rescue report

8/16/2019 Rescue Report

1/64

ESF Forward Look – ESF-COST ‘Frontier of Science’ joint initiative

Responses to Environmentaland Societal Challenges forour Unstable Earth (RESCUE)


2/64

European Science Foundation (ESF)

The European Science Foundation (ESF) is an

independent, non-governmental organisation, the

members of which are 78 national funding agencies,

research performing agencies, academies and learned

societies from 30 countries.

The strength of ESF lies in its inuential membership

and in its ability to bring together the different domainsof European science in order to meet the challenges of

the future.

Since its establishment in 1974, ESF, which has its

headquarters in Strasbourg with ofces in Brussels

and Ostend, has assembled a host of organisations

that span all disciplines of science, to create a

common platform for cross-border cooperation in

Europe.

ESF is dedicated to promoting collaboration in

scientic research, funding of research and science

policy across Europe. Through its activities and

instruments ESF has made major contributions to

science in a global context. ESF covers the followingscientic domains :

• Humanities

• Life, Earth and Environmental Sciences

• Biomedical Sciences

• Physical and Engineering Sciences

• Social Sciences

• Marine Sciences

• Materials Science and Engineering

• Nuclear Physics

• Polar Sciences

• Radio Astronomy

• Space Sciences

www.esf.org

European Cooperation in Science

and Technology (COST)

COST is an intergovernmental framework for European

Cooperation in Science and Technology and a unique

means for European researchers to share and advance

knowledge across all scientic disciplines. Through

trans-European networking of nationally funded

research activities COST enables break-throughscientic developments leading to new concepts

and products and thereby contributes to strengthen

Europe’s research and innovation capacities.

COST supports the integration of research

communities through its inclusiveness and builds

capacities by connecting high-quality scientic

networks throughout Europe and worldwide. COST

is a building block of the European Research Area,

instrumental for successful innovation strategies and

global cooperation in the nine scientic domains:

• Biomedicine and Molecular Biosciences

• Food and Agriculture

• Forests, their Products and Services• Materials, Physics and Nanosciences

• Chemistry and Molecular Sciences and Technologies

• Earth System Science and Environmental

Management

• Information and Communication Technologies

• Transport and Urban Development

• Individuals, Societies, Cultures and Health

In addition, Trans-Domain Proposals allow for broad,

multidisciplinary proposals to strike across the nine

scientic domains.

www.cost.eu

Authors

Coordinating Lead Author: Jill Jäger (AT)

Lead Authors: Gísli Pálsson (IS), Michael Goodsite

(DK), Claudia Pahl-Wostl (DE), Karen O’Brien (NO),

Leen Hordijk (IT), Bernard Avril (FR)

Contributing Authors: Sierd Cloetingh (NL), Poul

Holm (IE), Theo Toonen (NL), Jonathan Reams (NO),

Frans Berkhout (NL)

This paper should be cited as: Responses to

Environmental and Societal Challenges for our

Unstable Earth (RESCUE), ESF Forward Look –

ESF-COST ‘Frontier of Science’ joint initiative.

European Science Foundation, Strasbourg (FR) and

European Cooperation in Science and Technology,

Brussels (BE).

ISBN: 978-2-918428-56-5. 60 p.

Cover picture:Conceptual Recycling Symbol with Earth Globe© Alx. Fotolia


3/64

Contents

Acknowledgements 2

Foreword 3

Executive Summary 5

1. Introduction 9

2. The Challenge of an Unstable Earth 12

Interdisciplinarity in global change research 13

Moving towards transdisciplinarity 15

New tools, methods and data 16

The need for an “education revolution” 20

Necessary institutional change 23

3. The RESCUE Vision 26

An open knowledge system 26

A radically interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary environment 27

A central concern – deep integration of underlying aspects of human activities 28

Adopting a global perspective by comparative regional analyses 29

Data and knowledge for global change research 29

Building capacity for an open knowledge system 30

4. Achieving the RESCUE Vision 31

The skills and abilities of scientists 31

Academic institutions 32

Measuring “success” 34

Changing methods and approaches 34

Societal engagement 35

New forms of openness and exposure 35

Supporting an open knowledge system 35

5. Recommendations 37

6. Conclusion 41

Annexes 43

Annex 1: Composition of the RESCUE Task Force and Working Groups 45

Annex 2: Membership of the Quality Reference Group 47

Annex 3: Denitions of types of research 48

Annex 4: Approaches to Education in Relation to Environment and Sustainability 49

Annex 5: Glossary 50

References 53


4/64

Acknowledgements

Tis report is mainly based on the deliberations ofthe Working Groups and ask Force (see

Annex ). Tanks go in particular to the Chairs

and Co-Chairs of those groups for their input tothis document, prepared by Dr Jill Jäger. Te guid-ance and input from the Chair and Co-Chair of the Scientific Steering Committee (ProfessorLeen Hordijk and Professor Gísli Pálsson), and fromthe uality Reference Group (see Annex ), chairedby Dr Marc Heppener, and from the Chairs of the and Committees involved in , andthe support of Dr Bernard Avril () and Dr CarinePetit () in organising the entire processand the production of this report are also gratefullyacknowledged. Te participants at the various work-shops but especially at the Stakeholders’ Conferenceheld in Brussels in May are thanked for theircountless constructive contributions to this pro-cess. Te detailed reviews provided by six externalreviewers have been extremely valuable in finalisingthe report.

N.B.: In the main body of the report, the wordsmarked with an asterisk (*) are defined in theGlossary.


5/64

( )

3he world is currently facing major challenges

and crises. One of them is ‘global change’, some-times described with reference to the term‘Anthropocene’, which was coined about a decadeago by the Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen. It is anemerging epoch in the history of the Earth, a suc-cessor to the ‘Holocene’ epoch, the last interglacialperiod recorded. Since the Anthropocene started,the impacts of human activity on the Earth havestarted to equal the measurable impacts of biogeo-physical forces, in speed and intensity, creating aunique situation that poses fundamentally new

challenges and requires innovative ways of think-ing and acting.

Many global change issues are by now wellidentified and to a certain extent individuallyunderstood. Tese include global warming, sealevel rise, loss of biodiversity, intensification ofextreme events, landscapes and land use changes,increasing water scarcity and pollution, ocean acid-ification, over-fishing, and altered distribution ofcertain infectious diseases. But it is their multiplecombination at local and global levels that brings

about a series of major and complex problems.Such complexity cannot be addressed by thetraditional disciplinary scientific approach. Anintegrated knowledge base and a new set of com-mon practices are required to address these issues.Te tackling of the global change challenges mustalso be of wide societal and individual concern. Forthis to happen, a deeper and more open dialogue,and integrated cooperation between the researchcommunity, policy-makers, society and ultimatelyprivate individuals are required.

Te foresight initiative thus proposes aninnovative vision about how to build the transitionstowards sustainability through various innovative

forms of learning and research. Te vision

is built around the idea of an open knowledge sys-tem, where knowledge is generated from multiplesources (some of which are scientific) and shared atevery stage of its development; and where problemsare defined and addressed by society as a whole, not

just by scientists, or policy makers., an - ‘Frontier of Science’

initiative and an Forward Look, is highly inte-grative, and is supported by Committees of and , namely the Standing Committees forLife, Earth and Environmental Sciences (), for

Social Sciences (), for Humanities () andfor Physical and Engineering Sciences (), andthe Domain Committees for Earth SystemScience and Environmental Management (),for Individuals, Societies, Cultures and Health(), for Forests, their Products and Services() and for Food and Agriculture ().

