Topic 3: What are the interrelationships among sustainability, sustainability science, and sustainable development?

There are compelling elements to both arguments (maximize overlap vs. maintain some separation), so perhaps it would move the debate further if, rather than asking simply "how much overlap," we began to identify what kinds of overlap are beneficial, and what kinds of separation are desirable. 

The intersection between the two endeavors is of course not as simple as the intersection between two big homogenous circles.  Each has many sub-endeavors, activities, and outputs, which create a lot of different contours and facets at which they could intersect -- some highly desirable synapses, and some places where some insulation between them is a good thing.  When and where should we aim to maximize overlap between the two endeavors?  

Exploring forms of connectivity, illustrated with examples, could be very useful in adding nuance to the dialogue.

Previously Christina Ingersoll wrote:

On the theme of separation or overlap of SS and SD:

I thought the U of MN discussion on the potential downsides of a strong overlap between sustainability science and sustainable development very interesting. I agree that questions of moral frameworks are valuable to a general discussion of sustainability. (though tricky!) I also agree with the usefulness of imagining that the sustainability scientists and those on the "action front" of sustainable development are (largely) different groups of people.

But I'm not convinced on the utility of keeping sustainability science separate from sustainable development. Examples might help. Can someone offer some examples of specific kinds of SS research, or specific SS disciplines that are best kept away from SD and explain why?

Looking forward to your thoughts!

 - Christina

 

I, too, was intrigued by the arguments that the University of Minnesota discussed in regards to this subject.  While initially counter-intuitive, the idea of creating some boundary between sustainability science and sustainable development ultimately became, in my mind, a necessary component of defining the goals and methods of sustainability science.  The results of scientific scientific papers are not, and should not be, written in a language that speaks directly to application, but rather, through careful translation, can form the basis of policy recommendations.  In my experience, scientific papers form specific conclusions about particular spheres of study, and cannot necessarily be expanded to larger scales.  Additionally, scientific papers often produce conflicting results, and it is only with careful inspection that one can test the robustness of each of the findings and make a choice between them (or, perhaps, choose to not make a choice).  Both of these characteristics of scientific studies call for some level of separation between sustainability science, the research, and sustainable development, the action; it is not a straight and simple path from SS to SD because they simply do not clearly communicate with each other, and it is dangerous to call for their overlap and create the assumption that they do.  Rather, some boundary must be made, with those in a position to make the sustainability science understandable and relevant to those on the sustainable development side.

One example that I can think of has to do with the science surrounding the major climate change debates.  I took a course this past year in which we examined scientific articles drawing various conclusions on topics like sea level change, polar ice melting, and increased hurricane frequency and intensity.  While everyone in the course, including the two prominent Earth and Planetary Science professors, were quite convinced of the potential disastrous effects of climate change, we all left significantly more skeptical of the scientific conclusions that once informed those beliefs.  That even scientists could be under-informed (or even misinformed) about a topic that fuels a significant amount of policy is clear evidence of the danger of allowing those doing sustainable development to act on the basis of raw scientific findings.

Previously Christina Ingersoll wrote:

On the theme of separation or overlap of SS and SD:

I thought the U of MN discussion on the potential downsides of a strong overlap between sustainability science and sustainable development very interesting. I agree that questions of moral frameworks are valuable to a general discussion of sustainability. (though tricky!) I also agree with the usefulness of imagining that the sustainability scientists and those on the "action front" of sustainable development are (largely) different groups of people.

But I'm not convinced on the utility of keeping sustainability science separate from sustainable development. Examples might help. Can someone offer some examples of specific kinds of SS research, or specific SS disciplines that are best kept away from SD and explain why?

Looking forward to your thoughts!

 - Christina

 

After sleeping on my comments I had a few additional things to add. Perhaps there is a confusion between sustainability science and sustainable development because (under my framing of things) within academic organizations there are many "sustainability scientists" that consider themselves in the field of sustainable development (the goal rather than the means). Its a subtle point, but I think most of these people would refer to themselves as social scientists (maybe some even as natural scientists) and thus the work they are engaged in is science in support of sustainable development (i.e. sustainability scientists).

People working in the field of sustainable development as scientists are very actively engaged (hopefully) in use-inspired basic research (Pasteur's quadrant). They also may work as boundary organizers (with varying effectiveness) between science and development, but I am not sure about this and need to think through what the relationship looks like more.

Previously Alicia Harley wrote:

I have attached a first stab at a graphic that may help clarify the relationship between sustainability science and sustainable development (and sustainability generally) that John Vincent brought up. I confess that the diagram is largely extrapolated from Bill's comments in response to the questions raised about the linkages between sustainability science and sustainable development. 

