on climate change, earthquake and flooding events, food insecurity, market forces, working with

indigenous knowledge, and participatory evaluation of development projects. Also outlines directions for closing the

science/practice gap.

Miller, Thaddeus R., Arnim Wiek, Daniel Sarewitz, et al. “The Future of Sustainability Science: A Solutions-Oriented

Research Agenda.” Sustainability Science 8 (2014).

Proposes an agenda of four research pathways linking knowledge to action, focusing on processes of social, political, and

technological transition: envisioning and pursuing sustainable futures, mapping and deliberating sustainability values,

exploring and fostering socio-technical change, and enabling social and institutional learning for sustainability.

O’Brien, Karen. “Global Environmental Change III: Closing the Gap Between Knowledge and Action.” Progress in

Human Geography 37.4 (2012): 587–596.

O’Brien identifies and questions big assumptions underlying reproduction of types of knowledge and action that perpetuate

paradigms, hindering change by consolidating status quo.

Wiek, Arnim, Barry Ness, Petra Schweizer-Ries, et al. “From Complex Systems Analysis to Transformational Change:

A Comparative Appraisal of Sustainability Science Projects.” Sustainability Science 7.Suppl. 1 (2012): 5–24.

Moving from the safe space of analytical knowledge production to the transformational work of sustainability problem

resolution is a major challenge. Appraised here are five sustainability science projects that develop and test solution options.

Accomplishments in developing transformational research methodology are noted, as are weaknesses in participatory

engagement and larger impacts.

LAST MODIFIED: 04/28/2014

DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199874002-0100

BACK TO TOP

Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved.

Documents

Sustainability Science