Tis report synthesizes the contributions fromapproximately experts in countries. It isbased on the input of working groups that, fromautumn to spring , focused on: contri-

butions from social sciences and humanities withregard to the challenges of the Anthropocene; col-laboration between the natural, social and humansciences in global change studies; requirementsfor research methodologies and data in globalchange research; steps towards a ‘revolution’ ineducation and capacity building; and interfacebetween science and policy, communication andoutreach. Tis report was also prepared in closecooperation or liaison with other key organisationsor initiatives, including the International Councilof Science (), the International Social ScienceCouncil (), the International Group of Funding

Agencies for Global Change Research () and

Forewordl l l


6/64

( )

4

its Belmont Forum, and the European Alliance ofGlobal Change Research Committees.

While the report was being final ised(in autumn ), the International Council forScience (), within a global all iance of partners,established the ‘Future Earth – research for globalsustainability’ initiative. Tis international, -year

collaborative initiative aims to deliver solution-ori-ented research on global environmental change forsustainability and to provide global coordination forscience to respond to the most pressing societal andenvironmental challenges. Tis echoes markedlysome of the findings and conclusions of regarding the global change research agenda setting.

Te synthesis report is also a Europeancontribution to the preparation of the forthcoming‘Rio+’ United Nations Conference on SustainableDevelopment (, June ), which should bea key step forward at a global level for transitions

toward sustainability. will also contributeto the ‘Planet under Pressure - New Knowledgeowards Solutions’ Conference (March ). Whilesome progress has been made since the publicationof the report of the Club of Rome, Limits to Growth() and of the report of the World Commissionon Environment and Development, Our Common

Future (aka, the Brundtland report, ), there isstill so much to be done in response to the chal-lenges of an unstable Earth.

While the foresight initiative was a

challenge in itself, as it relies on a truly in-depthdialogue between communities not always famil-iar with each other, it represents marked progressand we sincerely thank all active contributors, espe-cially the Working Group leaders and allCommittees involved, and in particular the uality Reference Group.

In conclusion, we warmly encourage all keystakeholders to embark fully on the next phase, i.e., the delivery of an open knowledge sys-tem for ensuring transitions toward sustainability.

Professor

Marja Makarow,

Chie Executive,

Professor Angeles

Rodriguez-Peña,

President,


7/64

( )

5Humankind is facing unprecedented and accelerat-

ing global environmental change. So strong is thehuman influence on the Earth system that manyscientists consider that the planet has entered a newgeological age called the ‘Anthropocene’ (the recentage of humans). Our understanding of the envi-ronmental aspects of global change has expandedmarkedly in recent years, but the societal and humanaspects of the change have stil l to be ful ly explored.Tere is a need to re-frame global environmentalchange issues fundamentally as social and humanchallenges, rather than just environmental issues.

While recognising that there are already movesin the right direction, the foresight initia-tive provides recommendations on how to establishand support a stronger common foundation acrossnatural, social and human disciplines, and how tolink global environmental change research morestrongly with policy and the wider society. Terecommendations are intended for research andeducation policy makers, funders and researchers.If enacted, they should lead to the developmentof more integrated, holistic knowledge of global

environmental change – knowledge and the relatedpractices that can fully support transitions towardssustainability.

Executive Summary l l l

1. RESCUE Background

Te “Responses to Environmental and SocietalChallenges for our Unstable Earth” ()foresight initiative is a joint ‘Frontiers of Science’initiative of the European Science Foundation ()and the intergovernmental initiative for EuropeanCooperation in Science and echnology ().he work of focused on the followingthemes:• Contributions from social sciences and humani-

ties in developing responses to challenges of the

Anthropocene ( Social-Human);• Collaboration between the natural, social and

human sciences in global environmental changestudies ( Collaboration);

• Requirements for research methodologies and

data ( Requirements);• Education and capacity building - towards a ‘revo-

lution’ ( Revolution);• Te interface between science and policy, commu-

nication and outreach ( Interface).

2. RESCUE findings

Reframing the way global environmental issuesare approached will require new questions, newapproaches and new ways of thinking in research.For instance, to re-shape human activities relatedto environmental change, there is a need to under-stand the roles of culture, values and behaviour ingenerating global change. Tis means analysing howproblems and solutions are framed at different levels

. www.esf.org/rescue. www.esf.org and www.cost.eu

http://www.esf.org/http://www.esf.org/rescuehttp://www.cost.eu/http://www.esf.org/http://www.cost.eu/http://www.cost.eu/http://www.esf.org/http://www.esf.org/rescue


8/64


9/64

( )

7

3. RESCUE recommendations

Te initiative makes six recommendationsto science policy makers, funders and educators.Tese will help move towards an open knowledgesystem.

Recommendation 1:Build an institutional framework

for an open knowledge system

Target audience: Science policy makers,science funders

An open knowledge society to tackle the environ-mental and societal challenges of global changerequires an implementation-oriented researchagenda and a corresponding institutional frame-work. Participatory approaches and stakeholderengagement must bring more societal actors into the

research and the evaluation processes and must begiven credit in both funding schemes and academiccareers. New criteria for evaluating ‘excellence’ inparticipatory, implementation-oriented processesare required. Long-term support and reward mech-anisms are needed for integrative global changeresearch that responds to societal demands.

Recommendation 2:

Re-organise research so disciplines

share knowledge and practices, and,

from the onset, work together witheach other and with stakeholders

Target audience: Science policy makers,science funders, research community

Given the need to understand and include theunderlying human drivers of global change, thereis an urgent requirement for increasing the levelof targeted support for those social sciences andhumanities that can contribute to this effort.Research to support transitions to sustainabilitymust be interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary,beginning with a collective framing process thatincludes scientists from natural and social sciencesand the humanities as well as actors from civic soci-ety, the private and public sectors. Te RadicallyInter- and ransdisciplinary Environment ()model for global change research needs furtherdevelopment and then widespread implementation.

Recommendation 3:

Initiate long-term integrated

demonstration projects

Target audience: Science funders, researchcommunity, practitioners, science policy makers

A network of long-term integrated studies is requiredin order to encourage experimentation with different

approaches for analysing and building the capac-ity of regions to deal with environmental changeand achieve sustainability. Tese studies must alsoaddress the human drivers and implications ofenvironmental change in broad empirical contexts.Te studies must pay attention to the challenges ofincluding stakeholders in the entire research process.Learning to find a common language and joint prob-lem framing must be evaluated and disseminatedwidely. Te monitoring of these demonstration pro-

jects should enhance learning about how research

can contribute effectively to sustainability transi-tions.

Recommendation 4:

Develop sustainability education

and learning in an innovative, open

knowledge system

Target audience: Science and education policymakers, educators

Learning is the central element of an open knowl-edge society and essential for adapting to the

complex and changing human condition in the Anthropocene. Processes are required that engageeducators from pre-school through universities andfar beyond, including a wide range of other pro-fessional areas, in a dialogue about the educationand capacity building frameworks and institutionsneeded for an open knowledge and learning soci-ety. Te new types of research needed to supportsustainability transitions and processes of engage-ment require new skills and capacities that must beprovided by the education system.

Recommendation 5:

Respond to the challenges and

opportunities created by the internet

for an open knowledge system ready

for transitions towards sustainability

Target audience: Science policy makers,research community

Te internet provides a means of access to knowl-edge, a repository of knowledge, a research tool and

an agora that facilitates the production, diffusionand use of knowledge in responding to societalproblems related to global environmental change.


10/64

( )

8

Tere is a need to discuss the role of the internet inan open knowledge society especially with regard toissues of credibility of knowledge. At the same time,there is a need to embrace the opportunities offeredby the internet for creating networks or bringingthem together.

Recommendation 6:Create a dynamic, adaptive and

integrated information and decision-

support system on global change

issues

Target audience: Science policy makers,science funders, research community

While numerous environmental, economic andsocietal information systems exist, the challenges ofan unstable Earth and the development of an openknowledge society call for a dynamic information

system that can be regularly and easily updated andthat provides a forum for communication. Te sys-tem would use indicators and markers for experts,decision makers and lay people to inform each otherreadily about the state of the social-environmentalsystem, the likely short- to medium-term changes,the ‘intervention’ points and potential consequencesof alternative choices.