I am of the opinion that the relationship is not very complex and some of the questions raised about synergies between sustainable development and sustainability science dont make a lot of sense to me. In my formulation, sustainability science supports the goals of sustainable development (both in developing countries and globally). The goals of sustainable development are defined by international organizations such as the UN and research into what it will take to ensure "the freedom of future generations to sustain their lives on this planet". I think the argument of the first chapter of the book is that we need a use-inspired basic research agenda comprising sustainability science to achieve the goals of sustainable development. The end result of all of this the would be "sustainability". 

I am curious to know if others agree with my framing or if there is a more complex relationship between sustainability science and sustainable development that I am missing. Is so would love to discuss. 

Previously Alicia Harley wrote:

I have attached a first stab at a graphic that may help clarify the relationship between sustainability science and sustainable development (and sustainability generally) that John Vincent brought up. I confess that the diagram is largely extrapolated from Bill's comments in response to the questions raised about the linkages between sustainability science and sustainable development. 

I am of the opinion that the relationship is not very complex and some of the questions raised about synergies between sustainable development and sustainability science dont make a lot of sense to me. In my formulation, sustainability science supports the goals of sustainable development (both in developing countries and globally). The goals of sustainable development are defined by international organizations such as the UN and research into what it will take to ensure "the freedom of future generations to sustain their lives on this planet". I think the argument of the first chapter of the book is that we need a use-inspired basic research agenda comprising sustainability science to achieve the goals of sustainable development. The end result of all of this the would be "sustainability". 

I am curious to know if others agree with my framing or if there is a more complex relationship between sustainability science and sustainable development that I am missing. Is so would love to discuss.

I like your diagram, Alicia. If there is sensitivity to some of the points Matt raised about the relationship between sustainability science and sustainability development, an additional option would be a circular flow diagram depicting sustainability science informing policy development, managers, practitioners, etc., leading to sustainable development, and back to sustainability science. This denotes a feedback loop from sustainable development back into sustainability science and avoids depicting any hierarchical relationship (not that there’s anything wrong with that).  I believe Bill made a comment about sustainability science needing more feedback mechanisms for what is and what isn’t working from the development front. This diagram would obviously have space limitations in the disciplinary representation of sustainability science.  Anyway, it’s just a thought.

Interactions between sustainability, sustainability science and sustainable development is such an intriguing topic.  It has come up numerous times during our preparation for the last session, during Dr. Clark's presentation and in discussions after that.  I agree with John that it is interesting that sustainability science is expected to 'support sustainable development, specifically human development'.  From the book and other references we understand that this includes ecological processes like life support systems and biodiversity so long as they factor in human development.

However the identification and understanding about biodiversity in the planet is fraught with uncertainty.  More importantly the understanding about human linkages with species and ecosystems is also characterized by uncertainty.  So my question is, how do we know which species is beneficial for us and which isn't? Which of these linkages should we potentially worry about? Many species haven't even been identified yet. If we're considering a temporal scale, how do we put a number on this?  That is if we do know a species is likely to be important for us later, do we worry about it if this 'later' period is very far in the future? A lot of questions but I cannot help thinking these issues stand at the intersection between sustainability, sustainable development and sustainability science.

Previously John B. Vincent wrote:

What are the major ways in which sustainability, sustainability science and sustainable development interact and overlap? Is the ambiguity in their interrelationships and the discourse thus produced positive or negative? Should the magnitudes of their interplay be larger or smaller than the status quo (e.g. possible synergistic interactions through greater integration of fields)? Consider any alternative configurations of these three in an ideal situation. 

Response: This is an interesting "defining the terms" question you've raised John. I have some trouble distinguishing out "sustainability" from sustainability science and sustainable development, but comparing and evaluating the latter two I think is profitable and constitutes a significant part of chapter one of the Sustainability Science book for this class.

In the book chapter, the authors clearly discuss sustainability in the context of actions that will provide for the long term well-being of humans. An "unabashedly anthropocentric" view (page 3). As declared, I think this is a useful parametrization of the discussion - but it is different than what I first think of when I think of "sustainability science" in that regard, I think from a position as an ecologist who focused on forest and prairie systems that did not really require a direct consideration of humans.

So it seems interesting to consider "sustainability science" as specifically the scientific research that will support and inform sustainable development, specifically human development. It seems that a broad umbrella "sustainability science" would include ecologists, probably chemists, certainly agricultural scientists, and social scientists (sociologists, economists, anthropologists, etc.) but it leaves me wondering if there's a place for geologists and physicists. 

 

Other thoughts?