Comments on book chapter

The chapter provides a good introduction of sustainability science that can be strengthened however by developing and contextualizing further certain sections (see suggestions below). Oftentimes the authors do not provide enough explanation as to why they chose to focus on a given aspect, and do not always relate their argument to references in the literature. The chapter also needs to link further to the other chapters in the book- especially given that this is the introductory chapter. The reader needs to have an idea of what else is coming and where are given sections further discussed. The tone of the book is accessible and relatively easy to understand; we do find however that academic jargon is juxtaposed with colloquialisms which create a bit of a disjointed flow.  Some sections of the book could be reorganized to follow a logical connection, for instance problem-driven focus (1.4.1) should probably be followed (or preceded) by boundary-spanning work (1.4.4) since they both address the science-policy nexus and the need to address real world issues. Figures would benefit from being redrawn to represent more closely concepts exposed in the chapter; currently most of the figures seem to be coming from other sources.

Important Points that need to be clarified:

-          Explain why sustainability science is anthropocentric, and why that choice was made. What do the authors mean by anthropocentric (i.e. there are several ways of conceptualizing this notion). In particular, how does sustainability science deal with utilitarianism, is the end goal to maximize human well-being and in what way?

-          Contemporary challenges (1.2)

o   Why are those specific challenges considered to be the key challenges for sustainability? The authors should probably make it explicit how are goals of sustainability science negotiated- this could be discussed further in the boundary-spanning section where the authors mention science to policy linkages.

o   Addressing extreme inequalities is another key contemporary challenge that we feel should be included as it plays an important role in the effort to establish a balance between human needs and ecosystem functions. Including ‘inequality’ would rally many researchers that work on development issues to sustainability science.

-          In section 1.3, we felt that more could be provided in terms of evolution of ideas that influenced and shaped sustainability science rather than detailing the increase in the number of meetings and institutions associated with sustainability. Also, the link between sustainable development and sustainability needs to be more clearly exposed.

-          Problem-driven focus on human-environment systems (1.4.1): what mechanisms decide which important problems to tackle?  Linking further sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.4 (boundary-spanning work) would potentially allow for a stronger justification as to how issues are chosen and how they are potentially solved (the science-policy nexus).

-          Integrative approach to understanding complex human-environment interactions (1.4.2): Elaborate on why it is important to study coupled human-environment as a whole. The idea of emergent properties (discussed in a subsequent chapter) should be introduced here.

-          Boundary spanning work (1.4.4):

o   We feel that this section in particular needs to be partially reworked to include and explain further the potential cross-fertilization and challenges associated with science and policy linkages. In a nutshell, discuss further what is boundary-spanning work and the many facets it may take. The reference to Stokes’ quadrants- even if interesting and valuable- could be minimized. In fact, the idea of boundary-spanning is actually somewhat ignored and instead we get discussion of Stokes and his quadrants. We would rather see more about the interface and about spanning the boundaries between scholarship and practice. A benefit of including more literature on boundary work (with perhaps related references to boundary work and boundary organizations, e.g. Gieryn 1999 and Guston 2001 or approached through Bill’s work with David Cash and others on salience, legitimacy, and credibility and boundary orgs) would be the inclusion of politics, which we think is a gap in the introduction. The first chapter, for example, does not mention the word 'politics' and only once mentions 'political'—and the latter comes only as a background reference to the WSSD rather than as a conceptual contribution. The footnotes, however, allude to the ideas of boundary work and boundary organizations. Inclusion of these terms in section 1.4.4. would be a good way to show how sustainability science must give due attention to both the workings of environmental and human systems. It would also help draw in students with a background in political science that have much to contribute to the field.

o   The role that other fields and research approaches can play in sustainability science needs to be clarified and discussed. In this section (see line 382-384), a dichotomy seems to be drawn between “classical scientific research and context-dependent knowledge derived from practice and experience” which can alienate other research approaches, especially in the social sciences since it seems to relegate their approaches to context dependent knowledge rather than valid scholarly research.  This sub-section and the chapter in general, would benefit from being more inclusive to other research approaches which can also deal with sustainability issues. Promoting this inclusion would allow for boundary spanning work to occur. 

Additional suggestions:

-          Page 6, line 232, regarding “first decade of research on global environmental change.”  From the footnote this refers to a specific research program and the turn of the century, but the context doesn’t make sense because it makes it sound like only ten years of research have been done on global environmental change. [ Marci Baranski- ASU]

-          Early in the introduction, sustainability is framed as “what is to be sustained?” and “what is to be developed?” However the “for whom” is not addressed. Figure 1.1 places equity under the “what is to be developed” category, yet I see it as a fundamentally different question (figure 1.1 is also missing a spatial scale component). I know this figure has been used in Our Common Journey and has been cited widely, however I still question whether not the “for whom” is addressed adequately. [Christina Wong]

-          The Stokes discussion offers a valuable but little-known perspective that would benefit many readers. If the bulk of this text were moved elsewhere, I see room here for the inclusion of other boundary-related discussions. Here, I especially think of the literature on linking knowledge and action and the 2003 PNAS article by Cash et al. on Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development. Another great resource in this regard would be the Kennedy School's Global Environmental Assessment Project, out of which the Cash et al. 2003 article and a number of other relevant writings come. Line 393, which references 'deep epistemological questions' regarding 'hybrid mechanisms' could also be a place to slip in discussion of the political because 'hybrid' here calls to my mind STS and science policy literature that considers both the epistemological and political aspects of work spanning research and practice. [Chad Monfreda].