11/64

( )

9Humankind is currently facing unprecedented and

accelerating environmental and socio-economicchanges. Te cause of many of the environmentalchanges witnessed in the past few decades is humanactivities: fossil fuel consumption, agriculture, landuse change, urbanisation, use of non-renewableresources, transportation and so on. Tis emerg-ing epoch in the Earth history has been called the‘Anthropocene’* (Crutzen and Stoermer, ;Steffen et al., ). A holistic understanding ofglobal change* in the Anthropocene has expandedmarkedly, but societal and human drivers and con-

sequences are still to be fully explored throughproblem-oriented approaches. Te extensive knowl-edge* base that scientific research has createdshould contribute to the development of sustainableresponses to global change challenges. In particu-lar, the complexities of global change, includingthe interlinkages between human activities andenvironmental changes, require studies at scalesthat resonate with (oen) short-term political andlong-term societal agendas. Integration of researchresults from various disciplinary areas has had lim-

ited success; stronger common foundations betweennatural sciences, social sciences and humanities arenow needed to establish a really integrated approachfrom the beginning.

In this context, the Responses to Environmentaland Societal Challenges for our Unstable Earth() foresight initiative was establishedas a joint ‘Frontiers of Science’ initiative of theEuropean Science Foundation () and the inter-governmental initiative for European Cooperationin Science and echnology () to:

. See www.esf.org/rescue. See www.esf.org and www.cost.eu

• propose processes for natural sciences, social sci-

ences and humanities to improve in a medium- tolong-term time frame their ability and capacity towork together, in order to respond to the pressingpolicy and societal needs;

• articulate science questions related to global

change and especially those of a transdisciplinarynature, or of major society-driven relevance;

• explore eective, new approaches towards truly

integrated, interdisciplinary science, and to facili-tate the ‘revolution’ in education it requires.

was organised around a series of thematicactivities. Tese were carried out by four workinggroups and one task force. Te membership of thesegroups is listed in Annex . Te abbreviated titlesof these groups are provided in brackets below andused in this report to indicate sources of material.Te groups focused on:• contributions from social sciences and humanities

with regard to the challenges of the Anthropocene( Social-Human);

• collaboration between the natural, social and

human sciences in global change studies (Collaboration);• requirements for research methodologies and data

( Requirements);• steps towards a ‘revolution’ in education and

capacity building ( Revolution); and • the interface between science and policy, commu-

nication and outreach ( Interface).

Tis report is largely based on the individual the-matic reports of these groups.

Trough its analyses and recommendations, aims to enable the scientific communities,together with a large range of stakeholders, includ-

1.

Introductionl l l

http://www.esf.org/http://www.esf.org/rescuehttp://www.cost.eu/http://www.esf.org/http://www.cost.eu/http://www.cost.eu/http://www.esf.org/http://www.esf.org/rescue


12/64

( )

10

Research conducted in (, ). Te exercise addressed the themes of a) collaboration

between the natural and social sciences; b) theinterface between the science and policy domain;c) the requirements for monitoring and data; andd) capacity building. Since the report, whichessentially set an agenda for Earth System sciencewith a focus on Europe, there have been substantialdevelopments in the ways that social sciences engagewith the issues of global environmental change,and in the interdisciplinary dialogues between thenatural and social sciences. was thereforedevised with much deeper engagement by research-

ers active in the domain of the human drivers ofand consequences of global change. Te initiative also focuses much more on what needs tochange in the way that research and education arefunded and organised, so that the challenges of anunstable Earth can be addressed.

Te foresight initiative is a further con-tribution to international debate about researchfor global sustainability * such as the ‘FutureEarth – research for global sustainability’ initia-tive derived from the ‘Earth System Science for

Global Sustainability’ visioning process, led bythe International Council of Science (), withinvolvement of the International Social ScienceCouncil (), and the Belmont Challenge (,b; , ). At the same time that was carrying out its work, and engaged

. For more information about research on sustainability see,for example, Jäger (), www.essg.eu, www.visionrdsd.eu,or sustainabilityscience.org. Recent overviews of sustainabilityassessment purpose, methodologies and practices are provided byFrame and O’Connor () and Singh et al. ().. www.icsu.org/earth-system-sustainability-initiative. See www.icsu.org and www.issc.org. Developed by the Belmont Forum/IGFA Council of Principals,www.igfagcr.org/index.php/challenge

Figure 1.

Two recent examples of current, partly integrated approaches to

consider some of the global change issues: IGBP “Climate-Change

Index” brings together key indicators of global change: atmosphericcarbon dioxide, temperature, sea level and sea ice (tinyurl.com/6n9f

2e3), and IHDP “Earth System Governance” approach, which

emphasizes the role of institutions and governance in relation to

global change issues (www.ihdp.unu.edu/article/update-3-2009).

Hospital

YES! N O ! NO ! N O !Y ES!

YES!

U S S F is hy

Governanceas a Crosscutting eme in

Human Dimensions Science

http://www.essg.eu/http://www.visionrd4sd.eu/http://sustainabilityscience.org/http://www.icsu.org/http://www.issc.org/http://www.igfagcr.org/index.php/challengehttp://www.igfagcr.org/index.php/challengehttp://www.issc.org/http://www.icsu.org/http://sustainabilityscience.org/http://www.visionrd4sd.eu/http://www.essg.eu/


13/64

( )

11

A key target audience for this report is the com-munity of research and education policy makersand funders at national and European levels, whoare best placed to implement the recommendations.It is also of interest to all the contributing scien-

tific communities. Te report begins by examiningthe challenges posed by an ‘unstable Earth’ withreference to the main foci of : interdis-ciplinarity *, inclusion of the social sciences andhumanities, transdisciplinarity *, methods, toolsand data, capacity building and the interfacesbetween science, policy and society. Tis is followedby a vision of an open knowledge system* in whichthese challenges are addressed. A knowledge systemorganises the production, transfer and utilisationof knowledge. Numerous actors and institutions

are potentially involved: scientists, policy mak-ers, industry and business leaders, other societalgroups (including civil society organisations) andcitizens. Te report then addresses the main barri-ers to achieving this vision, which leads to a set ofrecommendations on meeting the challenges of anunstable Earth.

in a visioning process on global change researchfor global sustainability, involving a broadly-basedscientific community. Tis process identified fiveclosely related grand challenges (, a) –Forecast, Observation, Tresholds, Responses and

Innovation. Te visioning process also emphasisedthat a transition process was required (, a,p. ), from research dominated by the natural sci-ences to research involving the full range of thesciences and humanities. Te process also recognisedthat dealing with the grand challenges requires sys-temic approaches at various levels (global, regional,local) that attribute a central role to human activi-ties, values and behaviour. is now engaged ina more comprehensive global change mapping andscoping exercise within the international social sci-

ence community.It is noteworthy that, while the present report was being finalised (Sept.-Oct. ), theInternational Council for Science (), withina global alliance of partners, decided to establishthe ‘Future Earth’ initiative. Tis will be a -yearinternational collaborative initiative that aims toeffectively deliver solution-oriented research onglobal environmental change for sustainabilityand to provide global coordination for science torespond to the most pressing societal and environ-mental challenges. Tis echoes markedly some ofthe findings and conclusions of regardingthe global change research agenda setting.

Figure 2.

RESCUE word cloud


14/64

( )

12 Research over the last two decades has documented

that the Earth is undergoing major environmentaland socio-economic changes (see, for example,Steffen et al., ; Rockström et al., ; Reidet al., ). Climate change, land degradation,deforestation, biodiversity loss and changes of waterquality and quantity are prominent examples ofglobal environmental changes. Te intensity andrate of change for many of these examples havenever been recorded in the most recent geologicalera, the Holocene, or even in the uaternary (,). Globalisation, demographic changes, the

scarcity of food, energy and raw materials and thewidening gap between rich and poor are examples ofsocio-economic trends that are closely linked withthe environmental changes. Furthermore, processessuch as climate change or biodiversity loss couldlead to a number of irreversible tipping points*,including the dieback of the Amazon rainforestand decay of the Greenland ice sheet (Lenton etal., ). Despite agreements reached almost

years ago at the Conference on Environmentand Development in Rio de Janeiro, little has been

achieved in putting the planet onto a sustainabletrack. Te ‘Rio+’ United Nations Conferenceon Sustainable Development () should bea key step forward for the transitions toward sus-tainability. Tis foresight initiative aimsto contribute to such transitions.

In addition to the many ‘really global’ issues,however, it is also important to focus on local prob-lems. For instance, the triple shock that hit Japanin (earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown) is

. www.uncsd.org , and or in stance , ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/report_un_.pdf ,www.earthsummit.org , and EEAC ()

a marked example of the importance of the inter-actions within the physical environment and thefragility of our technologies and infrastructure. Howcould one anticipate and mitigate the risks associ-ated with such cascading effects of a natural disasteror extreme event on a society which relies heavily ontechnology, without the proper involvement of manyresearch disciplines? Te newly formed Integrated

2.

The Challengeof an Unstable Earth

l l l

© i

S t o c k

p h o t o

© i

S t o c k p h o t o

Figure 3.

Two examples of global change issues:

(above) land degradation and desertication; (below) water pollution.

http://www.uncsd2012.org/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/report_un_2012.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/report_un_2012.pdfhttp://www.earthsummit2012.org/http://www.earthsummit2012.org/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/report_un_2012.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/report_un_2012.pdfhttp://www.uncsd2012.org/


15/64

( )

13

successor to the current Holocene epoch. Given thatthe impact of human activity is now of the samemagnitude as biogeophysical forces, this creates acompletely novel situation posing fundamentallynew questions, including issues related to ethics,culture, religion and human rights, and requiringnew approaches and ways of thinking, understand-ing and acting. Te chal lenges are societal, not just

scientific.Overall, the work of the working groups

and task force has pointed to a number of deficitsin the science/research/education system, whichmakes it difficult or even impossible to meet thechallenges of an unstable Earth. Tese are discussedin this section.

Interdisciplinarity in global changeresearch

Disciplinary specialisation has been the basis ofscientific progress certainly since the century;Karl Pearson described the need for discipline-basedresearch per se in his book, Te Grammar of Science,first published by Walter Scott in . Disciplinaryspecialisation will remain one of the productivedivisions of knowledge labour in the future (asdescribed, for example, in the medical field by obyGelfand [] and discussed in many other stud-ies). It has been noted, however, that disciplinaritysometimes has a restrictive inertia of its own, notleast through the tendency of academic elites to seekto ‘protect their turf’, which needs to be overcome

Research on Disaster Risk () project could bea new test-bed for evaluating the human and soci-etal capacity to respond to multiple stressors and forimproving it in the short term, through an open,reflexive, adaptive mechanism.

Global change challenges have been describedin the literature as ’wicked problems’, a term thatrefers to problems that are difficult or impossibleto solve because of incomplete, contradictory andchanging requirements that are oen difficult torecognise (Rittel and Webber, ; Frame, ;Brown et al., ). Moreover, because of complexinterdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect ofa wicked problem may reveal or create other prob-lems. Long-term environmental chal lenges, whichare commonly also global, have been defined as“public policy issues that last at least one humangeneration, exhibit deep uncertainty exacerbatedby the depth of time, and engender public goods

aspects both at the stage of problem generation aswell as at the response stage” (Sprinz, , p. ;, ). Tis points to the long time-scales andstructural uncertainty inherent in global environ-mental challenges and to the difficulties that canarise when complex problems are formulated andhamper success at the response stage (e.g., van derSluijs et al., ). Te uncertainities related to thecomplexity of the global environmental change andthe human actions have been extensively examined(e.g., Funtowicz and Ravetz, ; Funtowicz and

Strand, ), especially as they play an importantrole at the science-policy and science-society inter-faces (e.g., van der Sluijs, ; Pregernig, ;van der Sluijs, ; Koetz et al., ).

Since the environment is increasingly refash-ioned by human activities, there is a need toradically reframe global environmental problemsas fundamentally social – moving beyond the tra-ditional, narrow confinement in both academicand public discussions of the ‘environment’ to the‘natural’ domain. While such a reframing presents

massive challenges for scholarship, public under-standing and engagement, governance* and policymaking, it is the only meaningful way to go. It isthe precondition not only for the mitigation of envi-ronmental problems and for societal adaptation tothe unavoidable ones but also for the broader taskof reconceptualising the human condition in the

Anthropocene epoch. Te term ‘Anthropocene’has been proposed in reference to an emergingfundamentally new epoch in planetary history, a

. www.irdrinternational.org

. See, for instance, Landscape in a Changing World – BridgingDivides, Integrating Disciplines, Serving Society. ESF-COSScience Policy Briefing , . p.

© T

h i n k s t o c k

http://www.irdrinternational.org/http://www.irdrinternational.org/


16/64

( )

14

in Amsterdam in , participants from more than countries signed the Amsterdam Declarationon Global Change. Tis called for a new systemof global environmental science that “(…) willdraw strongly on the existing and expanding dis-ciplinary base of global change science; integrateacross disciplines, environment and developmentissues and the natural and social sciences” (Mooreet al., ). In response, four international globalchange research programmes, initiated in thes or s, formed the Earth System SciencePartnership (). Within this partnership, theresearch examines the structure and functioningof the Earth system* including the changes takingplace and their implications for global and regionalsustainability (Leemans et al., ). Many othersustainability or development-related projects andintegrated approaches have been put in place in thelast few decades, by academic researchers and teach-

ers, but also by practitioners in the field and by localdevelopment and resources managers. Much hasbeen learned from those too . Te ‘Future Earth –research for global sustainability’ initiative shouldbe a useful, new step in this matter.

Althou gh there are laudable examples ofinterdisciplinary global change research (see, forexample, below) the present situation is not fullyfit for dealing with global change challenges. Onemajor reason is that interdisciplinary global changeresearch is not yet widespread. At most universities

and other (academic) research institutions, as well asin funding bodies, the monodisciplinary approachhas the upper hand. Furthermore, proponents ofinterdisciplinary global change research at timesrelegate human and social science research to anauxiliary, advisory and essentially non-scientificstatus. Social science and humanities researchshould now feed deeply into global change researchto further our understanding of human-environ-ment interaction (Crumley, ; Lövbrand et al. ; -, ). Tis should include schol-

ars dealing with ethics, culture, religion and legalissues. Tis would also open up new areas and newways of interdisciplinary collaboration between(already interdisciplinary) global change researchand fields not yet involved. Moreover, interdiscipli-narity is too oen not integrated from the start. Tenatural, human and social sciences should be inte-

. DIVERSIAS (www.diversitas-international.org),IGBP (www.igbp.net), IHDP (www.ihdp.org), and WCRP(www.wcrp-climate.org ). www.essp.org.. See, as starting points, learningforsustainability.net, www.sustainability-literacy.org and vlsearch.org/VLsearch?form=extended&qprev=sustainability

http://www.diversitas-international.org/http://www.igbp.net/http://www.ihdp.org/http://www.wcrp-climate.org/http://www.essp.org/http://learningforsustainability.net/http://www.sustainability-literacy.org/http://www.sustainability-literacy.org/http://vlsearch.org/VLsearch?form=extended&qprev=sustainabilityhttp://vlsearch.org/VLsearch?form=extended&qprev=sustainabilityhttp://vlsearch.org/VLsearch?form=extended&qprev=sustainabilityhttp://vlsearch.org/VLsearch?form=extended&qprev=sustainabilityhttp://www.sustainability-literacy.org/http://www.sustainability-literacy.org/http://learningforsustainability.net/http://www.essp.org/http://www.wcrp-climate.org/http://www.ihdp.org/http://www.igbp.net/http://www.diversitas-international.org/


17/64

( )

15

grated from day one to develop joint questions onwhich they work together. o address the challengesabove, a common theoretical and operational frame-work is needed for interdisciplinary research issues.

