A Dive into Sustainability Science
Introduction
We find ourselves in the Anthropocene, faced with a collection of globally related risks with magnifying effects. In response to these global challenges, the United Nation’s (UN) released its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. According to Mebratu (1998), the WCED report published in 1987, Our Common Future, defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The field of sustainability research offers a variety of different pathways, each with their own unique approaches for creating a more sustainable future.
Through a literature review, this essay explores the growing field of sustainability science with respect to the concepts of sustainable development (SD), sustainability transitions, and sustainability transformations. Due to the inter- and transdisciplinary nature of sustainability science, this essay argues that it is critical to adopt an integrated approach to SD by combining key takeaways from different pathways and putting them into practice. The argument is based on the premise that there is no one-size-fits all approach to SD due to the complexities and nuances involved. Furthermore, the implications caused by the ambiguity around these key concepts highlights the imperative of clarity and practical principles for action (Mabratu, 1998).
This paper starts by explaining the emergence of SD and debates between different perspectives of weak and strong sustainability; and shallow and deep sustainability. Then, it explores the emergence of sustainability transitions and transformations, the purpose of these frameworks, and their key elements. Finally, the implications of the ambiguity and vagueness around these key concepts within sustainability science will be explored, highlighting the imperative to be clear about what is meant by these concepts and recognizing practical principles for action to realize the intentions of the SDGs.
By engaging with the different frameworks within sustainability science, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of how the field has developed and the tools it offers to enact change by addressing the pressing challenges of the polycrisis.
Sustainable Development
Emergence of Sustainable Development
The term ‘sustainable development’ has been used since the 1970s (Leach et al., 2018) and emerged as a response to the socio-ecological challenges facing our planet (Mebratu, 1998). According to Mebratu (1998), the WCED report published in 1987, Our Common Future, is where the term first gained importance. Since then, it has been remarkably influential in policymaking and formulating a globally accepted view of the future (Mebratu, 1998).
According to Hopwood et al. (2005: 38-48), the widespread recognition and adoption of SD represents a significant shift in understanding humanity’s relationship with nature and between people. Throughout the course of history, the dominant view has been that society, the economy, and the environment exist as separate entities. However, Hopwood et al. (2005: 38-48) argues that this view has allowed for environmental neglect alongside the prioritization of economic growth, resulting in the current polycrisis. Since the WCED publication, new pathways for SD have emerged, igniting proposals for action at local, national, and global levels, aiming to address the socio-ecological and economic challenges that face humanity.
Today, the concept of SD has evolved into an overarching framework, research field and a long-term goal with the adoption of the SDGs by the United Nations in 2015. This evolution has resulted in the emergence of different sustainability pathways, each with their own interpretation of SD.
Debates within Sustainable Development
The different pathways of SD present an array of questions that need our attention if we are to drive meaningful change in our world. Debates around ecological, social, and economic development priorities highlight the ambiguous nature of SD and its limitations.
Hopwood et al. (2005: 40) highlights the debate between weak and strong sustainability which are two contrasting approaches to understanding and managing natural resources. These two approaches differ in terms of the balance between environmental conservation, human well-being, and economic development. Hopwood’s study explains that weak sustainability views all forms of capital, such as natural or economic capital, as interchangeable. According to this view, the depletion of natural resources is justified through the compensation of economic growth as a means for improving human well-being. Strong sustainability argues against this view and emphasizes the intrinsic value and significance of natural resources (Hopwood et al., 2005: 40). Moreover, this view argues that the environment holds unique intrinsic value which cannot be compensated through human-made capital.
Another debate within SD lies between shallow and deep sustainability. Most proposals for action reflect a shallow approach and avoid the genuine challenges of sustainability (Hill, 1998: 394) and do not adopt a critical approach that is desperately needed to drive meaningful change (Hill, 1998). This shallow approach accepts preexisting economic goals and social frameworks without challenging the underlying assumptions and political biases that govern them. For impactful change to occur, it is vital that a deep sustainability approach is adopted (Swilling: 2020). This contrasting approach aims to redesign the system alongside higher values to achieve long-term ecological and social well-being (Hill, 1998: 394). It adopts a critical lens by challenging predominant development models and reevaluating economic goals and social frameworks (Hill, 1998: 394).
Different Perspectives on Sustainable Development
The diverse range of perspectives within SD propose different frameworks for achieving a sustainable future, allowing for the interdisciplinary exchange of ideas and practice. Each perspective has their own agenda and views meaningful change through a different lens. Moreover, the different perspectives differ in their understanding of the interplay between economic and socio-ecological factors.
It has been argued that the variety of perspectives poses a challenge to the effectiveness of SD due its narrow interpretation and a lack of consensus of its precise meaning (Hopwood et al., 2005: 40). This dangerous ambiguity allows development priorities and actions to be skewed towards group interests by those in positions of power, often with shallow and weak sustainability approaches (Hopwood et al., 2005: 40). This allows dominant systems to continue with a business-as-usual approach, putting economic growth at the top of priority lists whilst neglecting social and ecological justice (Hopwood et al., 2005: 40). Moreover, this often results in uneven progress coupled with the worsening of current social and environmental inequalities.
It is critical to adopt a holistic theory of SD, one that is “integrative, maximally inclusive, and non-reductionist" (Swilling, 2020). By recognizing the complex, interconnected and dynamic nature of economic and socio-ecological systems, we can sculpt development strategies that account for the non-linearity, flexibility, adaptability, and resilience of these systems.
Sustainable Transitions and Transformations
‘Transition’ and ‘transformation’ are key concepts in sustainability science. According to Hölscher et al. (2018), they are not mutually exclusive, but rather, they offer nuanced perspectives on societal change. Both terms are complex and uncertain, often used interchangeably to refer to “radical, non-linear and structural change in complex adaptive systems” (Hölscher et al., 2018). The urgent call to challenge status quo is becoming more common, and transformation and transition assists our navigation towards change. However, critics argue that there lacks a clear understanding about what makes a change truly transformative.
Emergence of Sustainability Transitions
According to Hölscher et al. (2018), transitions can be understood as complex nonlinear shifts from one dynamic equilibrium to another, offering avenues for radical systemic change. Tracing back to its etymological origin, transitions refer to ‘going across,’ with the study of transitions involving understanding the mechanisms of creating patterns of change and describing how these shifts happen (Hölscher et al., 2018). Sustainability transitions has evolved to refer to radical social shifts, necessary to address our most pressing challenges (Loorbach et al, 2017). Sustainability transitions research emerged as a transdisciplinary field in the 1990s, functioning as a bridge between various scientific disciplines and urgent societal issues (Loorbach et al, 2017). Consisting of different perspectives and approaches, it seeks to accelerate SD.
According to Escobar (2015), its emergence reflects the worsening of socio-ecological conditions and the inadequacy of current policies and institutions in addressing these challenges. Approaches to sustainability transitions vary encompassing different lenses (socio-technical, socio-institutional, and socio-ecological), however, each view shares a common conceptual foundation, emphasizing non-linearity, multilevel dynamics, and disruption, illustrating interactions of change across different domains (Escobar, 2015).
The Purpose of a Sustainability Transitions Framework
Sustainability transitions frameworks have proven to be invaluable in both research and policy-making realms, providing a model for addressing large-scale societal changes necessary for SD. Examples of these include the multilevel perspective and multiphase model (Hölscher et al., 2018). According to Wieczorek (2018), the purpose of these frameworks is to catalyse radical changes in socio-technical systems and tackle significant issues like widening social inequalities and perilous climate change. The framework emphasizes the interconnectedness and complex global nature of these challenges and advocates for a radical systemic shift in the economy, technology, institutions, and society, steering us towards a world that is conducive to all life.
The Key Focus and Elements of Sustainability Transitions
The key focus of sustainability transitions revolves around the critical need for radical societal change to address the escalating planetary socio-ecological challenges. Achieving this involves a nuanced, context-specific approach and a deep understanding of the dominant regime to chart alternative pathways into new worlds (Escobar, 2014). Sustainability transitions entail radical shifts towards new paradigms and practices capable of bringing about the necessary changes due to the failure of existing policies and frameworks. It considers it necessary to transcend beyond the confines of existing institutions to bring about transformation, involving a departure from the dominant model of social existence (industrialism, capitalism, and modernity). According to Escobar (2014), this involves transcending the conventional dichotomy of the Global North and Global South to cultivate a dialogue among diverse perspectives, emphasizing co-creation and collaboration.
The Emergence of Sustainability Transformations
According to Scoones et al., (2020), sustainability transformations research emerged in response to the urgent need to address the pressing challenges outlined in the SDGs. Similar to the concept of sustainability transitions mentioned previously, these transformations entail significant systemic changes that are necessary to tackle the current polycrisis. Broadly speaking, sustainability transformations refer to large-scale changes across whole societies, spanning global, national or local levels, and involving the interactions between human and biophysical systems (Scoones et al., 2020). The term ‘transformation’ implies a fundamental change in shape or structure, highlighting the focus on understanding how radical change occurs, their underlying reasons, and role of agents responsible (Sharpe et al., 2016).