-          - On page 5, Bill references the authors’ preferred nomenclature of H-E vs. SES, and asks in a note what the best way to address this is within the text. I would suggest a footnote that recognizes the complementary and parallel research traditions that contribute to what is more than just a difference in terms, but elaborates a bit upon the differences in the research traditions, as well. [Arijit Guha]

-          Line 383-384 –There are whole bodies of literature that provide scientific based knowledge that is based on context-dependent processes (i.e. regional geography, place-based cultural studies etc…).  The authors need to also make room for such type of scientific endeavor and explain how they can fit into a broader sustainability science outlook. For instance, how are theories of the mid-range fitting here? Including these types of approaches would actually be quite beneficial as it would make other disciplinary approaches understand how they can be integrated –and are also needed- for a transition to sustainability.[Karina Benessaiah]

On figures:

-           The “Matson Matrix” referred to and described on pages 8 and 9 does little to enlighten the reader by describing how various research projects fit into the overarching idea of sustainability science.  These paragraphs can probably be cut without losing much value. Or rather, the message of the paragraphs (i.e., the importance of sustainability science’s inherent integrative approach) can be put forth without placing them within the context of the matrix. [Arijit Guha]

-           Figure 1.5, showing the mismatch in spatial and temporal scales, also seems unnecessary. The argument in the text doesn’t really require a figure. [Arijit Guha]

-          On Fig 1.2 bis (that is 1.3) I have issues with this figure. I do not find that it represents adequately what sustainability science is about, especially since it situates sustainability science as possibly apart from either human or environment systems. See attached tiff for alternative figure 3  [Karina Benessaiah]

In general, a really great chapter! It did an awesome job of framing the monograph and tackling a lot of the definition issues grappled with in the other readings. A few things that jumped out at me:

• "For this book, we have developed a perspective on sustainability that is broad but unabashedly anthropocentric." This strikes me as particularly strong language given that much justification isn't offered. Why should scholars working in the field choose this "clarify to intention and perspective"? Who feels left out by this definition? Are they really left out?
  
• "Complex adaptive systems" are referenced multiple times without really being defined (it might be confusing for someone who is new to the field). 
• 1.4.4 on boundary spanning work at the interface of research and practice could maybe benefit from an example where "cross-fertilization and mutual enrichment" occurred in the Sustainability Science field. I generally thought this section meandered a bit- there is a lot of time spent talking about Stokes, but then the argument is only brought back to bear on sustainability science for half of the last paragraph. Why is this bridging role "crucial" for sustainability scientists, if, as Stokes argued, it is actually the most effective type of research for everyone? And what "key moments" are being referred to?
  

A few minor editing suggestions:

*  Page 3, lines 88-94, the sentences should be reversed, with the "What is to be sustained" text preceding the "What is to be developed" text, to mirror the order of the 4 questions on the previous page.

*  Figure 1.3 (the Venn diagram) is currently labeled 1.2  needs the intersection of the diagram to be highlighted as the domain of sustainability science, and can be described easily in text.  The diagram itself may not be necessary.

1) In reference to lines 193-195 and figure 1.1 in the reading, the question of using the term socio-ecological system vs. human-environment system is important, as the terms convey different shades of meaning. At first inspection, the socio-ecological systems seemed to be slightly broader definition--capturing interactions between and among humans (human systems) and more complex natural systems.

However, after examining figure 1.1, this definition is not sufficient to encompass the meaning behind the figure. On the left side of the X-Y term (human-environment, socio-economic, what have you) it would seem to me that you are trying to capture the entire right-hand column of figure 1.1. Neither "human" or "socio" fully captures these ideas, although "socio" probably gets closer. The problem is worse for the right side of the term and left side of figure 1.1 where "environment" or "ecological" don't fully encapsulate the question of "what is to be sustained" (it leaves out "cultures" "groups" maybe "places" which is captured in the figure). I dont have a suggestion for better terminology but perhaps brain-storming from the diagram can help.

Furthermore, as other commentators have pointed out figure 1.1 does not answer the question "for whom" very well. Perhaps if the figure where redrawn to incorporate this question, it would be more useful in leading to an accurate semantic formulation.


2) The comments have generated a fair amount of debate on the "unabashedly anthropocentric view" the text is taking. Here is my meager and probably not very interesting contribution to the debate. It might be helpful to add to the framing the concept of the "noösphere" discussed in the supplemental reading "Clark, WC, PJ Crutzen, and HJ Schellnhuber. 2004. Science for global sustainability. In Earth Systems Analysis for Sustainability, eds. HJ Schellnhuber, PJ Crutzen, WC Clark, C Martin and H Hermann. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1-28."

If humans are (or might be) on a path towards a noösphere--a form of biosphere "in which not only human action, but human thought and reflection on the consequences of its actions, would come to play a determinative role" than this type of development is by definition very much "anthropocentric." It is only from a perspective of human-generated knowledge and understanding that we will define this path of development. While it may be possible to allow that "trees have standing" it is still development ideas of humans which are human-centric that will drive a path towards sustainability forward, so whether trees have standing may not have significant consequence.

Alternatively, you could just make the pragmatic argument that nothing will get done on the sustainability agenda due to political roadblocks unless it can be framed to benefit humans. I think this would be a perfectly justifiable argument.

3) Figure 1.2 is very confusing to me. Maybe it just needs to be explained better for me to understand. Why is the majority of the area encapsulated by "sustainability goals" not inside the "human or environment" systems set? What is this area of "sustainability goals" that is outside human and environment systems? Also when comparing human and environment systems to sustainability goals,  it seems like you are comparing apples and oranges (that dont make sense as equal circles in a venn diagram to me). It may be fine, but I don't understand the argument of the diagram fully, so more text is probably needed at the bare minimum.

This introductory chapter was coherent as a whole and easy to read. But as a scientist I was expecting to find in the introduction models or examples of quantitative measurements of sustainable development.

Given the complexity of the sustainability science problems it appears to me like a daunting task to assign an index to sustainable development. However I believe this emergent science will greatly benefit from having a sustainability science index. Indexes like the human development index have flaws, but they allow us to make comparisons in the temporal and spatial scale. Countries would benefit from having a way to determine whether their development has become less or more sustainable over time, how do they compare to other countries, or what is the impact of country’s history on sustainable development.