Research mechanisms are needed that supportthe identification of agreed, shared and co-createdinterdisciplinary research agendas (for example, the

seed-corn, sometimes referred to as ‘sand-pit’, fund-ing of the joint Research Councils’ Programmeon Rural Economy and Land Use). Tis fundinghas revealed that successful interdisciplinary work-ing requires an acceptance between representativesof different disciplines of the need to provideopportunities for scientists to learn one another’slanguages, with ‘translation’ being a prerequisitefor the development of shared research agendas(Bracken and Oughton, ).

Moving towards transdisciplinarity

In order to avoid potentially catastrophic changesand to build on opportunities to improve humanwell-being of the current and future generations,there is an urgent need to make changes at theinterface between science and policy, and indeedbetween science and society as a whole (e.g., ,). Tis requires open cooperation between thescience community and all others with relevantknowledge for contributing to solutions for the

complex problems of sustainability. Such coopera-tion is rare today.

ransdisciplinary research (see, for instance,Bergmann et al., ; Boix Mansilla et al., ;Guggenheim, ; Krott, ) is currentlyemerging in the research landscape as an approachthat focuses on a problem that is, as described by

Wickson et al. (, p. ) “‘in the world andactual’ as opposed to ‘in my head and concep-tual’”. Te authors further argue that this implicitlyassumes the notion of creating change and con-

tributing to solutions, based on the integrationof different disciplinary methodologies and, ide-ally, epistemologies, which involves collaborationwith stakeholders and the broader community. According to Wickson et al. (, p.), transdis-ciplinary research [and thus by definition education]processes emphasise the importance of reflexivity:

“When researchers become engaged in the problemthey are investigating, assumptions o objectivitywill inevitably come into question. Tis means thatit becomes important for the researcher to reflect on

how their own fames o reerence/values/belies/

. ww w.relu.ac.uk

assumptions etc. have shaped the conceptualiza-tion o the problem, as well as the development othe method o investigation and the solution.”

here is broad agreement that sustainabilityresearch seeks to understand the interactionsbetween nature and society (Ziegler and Ott, ),is highly diverse in its forms (e.g., Spangenberg,) and has to overcome the linear model ofknowledge production, within which ”science pro-

poses, society disposes” (Guston and Sarewitz,, p.). Sustainability research is hence partof what Gibbons, Nowotny and colleagues termMode knowledge production that takes place inthe context of application and provides “sociallyrobust knowledge” (Gibbons et al., ; Nowotny et al., ). Accordingly, sustainability researchis conceptualised as co-production of knowledge*,the ‘co-’ standing for a process of engagement ofacademic and non-academic knowledge produc-ers (Lemos and Morehouse, ; Robinson andansey, ). Te resulting network character ofknowledge – in the sense of interlinking knowledgesof different disciplines and actors of civil society,

An example of interdisciplinary success

(Source: RESCUE Collaboration)

Interdisciplinarity can be found within one cen-tre/institute that covers several disciplines andsometimes between different monodisciplinarycentres/institutes that form together a multi-disciplinary consortium. An example is theCentre for Environmental Sciences of HasseltUniversity (Belgium), a multidisciplinary centrewith biologists, chemists, doctors, economistsand lawyers. Tey consider one of their finestexamples of successful interdisciplinary researchas their research on the remediation of soils con-taminated with heavy metals. Biologists look atthe possibility of phytoremediation (a techniqueusing trees/plants to take up the heavy metals),chemists look at the possibilities to use thetrees/plants to produce something else, such asbiofuel and/or biochar, economists look at costsand benefits (for different trees/plants), mainlyto convince farmers to put these specific treesor plants on their contaminated land, and law-

yers look at the legal possibilities of cleaning upa soil with phytoremediation and of using the‘contaminated’ trees/plants as biomass to pro-duce biofuels.More information: www.uhasselt.be/cmk-en

http://www.relu.ac.uk/http://www.uhasselt.be/cmk-enhttp://www.uhasselt.be/cmk-enhttp://www.relu.ac.uk/


18/64

( )

16

the private sector, and public agencies – is accentu-ated by Cash et al. (), speaking of “knowledgesystems for sustainable development”. Such aknowledge system* spans the boundary betweenscience and other sectors of society, as well as thegap between knowledge and action. In their analy-sis of such knowledge systems, Cash et al. (,p.-) found “that efforts to mobilize S& forsustainability are more likely to be effective whenthey manage boundaries between knowledge andaction in ways that simultaneously enhance the sali-ence, credibility, and legitimacy of the informationthey produce”. Tere are alternative methodologicaland institutional approaches of how to create suchknowledge systems or co-production of knowledge,like specialised boundary organisations (Guston,) or transdisciplinary research processes (e.g.,Klein, ; Pohl, ). hree specific pointsshould get due attention in such processes of co-pro-

ducing knowledge: problem framing, integrationand implementation.

able points to the differences between dif-ferent types of research in terms of disciplinaryorientation, aims, methods used and approachestaken. ransdisciplinarity is in the right-hand col-umn and much of the research called for in responseto the challenges of an unstable Earth is of theimplementation-oriented type, bridging the gapbetween knowledge and action.

Many barriers to effective working across the

interface between science and policy and widersociety have already been identified – and solutionsproposed – by academics and research funders, butthey tend to focus on just one dimension or targetaudience. Te challenges of cross-boundary work-ing are also well-recognised outside of the researchcontext: businesses are especially attuned to theneed to tackle internal cultural issues because fail-ure to do so has a direct bearing on capacity to meetcustomer needs.

It is necessary to acknowledge the deeply embed-

ded norms and power relations of the knowledgesystem in which we currently operate. Tese relateto the actual structure and functioning of researchendeavours within its boundaries – and how theseboundaries are managed by researchers and otherstakeholders. Tey also affect the relationshipsbetween research and policy makers and, morebroadly, between research and the overall societyin which science is embedded.

New tools, methods and data

Global change poses unprecedented challengesto both the science and policy communities, andthese are challenges that cannot be tackled withconcepts and methods developed and applied inthe past. Both the environmental and the socialsciences have sought to address these challenges,

the former through the development of EarthSystem science (e.g., Schellnhuber, ; Steffen etal., ) and the latter through critical analysisof processes of globalisation (e.g., Amin and Tri,). However, these alternative conceptualisationshave not been integrated, despite recognition thatnew forms of inter- and transdisciplinary knowledgecreation, and new forms of inquiry, are needed. Infact, despite the need expressed in the AmsterdamDeclaration () to move towards a more inte-grated perspective, the research agenda of global

change programmes continues to be framed anddominated by the natural sciences. In their sum-mary of insights from the visioning exercise,Reid et al. () pointed out that the most pressingresearch questions were quite different from thosethat initially shaped global change programmes,and that the social sciences and humanities mustplay a central role in the next phase of global changeresearch. Tis becomes all the more necessary asthe balance of attention shis from defining theimpacts of human activities on the environment toidentifying pathways for societal change.

Research methods are needed that allow inte-grated study of pertinent, individual/behavioural,

Good Practice Example:

Awards for transdisciplinary research

Location: Switzerland Main actors involved: Stiung Mercator SchweizTime frame: Initiated in , awarded every yearsDescription: Every two years, the td-net fortransdisciplinary research grants the Swiss

Academies award for transdisciplinary re-search to an outstanding transdisciplinary re-search project by an individual or a researchgroup. Te award amounts to CHF ,.Impact: Provide recognition for those who gobeyond their disciplinary boundaries and en-gage with a wide range of other societal actorsin their research.More information: cms.stiung-mercator.ch/cms/front_content.php?idcat=

http://cms.stiftung-mercator.ch/cms/front_content.php?idcat=134http://cms.stiftung-mercator.ch/cms/front_content.php?idcat=134http://cms.stiftung-mercator.ch/cms/front_content.php?idcat=134http://cms.stiftung-mercator.ch/cms/front_content.php?idcat=134


19/64


20/64

( )

18

the detached observer. An erroneous presumptionclassically applied in natural science or engineer-ing is that integration of social science knowledgeinto global change studies can be through addi-tion of socio-economic processes into these modelstructures. However, this raises critical issues about

both the viability of representing these processesin numerical form, and the implications of doingso for the policy application of model simulations.

