Suchergebnisse

Climate change and the global decline of biodiversity are just two examples of the many sustainability challenges faced by societies today. The complex, urgent and contested nature of these problems and potential solutions pose unprecedented challenges for both science and governance. Responding to these challenges, sustainability researchers seek to advance new ways of doing science that are more interdisciplinary, co-produced, inclusive and solutions-oriented. In this thesis, I ask how such ambitions of science for sustainability become institutionalised, and what the implications are for the relationship between science and governance for sustainability. The thesis is based on an in-depth case study of the global research platform Future Earth: research for global sustainability, which was launched in 2012. Principles of science for sustainability form an important rationale shaping the development of Future Earth. Yet, in institutionalising these principles, tensions emerge between different perspectives on the appropriate role of science in society. Specifically, the ambition to inform and shape sustainability transformations contradicts with the separation between science and politics that is deeply engrained in scientific institutions. Eventual institutional designs tend to conceal the inevitable politics embedded in the ambitions, institutions and effects of science for sustainability. I argue for the need to rethink the relationship between science and politics for sustainability. Sustainability transformations are about normative visions of desirable futures, which cannot be seen separate from the knowledge that informs and supports transformations. Thus, in pursuing sustainability transformations, a strict separation between science and politics is not only impossible but also undesirable.

Global change and sustainability research increasingly focusses on informing and shaping societal transformations towards more sustainable futures. Doing so, researchers encounter the deeply political and normative dimensions of sustainability problems and potential solutions. This raises questions about the value-dimensions of science itself, as well as the appropriate relationship between science and politics. In this paper, these normative and political dimensions of sustainability research are explored based on a literature review and survey. The survey was completed by 284 researchers participating in the international research platform Future Earth: Research for Global Sustainability. The analysis of survey data reveals that sustainability researchers generally acknowledge the value-laden and political nature of their work, yet perspectives on what this means and how to deal with such dimensions vary. Four groups of respondents are distinguished and classified by the following broad narratives: transformative research as speaking truth to power, transformative research as political act, responsibility for rigorous science, and humility on solutions potential. Several tensions within and between these perspectives are identified, pertaining to the role of sustainability researchers in supporting societal transformations, the possibility and desirability of scientific independence and impartiality, and the appropriate relationship between science and politics. The paper concludes by pointing to the need for more explicit engagement with the normative and political dimensions of sustainability research.

Global environmental assessments are widely considered to play a prominent role in environmental governance. However, they are also criticised for a lack of effectiveness in informing policy and decision-making. In response, GEAs have adopted a number of strategies to bolster their effectiveness, including by orienting themselves towards solutions (solution-orientation), increasing the diversity of included experts (participation), and producing more targeted assessments (contextualisation). In this article, we analyse these strategies as attempts to be effective for multiple audiences while also identifying the limitations of these strategies. Based on this analysis, we propose to conceive of GEAs as processes that are able to empower diverse actors – ranging from diplomats in international negotiations to civil society activists, or indigenous and local knowledge holders – to act towards socio-environmental objectives. Seen in this light, the effectiveness of GEAs can be improved by reflecting on which actors can benefit from assessments and how assessments can contribute to their empowerment. This strategy goes beyond current proposals that aim to strengthen the authority of assessments by boosting the scientific quality and credibility of the reports. Indeed, it complements them with an explicitly political perspective. Using examples of empowerment in different phases of GEA production and use, we argue that this reconceptualisation of effectiveness requires assessments to reflect a diversity of problem and solution frames, thereby creating entry points for the empowerment of a broad range of actors. We conclude by providing three illustrative ideas to improve effectiveness for the design and execution of assessments.

Global environmental assessments are widely considered to play a prominent role in environmental governance. However, they are also criticised for a lack of effectiveness in informing policy and decision-making. In response, GEAs have adopted a number of strategies to bolster their effectiveness, including by orienting themselves towards solutions (solution-orientation), increasing the diversity of included experts (participation), and producing more targeted assessments (contextualisation). In this article, we analyse these strategies as attempts to be effective for multiple audiences while also identifying the limitations of these strategies. Based on this analysis, we propose to conceive of GEAs as processes that are able to empower diverse actors – ranging from diplomats in international negotiations to civil society activists, or indigenous and local knowledge holders – to act towards socio-environmental objectives. Seen in this light, the effectiveness of GEAs can be improved by reflecting on which actors can benefit from assessments and how assessments can contribute to their empowerment. This strategy goes beyond current proposals that aim to strengthen the authority of assessments by boosting the scientific quality and credibility of the reports. Indeed, it complements them with an explicitly political perspective. Using examples of empowerment in different phases of GEA production and use, we argue that this reconceptualisation of effectiveness requires assessments to reflect a diversity of problem and solution frames, thereby creating entry points for the empowerment of a broad range of actors. We conclude by providing three illustrative ideas to improve effectiveness for the design and execution of assessments.