Although it didn't see it mentioned in the introduction, it is my understanding that later in the book we will discuss the metrics of sustainability science. I think this topic should be included earlier rather than later in the text. Look forward to read about it!

comments on Figure 1.4 (the version presented in lecture, some of the figures including this one are incomplete with only the headings visible in the pdf as viewed on a mac)

I think I understand the point this figure is making, but from a scientific perspective I have trouble understanding the seperation between many of the columns.  How does Climate differ from Atmosphere and Hydrosphere?  In the context of air or water pollution it is simpler to seperate these constitutents, but in the context of the impact of biofuels I have a hard time seeing how the impacts on "Climate" and "Hydrosphere" can be seperated as the climate is the upper bouandry condition for any water available on the land surface.  Similarly, only when considering the addition of pollutants does the category "Atmosphere" differ from "Climate", and the distinction breaks down for pollutants which are radiatively or hydrologically active.  The planting of biofuels effects the fluxes of water, energy, momentum, and carbon from the land surface to the atmosphere - all of which have implications for climate, and thus hydrology, and biodiversity,.  Perhaps an example for which the column categories can be more cleanly seperated (as would be the case for a pollution related issue) would be less distracting.

I was somewhat confused by the book chapter until I read the articles in the reader and participated in the class discussion.  Thus, my comments focus on my prior confusion, which readers coming at the field from an outside discipline may share.

1. I was surprised that the chapter started with sustainable development, rather than sustainability science.  As a reader, I found it hard to contextualize the history of stainable development presented in terms of its importance to sustainability science.  You might consider a couple introductory lines that explain how sustainable development motivates the text’s primary focus, sustainability science.  Maybe something like lines 296-305. 

A general question: how are the book and the reader supposed to fit together?  I found a lot of overlap, but so far it has been very helpful overlap.  Will try to post once I've seen how a couple chapters fit together.  Bill, thoughts on how we should think about the two?

Overall, I felt chapter one did a nice job of summarizing the overall ideas on sustainability science and development.  A few thoughts:

I feel that the first chapter should provide a more recognizable overview of the following three questions.

 Where are we coming from?

Being that we are coming from a diverse set of fields, I feel it might be helpful to include a brief history of sustainability science in the beginning of the chapter similar to the short overview that Professor Clark gave during his presentation on the work  and statements of Vernadsky, Ghandi, etc.  This would be a way to bring the disparate fields together under "one roof" and provide the framework for the information to follow.  This section could provide at least a brief overview of the importance of the various fields involved in sustainability science.  In addition, I would consider taking the last section of the chapter (1.5 Our Emerging Agenda), and placing it in the beginning of the chapter.

Where are we now?

Being that I am no expert in any of the fields of sustainability science, I am in no position to state where we are now.  However, I do think it is important that flexible but firm definitions of key terms are set forth in the first chapter.  We discussed this briefly during the seminar on Monday, but without having a collective set of terms for the field, we run the risk of having terms misrepresented in future research and possibly future chapters in the text.  Again, we all come from different fields and have different working definitions of the concepts, but it is important that we all are working from the same collective group of terms with a generally accepted definition. 

Where are we going?

This question is discussed in section 1.1 (lines 57-60) and section 1.4 (lines 275 - 281) and in the subsequent proceeding sections.  I think that a graphic organizer depicting the four broad characteristics of sustainability science and the broad topics each hopes to address, perhaps one similar to figure 1-1 may be useful. 

Obviously, this is only the first chapter and we cannot hope to answer these questions in this section, but I would like to see more a focus in this chapter in providing some of the common threads and language than can make this volume accessible to interested parties from across the academic spectrum.

These are my remarks (mostly minor) to the first chapter:

-          On figures: the chapter introduces a new field of science by using figures that are 10 to 25-year old.  I would recommend in particular to redraw and update Figure 1.4 (see previous comment by Abi on this) and to remove Figure 1.5 (the concept of scale mismatch is well described in the text and does not require an illustration) and Figure 1.6 (see comment below);

-          I agree with Partha’s note on page 10: Stokes’s classification is given too much space in this paragraph, which does not read as nicely as the previous ones. I suggest shortening the description and removing the figure. If Figure 1.6 is to stay, part b should be better described by providing clues on the meaning of the different connecting arrows for sustainability science;

-          Section 1.5, last paragraph. This paragraph seems better suited to a preface than to an introduction chapter. Reaching this point, I was expecting to see the research agenda laid out and to find a “guided walk” to the remaining of the book. All in all, this section does not really clarify what the “research agenda for sustainability science” consist of.

       Davide 

This is a most interesting comment.  It will also fit very well in Session 4, when we will be looking at the differences and similarities of HES vs SES vs Sust Sci and other framings.  So please also update / reenter it under Session 4 once we get there.  Thanks.

Previously Alicia Harley wrote:

1) In reference to lines 193-195 and figure 1.1 in the reading, the question of using the term socio-ecological system vs. human-environment system is important, as the terms convey different shades of meaning. At first inspection, the socio-ecological systems seemed to be slightly broader definition--capturing interactions between and among humans (human systems) and more complex natural systems.

However, after examining figure 1.1, this definition is not sufficient to encompass the meaning behind the figure. On the left side of the X-Y term (human-environment, socio-economic, what have you) it would seem to me that you are trying to capture the entire right-hand column of figure 1.1. Neither "human" or "socio" fully captures these ideas, although "socio" probably gets closer. The problem is worse for the right side of the term and left side of figure 1.1 where "environment" or "ecological" don't fully encapsulate the question of "what is to be sustained" (it leaves out "cultures" "groups" maybe "places" which is captured in the figure). I dont have a suggestion for better terminology but perhaps brain-storming from the diagram can help.

Furthermore, as other commentators have pointed out figure 1.1 does not answer the question "for whom" very well. Perhaps if the figure where redrawn to incorporate this question, it would be more useful in leading to an accurate semantic formulation.


