Book contents
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- General Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Background
- 1 Sustainability Assessment: Introduction and Framework
- 2 Systems Science and Sustainability Assessment
- 3 How Values Play into Sustainability Assessments: Challenges and a Possible Way Forward
- 4 The Politics of Participatory Sustainability Assessments: An Analysis of Power
- 5 A Concept for Sustainability Transition Assessment (STA): A Dynamic Systems Perspective Informed by Resilience Thinking
- Part II Integrative Approaches for Sustainability Assessment
- Part III Perspectives on Urban Sustainability
- Part IV Focal Points of Urban Sustainability
- Index
- References
3 - How Values Play into Sustainability Assessments: Challenges and a Possible Way Forward
from Part I - Theoretical Background
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2020
Book contents
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- General Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Background
- 1 Sustainability Assessment: Introduction and Framework
- 2 Systems Science and Sustainability Assessment
- 3 How Values Play into Sustainability Assessments: Challenges and a Possible Way Forward
- 4 The Politics of Participatory Sustainability Assessments: An Analysis of Power
- 5 A Concept for Sustainability Transition Assessment (STA): A Dynamic Systems Perspective Informed by Resilience Thinking
- Part II Integrative Approaches for Sustainability Assessment
- Part III Perspectives on Urban Sustainability
- Part IV Focal Points of Urban Sustainability
- Index
- References
Summary
Any sustainability assessment uses some notion of sustainability as a reference. It is increasingly acknowledged that sustainability is a contested concept and that its different definitions are rooted in different values. Accordingly, researchers have started to develop approaches for producing knowledge in a context of diverging values. However, little attention has been paid to these values and to how they play into sustainability assessments. In this chapter, we address this question in three parts. First, we show how different ethical positions and worldviews enter notions of sustainability and shape the solution spaces for sustainability issues which are taken into consideration. Secondly, we present different stances on how the scientific method should address the presence of values and show how they can be traced back to different values about what good science is. Thirdly, we show that values are historically constructed and shaped by the socioeconomic, socio-technological, and socio-ecological order and at the same time contribute to reproducing it. We also show that this process risks leading to a prevalence of notions of sustainability that reproduce the very dynamics at the origin of the sustainability problem at hand. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for how this challenge could be overcome.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems , pp. 65 - 86Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2005). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Berlin: Fischer.Google Scholar
Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., et al. (2018). The dark side of transformation: Latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode, 50(5), 1206–1223.Google Scholar
Brown, C. S. (1995). Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism: The quest for a new worldview. The Midwest Quarterly, 36(2), 191.Google Scholar
Bryant, R. L. (2015). The International Handbook of Political Ecology. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar.Google Scholar
Büscher, B. (2012). Payments for ecosystem services as neoliberal conservation: (Reinterpreting) evidence from the Maloti-Drakensberg, South Africa. Conservation and Society, 10(1), 29–41.Google Scholar
Capra, F. (1997). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., & Daly, H. E. (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation biology, 6(1), 37–46.Google Scholar
Daily, G. C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., et al. (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289(5478), 395–396.Google Scholar
Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., et al. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 21–28.Google Scholar
Davydova, I., & Sharrock, W. (2003). The rise and fall of the fact/value distinction. The Sociological Review, 51(3), 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., et al. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, 359 (6373), 270–272. DOI:10.1126/science.aap8826.http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270.Google Scholar
EEA. (2015). The European Environment: State and Outlook 2015: Synthesis Report. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
Farrell, K. N. (2011). Snow White and the wicked problems of the west: A look at the lines between empirical description and normative prescription. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 36(3), 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Kowalski, M. (1998). Society’s metabolism. Journal of industrial ecology, 2(1), 61–78.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (2012). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R., Dressler, W., & Büscher, B. (2015). NatureT M Inc.: Nature as a neoliberal capitalist imaginary. In Bryant, R. L. (ed.), The International Handbook of Political Ecology. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar, pp. 359–372.Google Scholar
Foster, J. B. (2009). The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Frame, B., & Brown, J. (2008). Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 65(2), 225–241.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, vol. 15. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25 (7), 739–755.Google Scholar
Grunwald, A. (2004). Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: the need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1–2), 150–167.Google Scholar
Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Martinez-Alier, J., & Winiwarter, V. (2011). A socio-metabolic transition towards sustainability? Challenges for another great transformation. Sustainable Development, 19(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Hayward, T. (2007). Human rights versus emissions rights: Climate justice and the equitable distribution of ecological space. Ethics & International Affairs, 21(4), 431–450.Google Scholar
Healy, H., Martinez-Alier, J., & Kallis, G. (2015). From ecological modernization to socially sustainable economic degrowth: Lessons from ecological economics. In Bryant, R. L. (ed.), The International Handbook of Political Ecology. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar, pp. 577–590.Google Scholar
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological economics, 60(1), 119–128.Google Scholar
Imran, S., Alam, K., & Beaumont, N. (2014). Reinterpreting the definition of sustainable development for a more ecocentric reorientation. Sustainable Development, 22 (2), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Incheon: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In Jasanoff, S (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaiser, M. (2015). Ethics of science and a new social contract for knowledge. In Meisch, S, Lundershausen, J, Bossert, L, & Rockoff, M (eds.), Ethics of Science in the Research for Sustainable Development. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 153–178.Google Scholar
Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Environment, 47(3), 8.Google Scholar
Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2007). Sustainable development: How to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 3(2).Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1997). Politiques de la nature: Comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Leff, E. (2002). Die Geopolitik nachhaltiger Entwicklung: Ökonomisierung des Klimas, Rationalisierung der Umwelt und die gesellschaftliche Wiederaneignung der Natur. In Görg, C and Brand, U (eds.), Mythen globalen Umweltmanagements: Rio + 10. Munster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot, pp. 92–117.Google Scholar
Marcuse, H. (2013). One Dimensional Man: Studies in Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: Science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 2(1).Google Scholar
Martinez-Alier, J., & Muradian, R. (2015). Handbook of Ecological Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1968). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Band 1: Der Produktionsprozess des Kapitals. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1983). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Band 3: Der Gesamtprozess der kapitalistischen Produktion. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
Max-Neef, M. A. (1991). Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. New York and London: The Apex Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, C. (1990). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Merchant, C. (2006). The scientific revolution and The Death of Nature. Isis, 97(3), 513–533.Google Scholar
Mumby, D. K., & Clair, R. P. (1997). Organizational discourse. In Van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, vol. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., and Scott, P. B. (2001). Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
OECD. (2012). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Okereke, C. (2010). Climate justice and the international regime. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), 462–474.Google Scholar
O’Neill, J. (2008). Happiness and the good life. Environmental Values, 17(2), 125–144.Google Scholar
O’Neill, J., and Uebel, T. (2015). Analytical philosophy and ecological economics. In Handbook of Ecological Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 48–78.Google Scholar
Pielke, J., and Roger, A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Potthast, T. (2015). Ethics in the sciences beyond Hume, Moore and Weber: Taking epistemic-moral hybrids seriously. In Meisch, S, Lundershausen, J, Bossert, L, and Rockoff, M (eds.), Ethics of Science in the Research for Sustainable Development. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 129–152.Google Scholar
Putnam, H., et al. (2002). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rametsteiner, E., Pülzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J., and Frederiksen, P. (2011). Sustainability indicator development: Science or political negotiation? Ecological Indicators, 11(1), 61–70.Google Scholar
Rao, N. D., and Min, J. (2017). Decent living standards: Material prerequisites for human wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 138(1), 225–244.Google Scholar
Ravetz, J., and Funtowicz, S. (2015). Post-normal science. In Meisch, S, Lundershausen, J, Bossert, L, and Rockoff, M (eds.), Ethics of Science in the Research for Sustainable Development. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 101–112.Google Scholar
Reynaud, J.-D., and Richebé, N. (2009). Rules, conventions and values: A plea in favor of ordinary normativity. Revue Française de Sociologie, 50(5), 3–35.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384.Google Scholar
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2).Google Scholar
Rutgers, M. R. (2012). A pantheon of public values: A historical and conceptual approach to the normativity of facts and values. A paper presented at The Public Values Consortium Biennial Workshop, Chicago, IL. www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai: uva. nl, volume 376695.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2016). Natur gegen Kapital: Marx’ Ökologie in seiner unvollendeten Kritik des Kapitalismus. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Salleh, A. (2015). Neoliberalism, scientism and earth system governance. In Bryant, R. L. (ed.), The International Handbook of Political Ecology. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar, pp. 432–446.Google Scholar
Schneidewind, U. (2013). Transformative literacy: Gesellschaftliche ver¨anderungsprozesse verstehen und gestalten. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 22(2), 82–86.Google Scholar
Schneidewind, U. (2015). Transformative Wissenschaft-Motor fu¨r gute Wissenschaft und lebendige Demokratie. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24(2), 88–91.Google Scholar
Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.Google Scholar
Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and culture: Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-order. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 813–822.Google Scholar
van der Hel, S. (2018). Science for change: A survey on the normative and political dimensions of global sustainability research. Global Environmental Change, 52: 248–258.Google Scholar
Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., and Lopes, R. (2010). A participatory modelling approach to support integrated sustainability assessment processes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(4), 446–460.Google Scholar
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Block, T., et al. (2014). Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development. Sustainability, 6(9), 5512–5534.Google Scholar
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
WWF. (2016). Living Planet Report 2016. Risk and Resilience in a New Era. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.Google Scholar
Ziegler, R., and Ott, K. (2011). The quality of sustainability science: A philosophical perspective. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 7(1), 31–44.Google Scholar