Supporters of sustainability transformations acknowledge that both social and environmental concerns cover a diverse spectrum of perspectives (Hopwood et al., 2005: 45-46). However, there is shared understanding that pressing issues within the environment and society are interconnect and risk system collapse is transformation fails to occur (Hopwood et al., 2005: 45-46).
Sustainability transformations involve recognising and transcending the boundaries of existing dominant systems whilst identifying the parts that form its current state (Scoones et al., 2020). Frameworks such as the panarchy model help us to recognize emerging social-ecological vulnerabilities, maladaptation and tipping points, while concepts such as resilience and planetary boundaries help guide transformations towards safe and equitable operating zones (Scoones et al., 2020).
The Purpose of a Sustainability Transformations Framework
According to Scoones et al., (2020), the purpose of sustainability transitions is to facilitate radical societal changes aimed at addressing environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, and social justice, all of which are integral to the SDGs. Such frameworks emphasize the understanding of complexity and resilience within social-ecological systems, alongside the multifaceted role of technology, infrastructure, policies, and social and political dimensions in driving transformative change towards sustainability. By providing a set of principles for effective research and action towards sustainability, these frameworks highlight the need for new ways of thinking, doing and being, including diverse perspectives, plural pathways, and an understanding the political nature of transformation. It is critical to be clear about what is meant by transformation and recognizing basic methodological principles for action to realize the ambitions outlined in the SDGs (Scoones et al., 2020).
The Key Focus and Elements of Sustainability Transformations
The key focus of sustainability transformations is system change towards a sustainable future through a commitment to social equity, good health, resource access and agency (Hopwood et al., 2005: 46). This entails focusing on large-scale technological, institutional, and environmental shifts in socio-ecological industrial systems, to shift towards sustainable economies (Hölscher et al., 2018). Sustainability transformations is concerned with outcomes that are not only safe and just but also desirable. Moreover, it considers the potential risks associated with different forms of change and acknowledges the diverse motives and values that underpin efforts of transformations (Hölscher et al., 2018).
A variety of perspectives and approaches for transformation exist due to differences in values, histories, and contexts, which has led to lack of clarity around its precise meaning, underlying processes, and the target for transformation. Critics argue that this ambiguity poses challenges to the effectiveness of efforts towards transformation and hampers its empirical grounding. This creates the fertile ground for weak and shallow sustainability perspectives to infiltrate into proposals for transformation, avoiding genuine change (Scoones et al., 2020). Additionally, the potential crossing of pathways on local, regional, and global levels poses substantial challenges. Navigating effective transformations requires a deep understanding of the cross-scale dynamics of different types of change. Moreover, the integration of insights across disciplines alongside engagement with uncertainty and surprise is critical.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the discourse on SD has evolved significantly since the 1970s, with the emergence of concepts as well as sustainability transitions and transformations. The global acceptance of SDGs by the UN reflects the recognition of the urgent need for systemic change in order to solve the challenges within the polycrisis.
Debates within SD between weak and strong, and shallow and deep sustainability highlight the need for complexity and systems thinking in moving towards a sustainable future. Furthermore, these debates highlight the tension between economic, environmental, and social components. Moreover, it is essential to adopt a critical approach and revaluate existing frameworks and systems of domination.
The emergence of sustainability transitions and transformations as frameworks for change highlights the critical need for radical, systemic change in our current world order to address pressing challenges. While the terms are often used interchangeably, sustainability transitions focus on socio-technical shifts in societal sub-systems, and sustainability transformations consists of larger systemic changes across entire societies, focusing on the interconnection between human and biophysical components within systems.
Both sustainability transitions and transformations frameworks provide useful insights for researchers and policymakers. Importance is given to understanding complexity, resilience, and the political nature of transformation. Despite the growing field of research, ambiguity around the concise meaning and processes of transition and transformation pose a challenge to the effectiveness of efforts. Moreover, there is risk of shallow and weak approaches to sustainability preventing genuine efforts for effective change.
The journey towards a more sustainable world is complex and multilayered. In navigating towards a more sustainable future and creating a world that is conducive to all life, this paper calls for the substantive growth of interdisciplinary research and the fostering of dialogue among diverse perspectives. To do so, an integrated approach must be adopted, recognizing the interconnectedness of economic, social and environmental systems. We must confront intricate issues head-on and chart novel trajectories through diverse dialogue, co-creation and innovation.