2) The comments have generated a fair amount of debate on the "unabashedly anthropocentric view" the text is taking. Here is my meager and probably not very interesting contribution to the debate. It might be helpful to add to the framing the concept of the "noösphere" discussed in the supplemental reading "Clark, WC, PJ Crutzen, and HJ Schellnhuber. 2004. Science for global sustainability. In Earth Systems Analysis for Sustainability, eds. HJ Schellnhuber, PJ Crutzen, WC Clark, C Martin and H Hermann. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1-28."

If humans are (or might be) on a path towards a noösphere--a form of biosphere "in which not only human action, but human thought and reflection on the consequences of its actions, would come to play a determinative role" than this type of development is by definition very much "anthropocentric." It is only from a perspective of human-generated knowledge and understanding that we will define this path of development. While it may be possible to allow that "trees have standing" it is still development ideas of humans which are human-centric that will drive a path towards sustainability forward, so whether trees have standing may not have significant consequence.

Alternatively, you could just make the pragmatic argument that nothing will get done on the sustainability agenda due to political roadblocks unless it can be framed to benefit humans. I think this would be a perfectly justifiable argument.

3) Figure 1.2 is very confusing to me. Maybe it just needs to be explained better for me to understand. Why is the majority of the area encapsulated by "sustainability goals" not inside the "human or environment" systems set? What is this area of "sustainability goals" that is outside human and environment systems? Also when comparing human and environment systems to sustainability goals,  it seems like you are comparing apples and oranges (that dont make sense as equal circles in a venn diagram to me). It may be fine, but I don't understand the argument of the diagram fully, so more text is probably needed at the bare minimum.

Additional mostly minor comments:

Why is it considered most helpful to focus on the grandchildren time period, shouldn’t the time period vary depending on the phenomena of interest (especially given the scalar mismatches presented in the chapter)?

Line 119, how do we identify relevant scale?

Line 230-245. While I find the history of institutions and meetings on sustainability interesting, I think this section needs to provide also a synthesis of the ideas vehiculated by these institutions and how these influenced and shaped sustainability science.

On Fig 1.2 bis (that is 1.3) I have issues with this figure. I do not find that it represents adequately what sustainability science is about, especially since it situates sustainability science as possibly apart from either human or environment systems. One possible way to reconceptualize this figure would look like this  (see attached TIFF):

Section 1.4.2 Integrative approach to understanding human-environment interactions:  In this section, I thought that there should be more discussion about why it is important to study coupled human-environment as a whole. I think that the idea of emergent properties (which is one of the chapters that we will read) should be introduced here.

Line 366: what is an ecological heterogeneity?

Line 383-384 – In this section, I think there is too much of a divide between classical scientific research and context-dependent knowledge based on practice and experience. There are whole bodies of literature that provide scientific based knowledge that is based on context-dependent processes (i.e. regional geography, place-based cultural studies etc…).  The authors need to also make room for such type of scientific endeavor and explain how they can fit into a broader sustainability science outlook. For instance, how are theories of the mid-range fitting here?

The section on boundary-spanning work sounds a bit apologetic when in fact it is probably the strongest point in favor of sustainability science- its ability to transcend spheres and be at the same time important for wider knowledge and practical use.

Regarding Dr. Dasgupta comments on the ‘Quadrant’- if others find it too long, why not put part of that section in an appendix? I personally feel that fig. 1.6 a is not needed and fig. 1.6b is enough to convey Stroke’s ideas.

Our emerging agenda: I think this section should be at the beginning- I kept expecting to hear about the purpose/agenda earlier on.

Editing/stylistic suggestions:

In several paragraphs there are two dashes instead of one, see line 53 for instance

Line 143-145: “Moreover almost everywhere the rates of increase in agricultural productivity is now declining and the environmental damages associated with agricultural production are accelerating”- reference?

There are two fig 1.2 (the second one is probably fig 1.3)

Figure 1.4 is incomplete, so I could not actually comment or see what was discussed in the paper yet.

Line 372: assume away? Why not use the word dismiss or disregard?

Line 437: quest for advancing- a bit redundant, a quest always seeks to advance…

  Overall:

The key ideas are clear and easy to understand but sometimes more esoteric knowledge creeps in. I do think that there should be a bit more about the evolution of ideas as opposed to only the history of meetings and institutions that shaped sustainability science. I think that sections 1.4 probably need a bit more fleshing out, especially 1.4.2 (integrative) and 1.4.4 (boundary-spanning). 1.4.2 needs to include a bit more about emergent properties of human-environment systems, while 1.4.4 can be written- I think- more forcefully to make the point that sustainability science incorporates and needs to integrate science and policy (and different types of research approaches). I think fig 1.3 needs to be changed as it does not really represent well the ideas presented in the chapter.  Lastly, I think that more room should be made for different research approaches especially in social sciences. Including these types of approaches would actually be quite beneficial as it would make other disciplinary approaches understand how they can be integrated –and are also needed- for a transition to sustainability.

I also had trouble with lines 193-195, which seem to take a very important issue and sweep it aside into a parenthetical. I don't think you want to say "somewhat arbitrarily," especially if the distinction is important enough to merit further consideration in a later chapter. The distinction you're making between socio-ecological and human-environment seems to get at the heart of some of the issues involved in the sustainability science framing, so I think if you're going to mention it here at all (which you definitely should), it at least deserves a paragraph and an indication that it will be explored in more detail later.

A couple other comments:

-On p. 8, note g, I think the point is interesting but out of place. It would fit better, as suggested, in section 1.2.

-In section 1.5, line 460, I don't think you want to say that the main reason the authors have bothered to write this book is "for the challenge and pleasure of learning from one another." To me that seems to invalidate the entire endeavor. The idea is that this body of knowledge might in fact be useful for the future of humanity, so you don't want to undersell it here by turning it into simply an intellectual exercise. As lines 467-469 explain, a more important rationale for the book is that information is often not crossing disciplinary boundaries, to the detriment of us all, and that the authors want to make a start at building some crucial bridges.

Previously Alicia Harley wrote:

1) In reference to lines 193-195 and figure 1.1 in the reading, the question of using the term socio-ecological system vs. human-environment system is important, as the terms convey different shades of meaning. At first inspection, the socio-ecological systems seemed to be slightly broader definition--capturing interactions between and among humans (human systems) and more complex natural systems.

However, after examining figure 1.1, this definition is not sufficient to encompass the meaning behind the figure. On the left side of the X-Y term (human-environment, socio-economic, what have you) it would seem to me that you are trying to capture the entire right-hand column of figure 1.1. Neither "human" or "socio" fully captures these ideas, although "socio" probably gets closer. The problem is worse for the right side of the term and left side of figure 1.1 where "environment" or "ecological" don't fully encapsulate the question of "what is to be sustained" (it leaves out "cultures" "groups" maybe "places" which is captured in the figure). I dont have a suggestion for better terminology but perhaps brain-storming from the diagram can help.

Furthermore, as other commentators have pointed out figure 1.1 does not answer the question "for whom" very well. Perhaps if the figure where redrawn to incorporate this question, it would be more useful in leading to an accurate semantic formulation.


2) The comments have generated a fair amount of debate on the "unabashedly anthropocentric view" the text is taking. Here is my meager and probably not very interesting contribution to the debate. It might be helpful to add to the framing the concept of the "noösphere" discussed in the supplemental reading "Clark, WC, PJ Crutzen, and HJ Schellnhuber. 2004. Science for global sustainability. In Earth Systems Analysis for Sustainability, eds. HJ Schellnhuber, PJ Crutzen, WC Clark, C Martin and H Hermann. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1-28."

If humans are (or might be) on a path towards a noösphere--a form of biosphere "in which not only human action, but human thought and reflection on the consequences of its actions, would come to play a determinative role" than this type of development is by definition very much "anthropocentric." It is only from a perspective of human-generated knowledge and understanding that we will define this path of development. While it may be possible to allow that "trees have standing" it is still development ideas of humans which are human-centric that will drive a path towards sustainability forward, so whether trees have standing may not have significant consequence.

Alternatively, you could just make the pragmatic argument that nothing will get done on the sustainability agenda due to political roadblocks unless it can be framed to benefit humans. I think this would be a perfectly justifiable argument.

3) Figure 1.2 is very confusing to me. Maybe it just needs to be explained better for me to understand. Why is the majority of the area encapsulated by "sustainability goals" not inside the "human or environment" systems set? What is this area of "sustainability goals" that is outside human and environment systems? Also when comparing human and environment systems to sustainability goals,  it seems like you are comparing apples and oranges (that dont make sense as equal circles in a venn diagram to me). It may be fine, but I don't understand the argument of the diagram fully, so more text is probably needed at the bare minimum.

Overall the text does a very good job in introducing this highly complex and challenging project to define a core of Sustainability Science. Besides the many good comments that were raised by others, I would like to focus on three aspects where changes/specification might considerably strengthen the overall message of the text.

(1) I liked the attempt in chapter 1.2 to circumscribe the emerging academic field by the critical challenges it wants to address. Often this is much more adequate to understand the core of a research community than venturing into long and convoluted verbal definitions. The cases that are mentioned therefore deserve some closer attention. For me, the first (hunger) and the third (climate change) are obvious candidates. I would also add a fourth topic like “inequality” as proposed in an earler comment made by Karina. I find the second topic more problematic. It refers to a very important problem but the framing might be somehow misleading to the readers. The current text focuses too narrowly on growth related problems of China. It would be appropriate to broaden the perspective by saying that the problem of finding a balanced combination of growth and externalities relates to all countries experiencing rapid economic and social development. It should also put these growth related problems in context. For instance, the data suggest that there is still some 5% net annual growth in China. How would this compare to corresponding net growth figures in Great Britain over the industrial revolution? So, I would rather frame the problem as one of finding a balance between economic growth (as measured by increase in GDP) and externalities that do not appear in the statistics. At an operational level this comes down to the discussion about more appropriate measures of “happiness” instead of GDP. At a conceptual level it would allow to address not only the societal costs of growth but also the associated costs of “being grown up” (i.e. the externalities of affluent societies). This would somewhat reduce a potential misreading of this point that it blames rapidly growing economies for not doing their growth in a proper way.

(2) A core question which would warrant some elaboration is in how far sustainability science aspires to become a full fledged „science“ or rather a full fledges academic discipline. In the text it is characterized as an emerging field of research that encompasses contributions from many different disciplines. What would be the benefits of having Sustainability Science canonized into a standard discipline? Would it not -- if it was successful in that endeavor -- jeopardize the very basis of what it wants to achieve? On a more specific level, this has implications on Figure 1.4 and relates to the granularity of potential research questions of Sustainability Science (as mentioned by Parthas short comment in footnote i about starting research in a more piece-meal way). Is Sustainability science only about big complex issues? Then it would probably have to build on top of many much smaller and more specific contributions from other disciplines. Sustainability Science would as a consequence largely be a sort of a synthesis structure (not a comfortable position to live in at today’s academic systems...). Or, what are the piece-meal research questions on which it builds? Are they identical with what you can do with complex adaptive systems models? Perhaps as a last question: was use inspired research a feasible model of scientific enquiry at the times of Pasteur, but has become much more difficult (or at least has to be organized in radically different forms) in current-day academic structures?

(3) As it was mentioned in other commentaries, I can keep it short: the problem of politics should be introduced much more explicitly. This would probably also provide a more explicit basis for motivating the „sustainability goals“ bubble in figure 1.2.

Comment on section 1.4.4.

As it seems that this section deals with one of the more innovative features of sustainability science, it maybe appropriate to valorize and further clarify the "boundary spanning work" conceptualization.  I would agree with Partha's suggested trimming on the Pasteur/quadrant model discussion and prefer to have a more explicit text explaining the graph 6b (dynamic model) and its implications.  For instance  the implications/meaning of the arrow going from SS to the future policies.  Is it there where we can imagine ramifications (or some other graphics) for some boundary-connector social entities that can best transmit the scientific information to the policy arenas ? In the arrow going from existing policy/technology to SS, what type of institutions  play  effectively ?  Is there an appropriate annedoct that can be added to illustrate the model ?

