Advertisement

A Methodology to Evaluate Sustainability in the Face of Complex Dynamics: Implications for Field Studies in Sustainability Science

  • Niranji SatanarachchiEmail author
  • Takashi Mino
Chapter

Abstract

Sustainability as a concept has a strong link with the complexity and dynamic patterns of human–natural systems. Evaluating sustainability in human–natural systems requires paying attention to the observation process of these systems to adequately grasp complex dynamics. Failing to do so can result in poor recognition and translation of the sustainability/unsustainability patterns in them. In order to addressing this challenge the present chapter discusses a newly developed methodology to evaluate the sustainability of a human–natural system in a complex dynamic context, which may be useful when conducting sustainability science field exercises. This methodology pays particular attention to the complexities involved in the observation processes, and how awareness of such complexity would support reflexive and iterative understanding-based sustainability evaluations. Finally, the authors will discuss the basis of the evaluation methodology and how it can be applied to field research exercises in Sustainability Science.

Keywords

Sustainability evaluation Human–natural systems Complexity A matrix-based methodology Reflexive and iterative understanding 

References

  1. Agrawal, A. (2008). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby, W. R. (2004). Classical papers-principles of a self-organizing system. E-CO Special Double Issue, 6(1–2), 102–126.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity (p. 238). New York: Dutton.  Google Scholar
  4. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems (1st ed.). NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  5. Checkland, P. (1999). Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  6. Cilliers, P. (2002). Why we cannot know complex things completely. Emergence, 4(1–2), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cilliers, P., & Spurrett, D. (1999). Complexity and post-modernism: Understanding complex systems. South African Journal of Philosophy, 18(2), 258–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8059–8061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton, A. M., & Radcliffe, N. J. (1996). Sustainability: A systems approach. UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  10. Corning, P. A. (2002). The re-emergence of “emergence”: A venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6), 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: A critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engelbrecht, J. (1997). Nonlinear wave dynamics: Complexity and simplicity. BV: Springer-Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Espinosa, A., Harnden, R., & Walker, J. (2008). A complexity approach to sustainability–Stafford beer revisited. European Journal of Operational Research, 187(2), 636–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gleick, J., & Hilborn, R. C. (1988). Chaos, making a new science. American Journal of Physics, 56(11), 1053–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldsmith, E. (1988). The way: An ecological world-view. Ecologist, 18, 160–185.Google Scholar
  16. Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 11, 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunderson, L. H. (Ed.). (2001). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island press.Google Scholar
  18. Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P., & Gershenson, C. (2006). Complexity and philosophy. arXiv preprint cs/0604072.Google Scholar
  19. Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Helix.Google Scholar
  20. Holling, C. S. (2005). From complex regions to complex worlds. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 7, 1.Google Scholar
  21. Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L. H., & Peterson, G. D. (2002). Sustainability and panarchies. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, 63, 69.Google Scholar
  22. Hooker, C. (2011). Introduction to philosophy of complex systems: A. Philosophy of Complex Systems, 10, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Juarrero, A. (2002). Complex dynamical systems and the problems of identity. Emergence, 4(1–2), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kates, W. R., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science 292, 641.Google Scholar
  25. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., & Taylor, W. W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844), 1513–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2009). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life: an introduction to computational models of social life. UK: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mino, T., & Hanaki, K. (Eds.). (2013). Environmental leadership capacity building in higher education: Experience and lesson from Asian program for incubation of sustainability. Japan: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ostrom, E. (2007). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems. In Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Vol. 274, p. 1931).Google Scholar
  34. Otto, T., & Bubandt, N. (Eds.). (2010). Experiments in Holism: Theory and Practice in Contemporary Anthropology. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. UK: Doubleday & Co.Google Scholar
  37. Polanyi, M. (1968). Life’s irreducible structure. Science, 160(1968), 1308–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poli, R. (2009). The complexity of anticipation. Balkan Journal of Philosophy, 1, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robinson, J. G. (2011). Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 958–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Satanarachchi, N. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainability dynamics, Master Thesis, The University of Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  41. Satanarachchi, N. (2015). Conceptualizing sustainability dynamics: A framework for interface of complex dynamics and sustainability in human–natural systems, PhD Thesis, The University of Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  42. Satanarachchi, N., & Mino, T. (2014). A framework to observe and evaluate the sustainability of human–natural systems in a complex dynamic context. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (Eds.). (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Simon, H. A. (1991). The architecture of complexity (pp. 457–476). US: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Stirling, A. (2006). Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. In J. Voss & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 225–272).Google Scholar
  46. Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global environmental change, 14(2), 137–146.Google Scholar
  47. van Dijkum, C. (1997). From cybernetics to the science of complexity. Kybernetes, 26(6/7), 725–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Varela, F. G., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5(4), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wals, A. E., & Jickling, B. (2002). “Sustainability” in higher education: From doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(3), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wells, J. (2012). Complexity and sustainability (Vol. 26). Canada, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, B. (2001). Soft systems methodology: Conceptual model building and its contribution. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Sustainability Science-Global Leadership Initiative, Graduate School of Frontier SciencesThe University of TokyoKashiwa, ChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations