From nouns to verbs: How process ontologies enhance our understanding of social‐ecological systems understood as complex adaptive systems

Navigating causal reasoning in sustainability science

When reasoning about causes of sustainability problems and possible solutions, sustainability scientists rely on disciplinary-based understanding of cause-effect relations. These disciplinary assumptions enable and constrain how causal knowledge is generated, yet they are rarely made explicit. In a multidisciplinary field like sustainability science, lack of understanding differences in causal reasoning impedes our ability to address complex sustainability problems. To support navigating the diversity of causal reasoning, we articulate when and how during a research process researchers engage in causal reasoning and discuss four common ideas about causation that direct it. This articulation provides guidance for researchers to make their own assumptions and choices transparent and to interpret other researchers' approaches. Understanding how causal claims are made and justified enables sustainability researchers to evaluate the diversity of causal claims, to build collaborations across disciplines, and to assess whether proposed solutions are suitable for a given problem.

Operationalizing ambiguity in sustainability science: embracing the elephant in the room

Ambiguity is often recognized as an intrinsic aspect of addressing complex sustainability challenges. Nevertheless, in the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research, ambiguity is often an 'elephant in the room' to be either side-stepped or reduced rather than explicitly mobilized in pursuit of solutions. These responses threaten the salience and legitimacy of sustainability science by masking the pluralism of real-world sustainability challenges and how research renders certain frames visible and invisible. Critical systems thinking (CST) emerged from the efforts of operational researchers to address theoretical and practical aspects of ambiguity. By adapting key concepts, frameworks, and lessons from CST literature and case studies, this paper aims to establish (1) an expansive conceptualization of ambiguity and (2) recommendations for operationalizing ambiguity as a valuable means of addressing sustainability challenges. We conceptualize ambiguity as an emergent feature of the simultaneous and interacting boundary processes associated with being, knowing, and intervening in complex systems, and propose Reflexive Boundary Critique (RBC) as a novel framework to help navigate these boundary processes. Our characterization of ambiguity acknowledges the boundary of a researcher's subjective orientation and its influence on how ambiguity is exposed and mediated in research (being), characterizes knowledge as produced through the process of making boundary judgments, generating a partial, contextual, and provisional frame (knowing), and situates a researcher as part of the complexity they seek to understand, rendering any boundary process as a form of intervention that reinforces or marginalizes certain frames and, in turn, influences action (intervening). Our recommendations for sustainability scientists to operationalize ambiguity include (1) nurturing the reflexive capacities of transdisciplinary researchers to navigate persistent ambiguity (e.g., using our proposed framework of RBC), and (2) grappling with the potential for and consequences of theoretical incommensurability and discordant pluralism. Our findings can help sustainability scientists give shape to and embrace ambiguity as a fundamental part of rigorous sustainability science.

Fractal approaches to scaling transformations to sustainability

Responses to sustainability challenges are not delivering results at the scale and speed called for by science, international agreements, and concerned citizens. Yet there is a tendency to underestimate the large-scale impacts of small-scale, local, and contextualized actions, and particularly the role of individuals in scaling transformations. Here, we explore a fractal approach to scaling sustainability transformations based on "universal values." Universal values are proposed as intrinsic characteristics that connect humans and nature in a coherent, acausal way. Drawing on the Three Spheres of Transformation framework, we consider how enacting universal values can generate fractal-like patterns of sustainability that repeat recursively across scales. Fractal approaches shift the focus from scaling through "things" (e.g., technologies, behaviors, projects) to scaling through a quality of agency based on values that apply to all. We discuss practical steps involved in fractal approaches to scaling transformations to sustainability, provide examples, and conclude with questions for future research.

An environmental justice perspective on ecosystem services

Mainstreaming of ecosystem service approaches has been proposed as one path toward sustainable development. Meanwhile, critics of ecosystem services question if the approach can account for the multiple values of ecosystems to diverse groups of people, or for aspects of inter- and intra-generational justice. In particular, an ecosystem service approach often overlooks power dimensions and capabilities that are core to environmental justice. This article addresses the need for greater guidance on incorporating justice into ecosystem services research and practice. We point to the importance of deep engagement with stakeholders and rights holders to disentangle contextual factors that moderate justice outcomes on ecosystem service attribution and appropriation in socio-political interventions. Such a holistic perspective enables the integration of values and knowledge plurality for enhancing justice in ecosystem services research. This broadened perspective paves a way for transformative ecosystem service assessments, management, and research, which can help inform and design governance structures that nourish human agency to sustainably identify, manage, and enjoy ecosystem services for human wellbeing.

Core Competencies for Training Conservation Paleobiology Students in a Wicked World

Despite the promise conservation paleobiology holds for using geohistorical data and insights to solve conservation problems, training in the field typically does not equip students to be competent environmental problem solvers. The intention of this perspective piece is to start a conversation about how we might train conservation paleobiology students better, focusing on the competencies needed to promote deep engagement with “wicked” conservation problems that are difficult to solve. Ongoing conversations regarding design of academic programs in sustainability, a field allied with conservation science, can inform our discussion. The sustainability literature has defined an interrelated set of “core competencies” that go beyond general academic competencies to enable real-world sustainability problem solving: systems thinking, temporal thinking, normative thinking, strategic thinking, and interpersonal competence. Conservation paleobiology is usually taught within geology programs, where students are exposed to systems thinking and temporal thinking. However, the remaining competencies typically are absent or insufficiently developed. To infuse these competencies into conservation paleobiology curricula, we recommend: (1) enhancing connections with sustainability programs and encouraging a more cross-disciplinary approach to training; (2) developing a “menu” of concepts and methodologies for each competence from which to choose; and (3) recognizing that different skills are appropriate at different levels of education and experience. The proposed competency-based framework serves as a shared reference that can be used to develop pedagogies to better prepare conservation paleobiology students to navigate the wicked conservation challenges of our time.