Hello:

I just want to comment on footnote g. 

I agree that the book chapter is sufficiently general as to put specifics of a specific field (economics, in this case).  I suppose that the economists's fight between strong vs. soft sustainability is implicit in Fig. 1.1. That is, if we think of strong sustainability, then most things on the left column of Fig. 1.1 should be conserved. 

I hope that the economists' viewpoint on exhaustible resources is included later in the book, especially because it encompasses the viewpoint of justice (enumerated by John Rawls), and the idea of intergenerational equity. I know Partha Dasgupta has heavily contributed in this field, which includes simple theoretical rules such as Hotelling Lawa and Hartwick's Rule.

I think that a short section on the 'competing philosophies or conceptions of sustainability' would be really useful. 

It struck me reading the E.O. Wilson piece that there really are such fundamentally different conceptions of what sustainability is and how it might be achieved. These are not peripheral, but at the heart of what sustainability science is and should hope to achieve. Wilson is calling for the humble respect and reverence of nature and rejection of the ability of 'environmental protheses' to solve our problems. His ethos is radically different than that of the Apollo Alliance, which is calling for "investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training [... to] reduce carbon emissions and oil imports, spur domestic job growth, and position America to thrive in the 21st century economy" (http://apolloalliance.org/about/mission/).

One could put these differing conceptions of sustainability and the path towards it on a 'reverence' --> 'ingenuity' scale of some sort. Either way, I think it is important that these are competing conceptions that explain why some people think we just need to get the technology right while others think that technology is the pied piper that has led us down this terrible road.

General comments on Chapter 2

·         I think the authors are still having an internal debate as to how the chapter should be named. I think the title of the chapter should perhaps be “sustainable development and sustainability science” or “Development and sustainability science” or just “sustainability science” with sustainable development appearing as may be the first paragraph, rather than “sustainability and science” as the latter seems to widen the scope of the subject of “science” per se and may make the discourse can be quite complex.

·         Since this is the introductory chapter of an introductory text on the new discipline, I think a definition of “life support systems of the earth” would probably be useful, particularly while juxtaposing the same against “human life support systems.” Similarly, other terms that should be defined and contextualized are ecological footprint, ecosystem services etc. because there are large areas of overlap in these terminologies, concepts and notions depending on which discipline has inspired a particular piece of literature and scholarly work in this area of SS.

·         In lines 52-61, there are 4 questions raised and depicted in this Fig. 1.1. Could there also be a fifth more over-arching question “for whom is this development and for whom is this sustainability?” Here, my attribution is to “there values” embedded in the concept of “development” and “needs”, not only at an aggregate “societal” level, but also at the “local/community” level.

·         I think it may be necessary to distinguish between human-environment system and socio-ecological system in the chapter (may be as a footnote and alluding to some reference material) though there are a lot of similarities between both the notions. This arises as questions may arise as why the authors prefer using the former terminology of human-environment system.

·         To me, Prof. Partha Dasgupta’s suggestion of including Pierce’s notion of “strong sustainability” in the main text makes sense in this introductory chapter, which besides helping the reader to be aware of the boundaries on this issue, may also help insert the divergent thinking and rhetoric on this subject between the First World and Third World countries.

·         While the use of the terminology “use-inspired basic science” is able to instantly draw attention of the reader due to infrequent use of the term, this may result in some extra bit of explanation to be done by the authors – why not just say that it has overwhelming elements of applied research with strong pure (basic) research underpinnings. Besides, a lot of this distinction has been getting blurred over the years. Also, when it is an interdisciplinary science with strongly basic and equally strong applied fields being brought into play, the complexity of the new science does not get adequately captured if we typify it in a straight jacket of “use-inspired science.” Nevertheless, use of Stoke’s typefication seems to bring in novelty into the subject and makes it kind of esoteric, which may as well be necessary, this being a relatively new discipline.

·         On the inter-temporal front, a very close focus only on the “grand children” time may relegate the severity of the problems and challenges to the planet’s life-support systems to the background because the impacts of many of these challenges  can only be felt only in the long term, e.g. climate change, glacial melting etc.

·         As regards Fig 1.3 (wrongly written as 1.2.in draft), I think the sustainability goals need to address both the over-lapping and non over-lapping areas – though the former a little more.

·         As regards paragraph 1.2 – Persistent poverty and hunger – some reliance could probably be placed on the FAO report that says MDGs relating to extremely hunger are no where near to be eradicated.

·         Under “Accelerating degradation of the earth’s life support systems” (line 160), we could probably add one more significant and large-scale damage which is the damage to the soil-moisture regime of land due to over use of chemical fertilizers as against say, organic fertilizers.

·         Would it be a good idea to throw in some concepts and understanding of social and cultural “shaping” or “construction” of science, technology and innovation from Science studies here so as to prepare a ground for bringing in the role of informal community-level institutions in maintaining H-E system equilibrium and sustainability later in the book?

·         In Fig. 1.4, is it possible to locate (in boxes) different works of different organizations and disciplines in the figure itself – as to who is working in which area (the ecologists, the geographers, economists etc?

·         Yes, chapter could end with an over view of what is to follow.

Some conceptual doubts

In the literature as in the text, there is an overarching theme of equilibrium between the human and environment system and between the H-E system and the overall life support system of the planet. The question is where should this point of equilibrium lie? Should it be a low level equilibrium as in case of traditional societies with local cultures dating back to centuries where humans exploited nature only to the extent of subsistence and not more (they offered prayers to various  natural elements)or a high level equilibrium necessitated by industrialization and modernization?

Can we really replace degraded environment as the resource accountants and economists would believe? For forest destroyed in Africa, is it adequate and sufficient to grow forest cover in India? Would the earth system be the same again though the aggregate stock may remain unchanged? This may require more discussion on Pierce’s strong sustainability argument. Is this also not unfair terms of “deal” (or carbon trading etc.) between the already developed First World and the underdeveloped or developing Third World?