What are required are innovative methodologiesthat support an integration of the interpretativeand the positivist research paradigms, which offercomplementary rather than conflictive perspectives.In this regard, there are experiments with the sto-ryline and simulation () approach (Alcamo, and ), the reflexive interventionist/multi-agent-based (‘’) scenario approach (Wilkinson and

Eidinow, ) or with a reflexive governance (Voßet al., ) concept. Te visions projectis another recent example using assessments, sce-narios and models, for backcasting exercises, on thetopic of sustainable mobility in Europe in . Teterm ’backcasting’ was coined by John Robinson(Robinson, ; Dreborg, ; Robinson, )as a futures method to develop normative scena-rios and explore their feasibility and implications,by means of a participatory process. Te conceptof backcasting is central to a strategic approach for

transitions towards sustainability (for instance,Carlsson-Kanyama et al., ; uist, ).Only through the analysis of the behaviours of

individuals and groups within socio-ecosystemscan scientifically sound methods for exploring andunderstanding the emergent properties of such com-plex and adaptive (evolving) systems be developed.

of a ‘community of practice’ to improve the way they addressissues and solve problems. Action research can also be undertakenby larger organisations or institutions, assisted or gu ided byprofessional researchers, with the aim of improving their strategies,

practices and knowledge of the environments within which theypractise (see, for example, Greenwood and Levin, ).. www.mcrit.com/transvisions

In turn, it is only through the understanding of theemergent properties of the socio-ecological systemthat the capabilities needed for any approach tar-geting global change can be developed. Developingcapabilities to analyse and, possibly, to simulate thebehaviour of individuals and groups within differ-

ent societal structures and environmental contextsappears as one of the most promising avenues forunderstanding and acting on the drivers of and bar-riers to change. Tis includes developing improvedunderstandings of the ways that values, beliefs andworldviews influence perceptions of and responsesto environmental change (O’Brien and Wolf, ).In this regard, as pointed out by Balbi and Giupponi(), there is an increasing awareness that globalchange dynamics and the related socio-economicimplications involve a degree of complexity that is

not captured by traditional approaches based onequilibrium models. In particular, such analyses ofhuman-environment systems do not consider theemergence of new behavioural patterns. Tis even-tually leads to a flawed policy making process thatrelies on unrealistic assumptions (Moss et al., ).Caballero () recently added “that the currentcore of macroeconomics – by which I mainly meanthe so-called dynamic stochastic general equilib-rium approach – has become so mesmerized with itsown internal logic that it has begun to confuse the

precision it has achieved about its own world withthe precision that it has about the real one. Tis isdangerous for both methodological and policy rea-sons”. Within economics, a substantial rethinkingis underway regarding the capability of main-stream methods to deal with the complexity and thedynamics of current – and future – societal systems.Similar statements are made for other researchfields related to global environmental change and itshuman drivers and consequences (e.g., Stern et al.,; Fraser et al., ; -, ). Te mul-tiple crises that humans are currently facing (e.g.,financial, economical, depletion of water, food andenergy resources, climate change, pollution) make

© T

h i n k s t o c k

© T

h i n k s t o c k

http://www.mcrit.com/transvisionshttp://www.mcrit.com/transvisions


21/64

( )

19

it even more urgent to consider all these in a sys-temic way. Tere is a need to search for solutionsnot only across disciplines, but also across problemareas, and any sustainability research, agenda andgovernance should consider carefully the linkagesbetween problem areas. Te denial of the complex-

ity of global change issues, as sometimes observed,or attempts to over-simplify can also lead to prob-lems, such as putting blame on the wrong people ordeveloping a conviction that there is no need to act.

Discrete or statistical data on human popu-lation characteristics and behaviours are widelycollected through censuses and surveys. Data onhuman behaviour oen rely on inference and mayrun up against confidentiality concerns. In addi-tion, even data on population characteristics varywidely in their quality, completeness and compa-

rability among countries. Other data-related issuesinclude accessibility or availability, temporal andspatial resolution or granularity of social data, themultiplicity of data sources and standards, the highcost of commercially produced data, private dataprotection and/or commercialisation, overall pro-tection of privacy, data loss, and the costs of qualitycontrol and long-term archiving of data sets thatwere ‘born digital’ and which may have futurevalue as baseline data or for longitudinal analysis.

Al l these issues need to be further considered as

part of the challenges and should be thus studiedin order to suggest systemic improvements for themutual benefit of data and information providersor gatherers and users (i.e., modellers, theorists,policy advisors, businesses, general public). Largegeographical areas of the Earth lack the necessarydensity of data coverage for reliable description ormodelling by conventional methods (notably, butnot exclusively, in Africa). Even in economicallywealthy countries, this density may be threatenedby short-term policy exigencies. As well as the spa-tial and temporal coverage being uneven, there isoen a problem of inter-temporal comparability.Indeed, innovation may itself be as much a barrier

as a solution, since there is a considerable need forcontinuity and reliability in data streams ratherthan frequent short-term innovation and instability,especially because short-term, low-risk innovation isoen prioritised by academia and research funders.Tis is true even of remotely-sensed environmen-

tal data, but is even more marked for social sciencedata, where long-term monitoring has been less sys-tematic, funding for data collection is limited, andwhere there may even be a tendency for researchfunders and policy makers to alter data protocols inorder to frustrate the very longitudinal study thatis required.

Data constitute the raw material of scientificunderstanding and science (and methodological)innovation is, in part, data driven (, ;, ). New sources of data and associ-

ated tools, such as crowd-sourced and citizen-sciencedata, participatory science e-data, SciScope, andever higher resolution satellite imagery, high tem-poral resolution of in situ data measurements andquasi-real time acquisition and processing, are driv-ing innovations in science and also in praxis (Dozierand Gail, ). Data-sharing principles beingdeveloped under the Directive in Europe,under the Group on Earth Observations () glob-ally (, ) and in other contexts are pavingthe way to greater accessibility with fewer restric-

tions. Te increasing number and sophisticationof satellite instruments has led to an exponential

. Te World Data Center system (WDC; www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc and www.icsu-wds.org) of the International Council forScience () has been established in the early s to guaranteeaccess to solar, geophysical and related environmental data. Itserves the whole scientific community by assembling, scrutinising,organising and disseminating data and information. Recognisinga worldwide demand for useful, reliable and readily availablescientific and technological data, in established aCommittee on Data for Science and echnology (CODAA;www.codata.org) to promote throughout the world the evaluation,compilation and dissemination of data for science and technologyand to foster international collaboration in this field.

. www.sciscope.org . Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the EuropeanCommunity (INSPIRE), inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu

© T

h i n k s t o c k

© i

S t o c k p h o t o

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdchttp://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdchttp://www.icsu-wds.org/http://www.codata.org/http://www.sciscope.org/http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/http://www.sciscope.org/http://www.codata.org/http://www.icsu-wds.org/http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdchttp://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc


22/64

( )

20

increase in data availability to scientists work-ing on climate, biophysical and biogeographicalsystems, and have brought about significant inno-vations in these disciplines. o be sure, these datacan also be useful to social scientists (de Sherbininet al., ; de Sherbinin, ), but our ability tomake inferences about individual behaviour fromsatellite observations is still limited and depends

heavily on field-based observations and, critically,census and survey data. Furthermore, much can belearned about socio-ecological systems and humanvulnerability and resilience* to global environmen-tal change by integrating data from the social andnatural sciences in a spatial framework (e.g., Balket al., ; de Sherbinin, ; Dilley et al., ;O’Brien and Wolf, ).

At present, not many shared databases and proto-cols exist in global change research, and particularlyin the social sciences. Tis set of data resources isfar from being comprehensive, integrated or inter-operational. One initiative to improve this situationis promoted by a group of scholars working on the

governance of social-ecological systems*, who havestarted to assemble in a loose network to developthe foundations for such shared databases and pro-tocols for analysis. In order to analyse more broadlythe potential and limitations of such undertakings,more support is required for infrastructure andmethodological development and incentives are

needed for wide participation in such joint efforts.Many global change case study analyses havebeen conducted in isolation. Hence it is quite dif-ficult to come to general insights and to be able toconduct comparative analyses. Some scholars havesuggested what can be called a diagnostic approachtaking into account complexity in a systematic fash-ion (e.g., Grimm et al., ; Alessa et al., ;Ostrom, ; Smith and Stirling, ; Young,; Norberg and Cumming, ; Pahl-Wostl,). Such an approach should support context-sensitive analysis without being case-specific and

thus not transferable. Tis is a major methodologi-cal challenge since active stakeholder involvementis rather driving case studies towards becomingentirely case-specific. A requirement for compara-tive analyses would be to develop and agree onmethodological approaches and data collection pro-tocols that are both sufficiently formalised so thatthey provide the basis for comparative analyses yetsufficiently flexible to address case-specific issuesand developments. In this direction, there are someattempts to produce a typology of knowledge inte-

gration in case studies of transdisciplinary research(e.g., Zierhofer and Burger, ).

The need for an “educationrevolution”

Te important role of education was acknowledged years ago in the following statement: “Education[…] should be recognized as a process by whichhuman beings and societies can reach their fullest

potential. Education is critical for promoting sus-tainable development and improving the capacity ofthe people to address environment and developmentissues.” (Agenda , , Chapter ). Te WorldBank’s Global Knowledge Learning launched in is another early demonstration of the beliefthat knowledge in democratic governance is a keyfactor for poverty reduction and sustainable devel-opment (Blindenbacher, ).

Te potential consequences of human impactson the environment have provoked many argumentsfor urgent and unprecedented responses, from callsfor transformations in energy systems and a shi tomore sustainable ways of living, to calls for geo- or

Figure 4.

The atmospheric pollution caused by the Eyjafjallajökull eruption

created many disturbances in the European transport industry

and in associated human activities. The direct cost of this 6-day

event in 2010 was estimated to about 2.5 billion Euros.

Figure 5.

The soil and water pollution caused by waste management

industry is more local but contributes also markedly to the

environmental degradation and the loss of good living conditions.

© i

S t o c k p h o t o

© T

h i n k s t o c k


23/64

( )

21

bio-engineering projects and authoritarian eco-regimes (e.g., Brown, ; Shearman and Smith,; Victor et al., ). While it is clear thatpart of the problems the world is currently facingare linked to some intentional or unconscious (his-torical and present) choices toward a technological,engineering-based society, and that some or parts ofthose problems could be addressed through sometechnological solutions, it is now understood thatsociety is heavily dependent on technology-associ-ated natural (finite) resources (e.g., energy, water,land, rare-earth elements) and on unfairly used ordistributed human resources (e.g., cheap labour, lackof work safety, child work). Society is thus facingnew (i.e., never experienced before) challenges thatrequire a strong, integrated research mix of natural,physical, social sciences and humanities. Underlyingmany of these arguments is a growing recognitionthat responses to the complex environmental and

social challenges of the century require a radi-cally different approach to education and capacitybuilding. Education appears to play a critical rolein developing understanding and building capac-ity to act, i .e., to address the complex, non-linearand potentially irreversible environmental changesassociated with human activities (, ).Tere is, however, concern that most universitiesand research institutes are limited in their deliveryof the type of interdisciplinary or transdisciplinaryknowledge needed to address environmental prob-

lems; they certainly are not delivering as quickly asscientific findings suggest is necessary.

Since the century, a powerful and highlysuccessful model for education and capacity build-ing has predominated in the Western world, whichhas been exported to all corners of the world. Tismodel has been built around the demands of theindustrial era, and includes the development ofdisciplinary expertise, academic autonomy, andtransmission of knowledge and information todevelop a society that promotes material and tech-

nological progress and achievement. In recent years,this model has (in many parts of the world) includeda greater role for the private sector, with an empha-sis on standardisation, learning* outcomes, andperformance indicators. As Sterling (, p.)argues, “[t]his managerial approach in educationreflects mechanistic beliefs in determinism andpredictability – which leads in turn to a belief inthe possibility and merits of control.” Te approachfavours educating people to adapt to change, ratherthan building their capacity to shape and createchange (Sterling, ).

However, in light of scientific and socialadvances, strong evidence is accumulating that a

new phase of systematic education and capacitybuilding in sustainable development/sustainabilitywill be needed, which integrates a diversity of meth-ods and goals at all levels (e.g., Hesselink et al., ;

Adams, ; Hoffman and Barstow, ; Jörg etal., ; Esbjörn-Hargens et al., ; Jones et al.,). From the practices of pre-school and schooleducation to institutions for higher education, andfrom the learning and knowledge diffusion activi-ties of scientific research to adult learning and skillacquisition, the challenge is to synthesise and applythe latest findings from a range of fields, includingpsychology (e.g., Gilbert, ), cognitive science,teaching methods, creativity and collaborativeknowledge creation to transform education such thatit can meet the challenges and uncertainties of globalenvironmental change. New approaches to researchand education are now seen as the foundation forbuilding the capacity to respond to environmental

change. Suggested approaches include Radical Inter-and ransdisciplinary research Environment ()( Collaboration), and a greater emphasis onsystems analysis, higher-order thinking and ‘resil-ience thinking’ (Walker and Salt, ; Reid et al.,; Fazey et al., ; Sterling, ; Krasny etal., ). Knowledge, it has been argued, can nolonger be seen as separate and disconnected fromactors and policy processes, and new methods andapproaches to collecting, managing and interpret-ing data are regarded as necessary to understand

dynamic changes.In short, it is becoming clear that ‘business as

usual’ or ‘more of the same’ will no longer be suit-able, and that nothing less than a ‘revolution’ ineducation and capacity building is needed to con-front the challenges posed by global environmentalchange. he changes in education and capacitybuilding that are needed in response to contempo-rary and future environmental and social challengeswill require more than adjustments in current edu-cational systems, research funding strategies and

interdisciplinary collaborations. While such inter-ventions may be important and necessary, theyrepresent ‘first order changes’ or ‘doing more of thesame, but better’ (Sterling, ). Instead, Revolution argues that there is a need to promotesecond- or even third-order changes that involvere-thinking systems by “seeing things differently”(Sterling, , p.). In other words, the revolutionin education and capacity building is not simply atechnical problem, defined by Heifetz et al. ()as a problem that has known solutions that can beimplemented through current know-how, but alsois an adaptive challenge that can only be addressedthrough changes in people’s mindsets, priorities,


24/64

( )

22

beliefs, habits and loyalties (Hoffman and Barstow,; Reid et al., ; Heifetz et al., ; Keganand Lahey, ; Jones et al., ).

Many institutions of higher education havealready responded to the call for more interdiscipli-nary research (see examples in box). Interdisciplinaryresearch programmes have been fostered by theinternational global change research communityof the International Council for Sciences ()and capacity building for the international globalchange research community by, e.g., the GlobalChange System for Analysis, Research and raining() organisation. But reforms have beenrelatively slow, and in some cases even counter-pro-ductive. For example, many of the initiatives consistof ‘clip together’ course offerings that do not includea coherent framework for understanding complexprocesses of social-ecological systems, includingdeeper issues linked to psychology, consciousness/

cognitive studies, cultural studies, religious studiesand so on. Te fact that much has been tried, withless than satisfactory results, suggests that it may benecessary to seek answers outside of the traditionalresponses and institutions. In other words, innova-tive approaches to solving persistent problems areneeded.

