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
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Such as the challenge to observe and understand the complexity and dynamic patterns of human–natural systems and issues regarding their sustainability, or challenges faced during decision-making processes in these systems, that arise largely due to normative standpoints, diverse interests, expertise etc. From the simplest perspective complex dynamics are viewed as patterns in systems that result from the system agents or objects and the interactions among them (derived from definitions by Morin (2008), Miller and Page (2009), Juarrero (2002) and Varela et al. (1974)). For a comprehensive discussion please refer to Satanarachchi (2009, 2015).
- 2.
Aside from the interaction, which is particularly emphasized in ecology (Liu et al. 2007; Gunderson 2001), the use of the interlinked yet somewhat differentiated term ‘human–natural’ in this study highlights the fact that sustainability is a human-interpretation that has nature as one of its most important considerations.
- 3.
In every sustainability-related research or initiative some form of implicit evaluation decision that differentiate sustainability from unsustainability or that differentiates the degree of sustainability is essential.
- 4.
- 5.
For an elaborative review of ‘complexity’ in these different fields, please refer to Wells (2012).
- 6.
In this study the term ‘holistic’ understanding is reserved for interactively generated understanding, through the understanding of the parts that leads to understanding of the whole, and the understanding of the whole that leads to the understanding of its parts. The term ‘wholistic understanding’ is used for only the understanding that is generated by observing the whole alone. For example, in the case of a bird eye view observation, the understanding could just be confined to the surface of the ‘whole’. Having a bird eye view of a field can lead to a ‘wholistic’ understanding, but not necessarily an holistic understanding.
- 7.
Polanyi (1958) further names these efforts as two types of attentions and discusses their role in the understanding process of a comprehensive entity.
- 8.
By the term ‘dynamically integrated’ we mean an integration that occurs as a process. In the two examples by Polanyi this is ensured by a cognitive process supported by various simultaneous cognitive steps such as ‘grasping’ and ‘doing’ via sensory organs (Polanyi 1966). In the latter part of the framework, we attempt to create such a dynamic process by directing observations from multiple and conflicting angles (via employing dimensions and background layers).
- 9.
By sustainability-linked knowledge we mean the knowledge that is directly linked to sustainability issues, and the systems that are experiencing those issues.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
Reflexivity has multiple meanings in different fields of studies. For instance it could also denote a characteristic that enables to project the self as an active and creative agent (De Cruz et al. 2007).
- 13.
Usually the term iteration is used to indicate the act of repeating a process (often given as a function) to reach a certain goal. In this repeating process, the results of one iteration are used as the starting point of the next iteration. Particularly in mathematics, iteration stands for a problem-solving or computational method in which a succession of approximations, each building on the one preceding, is used to achieve a desired degree of accuracy. In an understanding process, the result of one iteration could be seen as a whole that is used as the starting point of the next understanding process.
- 14.
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is a methodology that was developed to facilitate preliminary dialogue and brainstorming to tackle problematical (social) situations. It utilizes a systems approach to analyze and solve complex problems, particularly where there are divergent views about the definition of problem (Wilson 2001; Checkland 1999).
References
Agrawal, A. (2008). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413–439.
Ashby, W. R. (2004). Classical papers-principles of a self-organizing system. E-CO Special Double Issue, 6(1–2), 102–126.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity (p. 238). New York: Dutton.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems (1st ed.). NY: Anchor Books.
Checkland, P. (1999). Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Cilliers, P. (2002). Why we cannot know complex things completely. Emergence, 4(1–2), 77–84.
Cilliers, P., & Spurrett, D. (1999). Complexity and post-modernism: Understanding complex systems. South African Journal of Philosophy, 18(2), 258–274.
Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8059–8061.
Clayton, A. M., & Radcliffe, N. J. (1996). Sustainability: A systems approach. UK: Earthscan.
Corning, P. A. (2002). The re-emergence of “emergence”: A venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6), 18–30.
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.
Engelbrecht, J. (1997). Nonlinear wave dynamics: Complexity and simplicity. BV: Springer-Science & Business Media.
Espinosa, A., Harnden, R., & Walker, J. (2008). A complexity approach to sustainability–Stafford beer revisited. European Journal of Operational Research, 187(2), 636–651.
Gleick, J., & Hilborn, R. C. (1988). Chaos, making a new science. American Journal of Physics, 56(11), 1053–1054.
Goldsmith, E. (1988). The way: An ecological world-view. Ecologist, 18, 160–185.
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 11, 49–72.
Gunderson, L. H. (Ed.). (2001). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island press.
Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P., & Gershenson, C. (2006). Complexity and philosophy. arXiv preprint cs/0604072.
Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Helix.
Holling, C. S. (2005). From complex regions to complex worlds. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 7, 1.
Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L. H., & Peterson, G. D. (2002). Sustainability and panarchies. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, 63, 69.
Hooker, C. (2011). Introduction to philosophy of complex systems: A. Philosophy of Complex Systems, 10, 3.
Juarrero, A. (2002). Complex dynamical systems and the problems of identity. Emergence, 4(1–2), 94–104.
Kates, W. R., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science 292, 641.
Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1(1), 1–6.
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.
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.
Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20(2), 130–141.
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.
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.
Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. NJ: Hampton Press.
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).
Otto, T., & Bubandt, N. (Eds.). (2010). Experiments in Holism: Theory and Practice in Contemporary Anthropology. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. UK: Doubleday & Co.
Polanyi, M. (1968). Life’s irreducible structure. Science, 160(1968), 1308–1312.
Poli, R. (2009). The complexity of anticipation. Balkan Journal of Philosophy, 1, 19–29.
Robinson, J. G. (2011). Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 958–965.
Satanarachchi, N. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainability dynamics, Master Thesis, The University of Tokyo, Japan.
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.
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.
Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (Eds.). (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. UK: Sage.
Simon, H. A. (1991). The architecture of complexity (pp. 457–476). US: Springer.
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).
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.
van Dijkum, C. (1997). From cybernetics to the science of complexity. Kybernetes, 26(6/7), 725–737.
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.
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.
Wells, J. (2012). Complexity and sustainability (Vol. 26). Canada, NY: Routledge.
Wilson, B. (2001). Soft systems methodology: Conceptual model building and its contribution. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Satanarachchi, N., Mino, T. (2016). A Methodology to Evaluate Sustainability in the Face of Complex Dynamics: Implications for Field Studies in Sustainability Science. In: Esteban, M., Akiyama, T., Chen, C., Ikeda, I., Mino, T. (eds) Sustainability Science: Field Methods and Exercises. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32930-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32930-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32929-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32930-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)