What about methodological issues – individualism vs. holism? This seems to be an issue particularly when SS would have strong inter-disciplinarity and many individual disciplines would have disparate methodological leanings, e.g. between mainstream economics and anthropology or ecology. Taking this further, wouldn’t this create confusion in “policy formulation” and “practice” of sustainability management?

Assimilation of Comments on the introductory chapter:

Who is the readership?  Framing and Engagement in the Introductory Chapter

The introductory chapter brings considerable consensus to sustainability studies, however we feel that in its role of engaging and orienting the reader it could be improved.

Who is the readership?  If the Reader is intended to aid those scientists and practitioners who are both in agreement with the authors and engaged in problems related to sustainability, we think the introduction is successful.  If the intended audience is students, or experts still undecided about whether or not they’re “in the club”, the introduction must both give a stronger orientation to the reader and work harder at engaging them.  In short, the introductory chapter currently has the tone of a consensus document oriented toward an audience of the authors’ peers who already understand the purpose and need for the Reader.  

The introduction could be more successful if the authors’ chosen approach was organized clearly within its alternatives, and the authors’ perspective justified.  A more deliberate development of the chosen approach would help engage a wider readership.  For example, in noting the Reader’s anthropocentric stance, the authors explain that:

 Despite the awe in which we hold nature and the value we place on its conservation, ours is ultimately a project that seeks to understand what is, can be, and ought to be the human use of the earth (3). 

In addition to this explanation, it would help to briefly present the alternative perspectives to an anthropocentric view.  Without at least briefly comparing the fundamental perspective of the Reader with the alternatives, we are left with the feeling that this is a consensus the group holds so comfortably there is no reason to take the trouble to fully explain it. 

            We consider the issue of framing to be crucial, as the introduction has important implications for environmental equity.  How do we present sustainability in a compelling way, and why does it matter?  Again, if the authors are not intending to reach readers who haven’t yet accepted their approach, the current formulation works.  The introduction notes that compelling questions will be addressed in upcoming chapters, though we have little sense of what these questions or issues actually involve. For example, it’s noted in the introduction that, “To clarify such confusions a number [sic] for formal definitions and frameworks of sustainability have been proposed.  We discuss several of these later in the volume” (2).   We think that briefly introducing several of the varied definitions would help orient the reader to a complex subject.  It’s engaging to understand the breadth of challenges the Reader is up against in brining cogency to sustainability studies.  By broadening the reader’s perspective on the spectrum of conceptions of sustainability, this would also help justify the approach of the authors.

            We’re aware that there are many idiosyncratic case studies that lead to conflicting conclusions, and that this is an attempt to come to some broader conclusions, case studies and examples would be helpful in engaging a broader audience.  We thought the quote from the Brundtland Commission (page 1) is a helpful example of this—it helps the reader understand what the authors mean by “the challenge of sustainable development” and engages us to read further.   In general, introducing the main concepts with the hook of particular evidence or case studies would be very useful in introducing a wider audience to the subject.

Finally, we’re left with a vague concept of the difference between sustainable development and sustainability, and specifically whether sustainability (which is discussed only in historical terms) is more ecological/ less anthropocentric.  In the first paragraph of the introduction, for example, sustainable development, sustainability, and sustainability science are all mentioned, but we have little sense of whether the three terms will be used synonymously and, if so, with what reason.   Though it’s mentioned later that  “…’sustainable development’…has come to mean different things to different people…” (2), this does little to help the reader understand the authors’ approach.

Comments on Figures

Figure 1.1.  We found this figure very useful as a way to think about the two sides of the life support system and human society.   As the details within the figure could be confusing to follow, it would be useful to have additional clarifying notes.

-Figure 1.2.  This figure identifies the digital divide between countries of the ‘north’ and ‘south’.  While the authors note that this is a “cartoon view” depicting “The socio-economic, environmental, and knowledge dichotomies…”, we nevertheless question the use of emphasizing only the digital divide.  Isn’t the income divide, for example, a similarly formidable challenge?

-Figure 1.3 [note: currently mislabeled as 1.2]: We found this approximation of sustainability science confusing.  First, what goes in the portions of each circle that aren’t overlapping the others?  That is, what about environment systems doesn’t interact with sustainability goals?  In addition, currently the figure depicts the three realms in a vacuum—what would we include outside the three circles?  If there is nothing, this should be explained as well.

Figure 1.5.  We found this figure on cross-scale phenomena very helpful.             

Figure 1.6(a).  Our response was mixed to the practicality of this figure, but in general we felt that the discussion of the Pasteur/Bohr diagram was useful.  It’s unclear, however, who the “soakers and pokers” would be—it doesn’t seem that this category would include legitimate science.

Figure 1.6(b). We found the dynamic model of sustainability science and innovation to be the one of the most helpful piece in explaining the use-inspired research of sustainability science.  It successfully places research objectives in a larger context.

As the present lead author on the Intro chapter, I am enormously grateful to you for this summary of the discussion to date.  Its done just what we were hoping for -- raised tough questions, prodded us where we have been muddled in our thinking, and suggested some helpful revisions.  I'll be back in touch as I work through how we might revise the chapter.  But for the moment, simply a heartfelt thanks!

Previously Barrett Colombo wrote:

Assimilation of Comments on the introductory chapter:

Who is the readership?  Framing and Engagement in the Introductory Chapter

The introductory chapter brings considerable consensus to sustainability studies, however we feel that in its role of engaging and orienting the reader it could be improved.

Who is the readership?  If the Reader is intended to aid those scientists and practitioners who are both in agreement with the authors and engaged in problems related to sustainability, we think the introduction is successful.  If the intended audience is students, or experts still undecided about whether or not they’re “in the club”, the introduction must both give a stronger orientation to the reader and work harder at engaging them.  In short, the introductory chapter currently has the tone of a consensus document oriented toward an audience of the authors’ peers who already understand the purpose and need for the Reader.  