Oen the repeated calls for more interdiscipli-nary global environmental change research, newframings of environmental and societal problems,more stakeholder participation and so on represent

a continuous revolution around an unchanging andeven unrecognised or invisible axis. Tis axis, onecould argue, represents a core set of unquestionedassumptions that lead to only small and step-wisechanges (including a few new models of good prac-tice in interdisciplinary research on sustainability).Drawing on this image of revolution, it appears thatthe majority of existing approaches to education areprimarily spinning on an unquestioned and invisibleaxis. Most approaches treat the challenge for educa-tion and capacity building as a technical problem

that requires adjustments in current practices. omove beyond this particular type of circular revolu-tion, it may be necessary to identify an alternativeapproach, i.e., changing the axis by questioning cur-rent beliefs and assumptions regarding the deliveryof education.

Significantly, recognises that “[t]hedualism of nature and culture […] both obstructsour understanding of what is global change andweakens our ability to address those challenges”(, ). his dualistic worldview thatseparates humans and environment represents the

. www.start.org

Examples of interdisciplinary

education and learning initiatives

(non-exhaustive list)

Interdisciplinary schools and initiatives estab-lished to promote education for sustainabilityinclude:

Te Institute of Human-Environment Systemsat the Swiss Federal Institute of echnology,Zurich, Switzerland; the SustainabilityNetwork, Zurich, Switzerland; the OsloSustainability Initiative at the Universityof Oslo, Norway; the Stockholm ResilienceCentre, Sweden; the ‘Strategic Leadershiptowards Sustainability’ International c pro-gramme at , Sweden; the Centreat the University of Sussex, Brighton, ;the Cambridge Sustainability Practitioner

Programme and its Cambridge SustainabilityNetwork, ; the International ResearchInstitute in Sustainability at the University ofGloucestershire, Cheltenham, ; the Institutefor Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam,Germany; the German Social EcologicalResearch () Programme; the InternationalCenter for ransdisciplinary Research inFrance; the Université Interdisciplinaire deParis, France; the – ‘Construire lesnotions-clés du développement durable’ semi-

nars, Reims, France; the Sustainabilityransition, Environment, Economy and localPolicy research network, France; the ‘Dossierset Débats pour le Développement Durable’ asso-ciation, France; the Doctoral School SustainableDevelopment at the University of NaturalResources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria;the Centre of ransdisciplinary Cognitive andState-System Sciences, Austria; the ResearchInstitute for Managing Sustainability, ViennaUniversity of Economics and Business,

Austria; the newly formed European Networkfor Environmental Ethics; the School forSustainability at the Arizona State University,; the Institute for Sustainable Solutions atthe Portland State University, ; the Institutefor Resources, Environment and Sustainabilityat the University of British Columbia, Canada;the ‘Social and Ecological Sustainability’ PhDprogramme, University of Waterloo, Canada;the ransdisciplinary Doctoral Programmefocusing on Complexity and SustainabilityStudies ‘sama’ in Stellenbosch University,

South Africa.

http://www.start.org/http://www.start.org/


25/64

( )

23

revolution in the making” (Giridharadas, ).Te high levels of specialisation and the division oflabour promoted by the industrial revolution have

led to reductionist understandings and actions byindividuals and organisations. Different types ofreforms have been proposed and tested (see, e.g.,Corcoran and Wals, ). However, it has beenargued that: “sustainability does not simply require an ‘add-on’

to existing structures and curricula, but impliesa change o undamental epistemology in our cul-ture and hence also in our educational thinkingand practice. Seen in this light, sustainability is not

just another issue to be added to an overcrowded

curriculum, but a gateway to a different view of cur-riculum, o pedagogy, or organizational change, o policy and particularly o ethos.”(Sterling, , p. ).

Necessary institutional change

Te challenges of dealing with persistent problemsof unsustainability require a new, open knowledgesystem. Tis means, as discussed throughout thisreport, integrative research, integration of knowl-edge, increased public awareness and interest,collective problem framing, plurality of perspec-

ontological basis for modernity and positivist sci-ence (e.g., Castree, ). Te questions are: whatkind of capacity is necessary to move beyond this

dualism? What kind of education is needed to play arole in building this capacity and changing the waythat problems are understood and addressed? Tepredominant approaches to the problems discussedabove oen fall prey to this dualism, and this obser-vation drives us to look for the roots underlying suchapproaches. Bohm () pursued such an inquiryand found incoherence in perceptions and the frag-mentation of thought to be at the heart of such issues.

Tere is clearly a need for a comprehensive andstrategic approach to capacity building to address

complex global change problems (e.g., Leemans etal., ). Te key challenges for research iden-tified through the visioning processes andBelmont forum will require an enhanced researchand education capacity to address them throughinterdisciplinary research (Reid et al., ; ,b; , ; , ).

University education systems have been themain channel for developing and disseminatingunderstanding of global environmental change. Yetthese systems are undergoing enormous changesin response to social, economic and technologicalchanges. For example, “[t]eacherless or virtual-teacher learning is described by enthusiasts as a

Location: IndiaMain actors involved: A collective of urban edu-cated persons and professionals registered asSocial Work and Research Centre, rural com-munitiesTime frame: Established in Description: Tis is an example of new initiativeson South-South learning using different lan-

guages, including art and non-scientific jargonnow emerging in the field of sustainability. Inthe Barefoot College in Rajasthan, India, illiter-ate women learn about the use of solar technol-ogy and then share their knowledge with otherill iterate women.

In the meantime, Barefoot College’s philoso-phy has spread over a network that has grownorganically throughout India and even Africa.Te women at Barefoot College learn how tosolve their everyday problems in a sustainableway and strive for a more balanced society. It isfunded through grants and donations receivedfrom the Government of India, international

funding agencies as well as private foundations,and through income generated through ownsources.More information: www.barefootcollege.org;vooruit.be/en/page/;thoughtsandtalks.so-on.be

Good Practice Example: Barefoot College in Rajasthan, India

http://www.barefootcollege.org/http://vooruit.be/en/page/1491http://thoughtsandtalks.so-on.be/http://thoughtsandtalks.so-on.be/http://vooruit.be/en/page/1491http://www.barefootcollege.org/


26/64

( )

24

Research Council, have not yet fully harnessed thehumanities as well as certain parts of other sciencesbadly needed for successful global change research.

New research activities, such as the ‘Living WithEnvironmental Change’ () programme, theFrench ‘Climate-Environment-Society’ researchconsortium, the French ‘Global EnvironmentalChanges and Societies’ () programme andthe German ‘Megacities – Megachallenge: InformalDynamics of Global Change’ programme, prom-ise to increase funding for radical interdisciplinarityby programmatically cutting across all disciplinesand there are also good examples of successful inter-disciplinary collaboration for International Polar

Year projects. A number of reports for the DirectorateGeneral for Research & Innovation have recom-mended increased funding for interdisciplinaryresearch, while also deploring the inadequacy ofcurrent levels of integrated research responses togrand challenges (Lyall, ). Te ‘Monitoring

. www.lwec.org.uk . www.gisclimat.fr/en . www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/programmes-de-recherche/appel-detail/changements-environnementaux-planetaires-et-

societes-cep-s- . www.megacities-megachallenge.org/index.html . ipy.arcticportal.org

tives, better treatment of uncertainty and values,extended peer review, broader and transparentmetrics for evaluation, dialogue processes, soci-etal agenda setting and stakeholder engagement.

All of this will require major institutional change.Te kinds of institutional changes required for anopen knowledge system to respond to sustainability

challenges are elaborated further in the remainderof this report. Here one example is highlighted –changes in the way that global change research isevaluated and supported.

Current processes used by the institutionsbestowed with authority, funding and peer-reviewcapacity to decide what is ‘good science�

rescue report

Documents