− Agency is one of five core analytical problems in the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project's research framework, which offers a unique approach to the study of environmental governance. − Agency in Earth System Governance draws lessons from ESG–Agency research through a systematic review of 322 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2008 and 2016 and contained in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database.− ESG–Agency research draws on diverse disciplinary perspectives with distinct clusters of scholars rooted in the fields of global environmental politics, policy studies, and socio-ecological systems. − Collectively, the chapters in Agency in Earth System Governance provide an accessible synthesis of some of the field's major questions and debates and a state-of-the-art understanding of how diverse actors engage with and exercise authority in environmental governance.

The 'Anthropocene' is now being used as a conceptual frame by different communities and in a variety of contexts to understand the evolving human–environment relationship. However, as we argue in this paper, the notion of an Anthropos, or 'humanity', as global, unified 'geological force' threatens to mask the diversity and differences in the actual conditions and impacts of humankind, and does not do justice to the diversity of local and regional contexts. For this reason, we interpret in this article the notion of an Anthropocene in a more context-dependent, localized and social understanding. We do this through illustrating examples from four issue domains, selected for their variation in terms of spatial and temporal scale, systems of governance and functional interdependencies: nitrogen cycle distortion (in particular as it relates to food security); ocean acidification; urbanization; and wildfires. Based on this analysis, we systematically address the consequences of the lens of the Anthropocene for the governance of social-ecological systems, focusing on the multi-level, functional and sectoral organization of governance, and possible redefinitions of governance systems and policy domains. We conclude that the notion of the Anthropocene, once seen in light of social inequalities and regional differences, allows for novel analysis of issue-based problems in the context of a global understanding, in both academic and political terms. This makes it a useful concept to help leverage and (re-)focus our efforts in a more innovative and effective way to transition towards sustainability.

The 'Anthropocene' is now being used as a conceptual frame by different communities and in a variety of contexts to understand the evolving human–environment relationship. However, as we argue in this paper, the notion of an Anthropos, or 'humanity', as global, unified 'geological force' threatens to mask the diversity and differences in the actual conditions and impacts of humankind, and does not do justice to the diversity of local and regional contexts. For this reason, we interpret in this article the notion of an Anthropocene in a more context-dependent, localized and social understanding. We do this through illustrating examples from four issue domains, selected for their variation in terms of spatial and temporal scale, systems of governance and functional interdependencies: nitrogen cycle distortion (in particular as it relates to food security); ocean acidification; urbanization; and wildfires. Based on this analysis, we systematically address the consequences of the lens of the Anthropocene for the governance of social-ecological systems, focusing on the multi-level, functional and sectoral organization of governance, and possible redefinitions of governance systems and policy domains. We conclude that the notion of the Anthropocene, once seen in light of social inequalities and regional differences, allows for novel analysis of issue-based problems in the context of a global understanding, in both academic and political terms. This makes it a useful concept to help leverage and (re-)focus our efforts in a more innovative and effective way to transition towards sustainability.

Over the last two decades researchers have come to understand much about the global challenges confronting human society (e.g. climate change; biodiversity loss; water, energy and food insecurity; poverty and widening social inequality). However, the extent to which research and policy efforts are succeeding in steering human societies towards more sustainable and just futures is unclear. Attention is increasingly turning towards better understanding how to navigate processes of social and institutional transformation to bring about more desirable trajectories of change in various sectors of human society. A major knowledge gap concerns understanding how transformations towards sustainability are conceptualised, understood and analysed. Limited existing scholarship on this topic is fragmented, sometimes overly deterministic, and weak in its capacity to critically analyse transformation processes which are inherently political and contested. This paper aims to advance understanding of transformations towards sustainability, recognising it as both a normative and an analytical concept. We firstly review existing concepts of transformation in global environmental change literature, and the role of governance in relation to it. We then propose a framework for understanding and critically analysing transformations towards sustainability based on the existing 'Earth System Governance' framework (Biermann et al., 2009). We then outline a research agenda, and argue that transdisciplinary research approaches and a key role for early career researchers are vital for pursuing this agenda. Finally, we argue that critical reflexivity among global environmental change scholars, both individually and collectively, will be important for developing innovative research on transformations towards sustainability to meaningfully contribute to policy and action over time.