The introduction could be more successful if the authors’ chosen approach was organized clearly within its alternatives, and the authors’ perspective justified.  A more deliberate development of the chosen approach would help engage a wider readership.  For example, in noting the Reader’s anthropocentric stance, the authors explain that:

 Despite the awe in which we hold nature and the value we place on its conservation, ours is ultimately a project that seeks to understand what is, can be, and ought to be the human use of the earth (3). 

In addition to this explanation, it would help to briefly present the alternative perspectives to an anthropocentric view.  Without at least briefly comparing the fundamental perspective of the Reader with the alternatives, we are left with the feeling that this is a consensus the group holds so comfortably there is no reason to take the trouble to fully explain it. 

            We consider the issue of framing to be crucial, as the introduction has important implications for environmental equity.  How do we present sustainability in a compelling way, and why does it matter?  Again, if the authors are not intending to reach readers who haven’t yet accepted their approach, the current formulation works.  The introduction notes that compelling questions will be addressed in upcoming chapters, though we have little sense of what these questions or issues actually involve. For example, it’s noted in the introduction that, “To clarify such confusions a number [sic] for formal definitions and frameworks of sustainability have been proposed.  We discuss several of these later in the volume” (2).   We think that briefly introducing several of the varied definitions would help orient the reader to a complex subject.  It’s engaging to understand the breadth of challenges the Reader is up against in brining cogency to sustainability studies.  By broadening the reader’s perspective on the spectrum of conceptions of sustainability, this would also help justify the approach of the authors.

            We’re aware that there are many idiosyncratic case studies that lead to conflicting conclusions, and that this is an attempt to come to some broader conclusions, case studies and examples would be helpful in engaging a broader audience.  We thought the quote from the Brundtland Commission (page 1) is a helpful example of this—it helps the reader understand what the authors mean by “the challenge of sustainable development” and engages us to read further.   In general, introducing the main concepts with the hook of particular evidence or case studies would be very useful in introducing a wider audience to the subject.

Finally, we’re left with a vague concept of the difference between sustainable development and sustainability, and specifically whether sustainability (which is discussed only in historical terms) is more ecological/ less anthropocentric.  In the first paragraph of the introduction, for example, sustainable development, sustainability, and sustainability science are all mentioned, but we have little sense of whether the three terms will be used synonymously and, if so, with what reason.   Though it’s mentioned later that  “…’sustainable development’…has come to mean different things to different people…” (2), this does little to help the reader understand the authors’ approach.

Comments on Figures

Figure 1.1.  We found this figure very useful as a way to think about the two sides of the life support system and human society.   As the details within the figure could be confusing to follow, it would be useful to have additional clarifying notes.

-Figure 1.2.  This figure identifies the digital divide between countries of the ‘north’ and ‘south’.  While the authors note that this is a “cartoon view” depicting “The socio-economic, environmental, and knowledge dichotomies…”, we nevertheless question the use of emphasizing only the digital divide.  Isn’t the income divide, for example, a similarly formidable challenge?

-Figure 1.3 [note: currently mislabeled as 1.2]: We found this approximation of sustainability science confusing.  First, what goes in the portions of each circle that aren’t overlapping the others?  That is, what about environment systems doesn’t interact with sustainability goals?  In addition, currently the figure depicts the three realms in a vacuum—what would we include outside the three circles?  If there is nothing, this should be explained as well.

Figure 1.5.  We found this figure on cross-scale phenomena very helpful.             

Figure 1.6(a).  Our response was mixed to the practicality of this figure, but in general we felt that the discussion of the Pasteur/Bohr diagram was useful.  It’s unclear, however, who the “soakers and pokers” would be—it doesn’t seem that this category would include legitimate science.

Figure 1.6(b). We found the dynamic model of sustainability science and innovation to be the one of the most helpful piece in explaining the use-inspired research of sustainability science.  It successfully places research objectives in a larger context.

 

 

Just to clarify, Barrett Colombo's entry was meant to summarize the discussion of the U of Minnesota group.

Previously Barrett Colombo wrote:

Assimilation of Comments on the introductory chapter:

Questions

ref line 147:

Question here about distribution, over production, and waste (Raj Patel on Global Food Crisis,… Haiti and Rice production, Mexico and Corn and USA cheap subsidized products flooding markets) and changing ecological and distribution patterns? 

What about financial speculation’s effect on food markets and distribution? 

ref line 149:

What is economic growth? Does it how is equity addressed in growth statistics? Why do we use measures of GNP/GDP and are these indicators effective, do we need better indicators of growth that include some sort of pollution-inequity-displacement numbers through flooding, other externaltites that are calculated into Production output numbers?

ref 158:

Should Sustainable development or economic growth should include questions of internal and external displacemnt of populations due changing environmental patterns (floods, melting islands, inability to farm previously farmable land or crops, pressures to move to clear forest for more ariable land, or desertification) or growth like the mining of Coltan in the Congo-or oil in the Niger Delta or massive Dam projects that potentially create the environmental degradation that leads to floods etc? How are questions of complex feedback loops to be understood?

ref 166:

How could this number get factored into a GDP/GNP calculation?

ref 267:

What about inherited non-assets or destruction like pollution, inequitable development, etc?

ref 268:

Question of computers… less paper use? More information for better quality of human life? Produced with toxic metals and bad mining practices, fossil fuels….  and uneven distributio of conseqeuences of said computers (ie coltan, computer dumping in third world countries, plastics prduction) How does this balance? Won’t perceptions of human progress always …what constitutes progress?

ref 360-366:

The terms temporal and spatial are reversed here areb’t they?

ref 397:

How about the fact that these practices effect whole communities, societies, countries, etc…. is detachment really the place to come from ?

ref 450:

This sentence does not read well… needs to be restructured to clarify meaning

fig 1.1:

Why is consumption to be developed? What is wealth and why is it to be developed?

Why are and how are productive sectors to be developed?

fig 1.2:

What about the poor/marginalied in the “north” and the migration of global southerners to global north to mitigate  difficulties of global south and small global souths created in global northern cities?