Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (20) (remove)
Language
- English (20) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (20)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (20)
Keywords
- transdisciplinarity (2)
- CuveWaters (1)
- IPBES (1)
- IWRM (1)
- Mali (1)
- Namibia (1)
- Senegal (1)
- bank sanctions (1)
- banking regulation (1)
- banking supervision (1)
Institute
- Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (20) (remove)
Rain- and floodwater harvesting (RFWH) technologies and water reuse are ideal and generalpurpose technologies to improve water security and to contribute to climate adaptation – in particular for semi-arid regions. These technologies are part of a multi-resources mix within an integrated water resources management (IWRM). They create capacities to buffer water fluctuations and alleviate water scarcity. In this way, they reduce the pressure on existing resources, and can stimulate local economies. However, in order to be sustainable, these technologies need to be adapted to the local context – through suitable design, adapted operation requirements, and a back-up by training users and operators accordingly.
Despite various policy and management responses, biodiversity continues to decline worldwide. We must redouble our efforts to halt biodiversity loss. The current lack of policy action can be partly linked to an insufficient knowledge base regarding the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Biodiversity research needs to incorporate both social and ecological factors to gain a deeper understanding of the interrelations between society and nature that affect biodiversity. A transdisciplinary research approach is crucial to fulfilling these requirements. It aims to produce new insights by integrating scientific and nonscientific knowledge. Several measures need to be taken to strengthen transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity research: Within the science community: firstly, scientists themselves must promote transdisciplinarity; secondly, the reward system for scientists must be brought into line with transdisciplinary research processes; and thirdly, academic training needs to advocate transdisciplinarity. As for research policies, research funding priorities need to be linked to large scale biodiversity policy frameworks, and funding for transdisciplinary social-ecological research on biodiversity must be increased significantly.
The anthropocene – the epoch of humankind – is currently a topic of great interest. What consequences does the idea of humanity as a geological force have for the undertaken path of sustainable development? What new questions are arising for sustainability science? Diagnosing contemporary society from an anthropocene perspective could change the relationship between natural and social sciences, as well as between society and science: science will be needed even more as a critical authority and must be organized to an even greater extent in a transdisciplinary manner. New forms of social participation in the process of producing scientifically legitimated knowledge are indispensable.∗
More than ten years ago the Dutch chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen coined the term “Anthropocene” to describe the period during which humans have begun to significantly influence biological, geological and atmospheric processes, thus becoming a relevant geological force on planet Earth (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000, Crutzen 2002). In the earth sciences the anthropocene represents nothing less than a transition to a new epoch and is therefore being discussed intensively. Until 2016 data have been collected by geologists from the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to provide evidence that might help answer the question whether a turning point has been reached in the history of the Earth (Zalasiewicz et al. 2011). A decision will be made as to whether and when a new epoch in Earth history has begun.
The significance and consequences outside the geoscientific discourse of identifying an “epoch of humans” (Zalasiewicz 2013) has, so far, only been understood to a small extent. Yet this change of perspective is one of the most important in the last 100 hundred years, for it means society and nature have become so closely intertwined that they can no longer be studied independently of each other. Natural spheres and societal spheres have merged into one large system (Guillaume 2015, Becker und Jahn 2006). A well-founded acceptance of the concept of the anthropocene, however, has been lacking, especially where transitions to a sustainable development are being researched. It remains unclear whether the concept of the Anthropocene will lead to a new fundamental understanding of the relationships between nature and society and, if so, what opportunities this new understanding might open for shaping these relationships in a more sustainable manner. And lastly, and equally importantly, it is still unclear whether science’s role and responsibilities will change in the course of developing visions of the future. With this article we hope to stimulate further discussions of these issues.
Increasing bike traffic in many European countries is a sign of a shift in planning paradigms towards more sustainable mobility cultures. It is also the result of 20 to 30 years of evolution and refinement in the training of urban and transport planners. Capacity development is therefore key when it comes to changing mobility cultures. Nevertheless, the day-to-day work of transport planners still focuses mostly on motorised traffic and the tasks of creating a smooth traffic flow, improving accessibility, and maintaining infrastructure. Cycling plays only a minor role, with efforts often still concentrated on the building of cycle lanes. The broader strategic goal of how to make urban mobility culture more sustainable – and within this the need to focus on cycling as an everyday mode of transport – is often neglected. Direct regulation is not possible when it comes to mobility cultures. Instead they represent a community-wide (communication) process that calls for a new planning paradigm: Besides the political will to establish a sustainable urban mobility culture, emphasis must also be placed on skills and training for urban and transport planners.
Science is under pressure. In times when it is a matter of nothing less that a transformation toward sustainable development, society and politics are demanding not just reliable knowledge but above all useful knowledge. In order to be able to produce such knowledge science must change its structures and ways of working. A renewed understanding of critique can provide guidance to the process of change that must be actively shaped by science itself.* The “Great Transformation” in the direction of sustainable development is a global challenge for society (WBGU2011). All involved have stressed that this transformation, if it succeeds, will lead to profound changes in all parts of society (see PIK 2007). This applies to science as well, which after all is a part of society (WBGU2011, pp. 341 f.). For in view of an unprecedented social-ecological crisis science is coming increasingly under pressure to provide knowledge that is not only methodically reliable but also useful for dealing with the challenges ahead. It is obvious this pressure can strike at the very core of the scientific project: Any orientation toward nonscientific criteria with respect to what is to count as relevant knowledge threatens to undermine the reflexive and cooperative search for “true knowledge.”
In this situation we believe it to be crucial that science does not allow itself to become a plaything of calls for change, but rather that it itself shapes its own response to the new historical challenges. In the following, we argue that a renewed understanding of critique should be the starting point for such an endeavor.1 We will illustrate what a renewed understanding of critique might look like by posing nine theses.2 We see these theses as a contribution to the ongoing discourse on sustainability science or research for sustainable development.