A Shock to the System: What the COVID-19 Pandemic Reveals About Australia's Food Systems and Their Resilience

Australia has managed well through the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to many other developed nations. Through its first and second waves it was relatively successful in terms of control of outbreaks. Nevertheless, like everywhere, the shock to national systems has been profound, and adjustment remains complex and volatile. Food is a critical human need, and the food industry is recognised as a vital economic sector. We present an examination of some of the adaptive responses of Australia's food systems during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, from January 2020 to October 2020, with a focus on three case studies (seafood exports, consumer behaviour and food sector employment). These case studies provide observations of specific stresses experienced, as well as insights into the adaptation strategies carried out by various actors within the nation's food systems. The shock was experienced differently in different parts of given food systems, and the opportunities for adaptation varied. Some supply chains lost business, others had to adapt to rapidly increased demands, and surges. Our analysis reveals features of Australia's food systems, and their relationships to other systems, that have facilitated resilience, and features that have impeded it. We found that international supply chains are highly vulnerable to global shocks, that insecure employment conditions throughout the food system reduce the resilience of the system overall, and that consumers are not fully confident in supply chains. We observed the importance of agency and adaptive behaviour throughout the food systems as actors worked to build their own resilience, with consequences for other parts of the system. Our findings suggest that food system resilience can be enhanced by ensuring that the goals and priorities of those most vulnerable in society are recognised and addressed within decision making processes throughout the system.

Semantic Fusion with Deep Learning and Formal Ontologies for Evaluation of Policies and Initiatives in the Smart City Domain

Decision makers and policy analysts at different administrative levels often lack a holistic view of the problem as there are semantic variations in policy documents due to domain-specific content. For example, smart city initiatives are derived from national and international initiatives which may influence the incentives for local participants, but local initiatives reflect the local contextual elements of the city. Balanced assessment of smart city initiatives should include a systemic evaluation of the initiatives at multiple levels including the city, the country in which the city resides as well as at international level. In this paper, a knowledge elicitation methodology is presented for multi-granularity evaluation of policies and initiatives. The methodology is demonstrated on the evaluation of smart city initiatives generated at different administrative levels. Semantic networks are constructed using formal ontologies and deep learning methods for automatic semantic evaluation of initiatives to abstract knowledge found in text. Three smart city initiatives published by different administrative levels including international, national, and city level are evaluated in terms of relevance, coherence, and alignment of multi-level smart city initiatives. Experiments and analysis ultimately provide a holistic view of the problem which is necessary for decision makers and policy analysts of smart cities.

The Cod and the Cut: Intra-Active Intuitions

Interest in causality is growing in sustainability science and it has been argued that a multiplicity of approaches is needed to account for the complexities of social-ecological dynamics. However, many of these approaches operate within perspectives that establish a separation between what has causal agency and all the rest, which is relegated to the role of background conditions. We argue that the distinction between causal elements and background conditions is by no means a necessary one, and that the causal agency of background conditions is worthy of investigation. We argue that such conditions correspond to what Karen Barad has called a "cut": a specific determination of the world (or part of it) respective to another part, for which it becomes intelligible. In this sense, most approaches to causality so far operate from "within" particular cuts. To illustrate this, we focus on the paradigmatic case of the Baltic cod collapse in the eighties. This case has been extensively studied, and overfishing has been identified as a key cause explaining the collapse. We dig deeper into the conditions which characterized fishing practices in the run-up to the collapse and uncover the separation between the social and the ecological that they enforce by encouraging policies to increase productivity under the rationale of national "development". We then re-examine the case from a process-relational perspective, rejecting the separation of nature from society. A process-relational perspective allows us to consider relations as constitutive of processes through which what exists becomes determinate. For this purpose we use the concepts of intra-action (co-constitution of processes) and of performativity (determination of language and matter within processes). We complete our conceptual framework by drawing inspiration from pragmatist philosophers and suggest that the concept of intuition can constitute an alternative to untangle causal dynamics and explain social-ecological phenomena beyond the cause/condition dichotomy. This article seeks to fulfil two objectives: firstly, to question the thick boundaries between conditions and causal elements that explain the processes in which social-ecological systems evolve; secondly, to provide a different approach to transforming a social-ecological system.

Farming Resilience: From Maintaining States towards Shaping Transformative Change Processes

Resilience is a concept that focuses on change: it includes the ability of a system to maintain its current state despite disturbances, its ability to adapt, and to transform. While resilience covers both stability and change, conceptual developments and empirical studies have put more emphasis on identifying what enables a farm to cope with the impact of a shock, such as a shift in markets or an extreme weather event, while remaining essentially unchanged. Much less emphasis has been put on what enables a farm to shape change, especially transformative change. I argue that this bias is partly due to the ecological roots of the concept, and partly to the use of conventional methods and their underlying substantialist worldview. A process-relational approach might be better suited to capture change. This approach shifts the conceptualization of a ‘farm’ as a stable material structure, to ‘farming’ as an open process of becoming, composed of heterogenous relations that are continuously made and remade. By exploring the differences between these two approaches to farm/farming resilience, I show how a process-relational approach displaces the presumption of structural determination and thus allows to highlight the ever-present openings for change.