333.7 Natürliche Ressourcen, Energie und Umwelt
Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Working Paper (3)
Language
- English (8) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
- 2030 Agenda (1)
- Claims on land (1)
- Ecosystem services (1)
- Human well-being (1)
- Myanmar (1)
- Normative dimension (1)
- Science–society interactions (1)
- Sustainability (1)
- Sustainability research (1)
- sustainability (1)
Institute
- Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (8) (remove)
Highlights
• PUR, PVC and PLA microplastics affect life-history parameters of Daphnia magna.
• Natural kaolin particles are less toxic than microplastics.
• Microplastic toxicity is material-specific, e.g. PVC is most toxic on reproduction.
• In case of PVC, plastic chemicals are the main driver of microplastic toxicity.
• PLA bioplastics are similarly toxic as conventional plastics.
Abstract
Given the ubiquitous presence of microplastics in aquatic environments, an evaluation of their toxicity is essential. Microplastics are a heterogeneous set of materials that differ not only in particle properties, like size and shape, but also in chemical composition, including polymers, additives and side products. Thus far, it remains unknown whether the plastic chemicals or the particle itself are the driving factor for microplastic toxicity. To address this question, we exposed Daphnia magna for 21 days to irregular polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyurethane (PUR) and polylactic acid (PLA) microplastics as well as to natural kaolin particles in high concentrations (10, 50, 100, 500 mg/L, ≤ 59 μm) and different exposure scenarios, including microplastics and microplastics without extractable chemicals as well as the extracted and migrating chemicals alone. All three microplastic types negatively affected the life-history of D. magna. However, this toxicity depended on the endpoint and the material. While PVC had the largest effect on reproduction, PLA reduced survival most effectively. The latter indicates that bio-based and biodegradable plastics can be as toxic as their conventional counterparts. The natural particle kaolin was less toxic than microplastics when comparing numerical concentrations. Importantly, the contribution of plastic chemicals to the toxicity was also plastic type-specific. While we can attribute effects of PVC to the chemicals used in the material, effects of PUR and PLA plastics were induced by the mere particle. Our study demonstrates that plastic chemicals can drive microplastic toxicity. This highlights the importance of considering the individual chemical composition of plastics when assessing their environmental risks. Our results suggest that less studied polymer types, like PVC and PUR, as well as bioplastics are of particular toxicological relevance and should get a higher priority in ecotoxicological studies.
An increasing number of voices highlight the need for science itself to transform and to engage in the co-production of knowledge and action, in order to enable the fundamental transformations needed to advance towards sustainable futures. But how can global sustainability-oriented research networks engage in co-production of knowledge and action? The present article introduces a strategic tool called the ‘network compass’ which highlights four generic, interrelated fields of action through which networks can strive to foster co-production. It is based on the networks’ particular functions and how these can be engaged for co-production processes. This tool aims to foster self-reflection and learning within and between networks in the process of (re)developing strategies and activity plans and effectively contributing to sustainability transformations.
The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development stresses the fundamental role science should play in implementing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals endorsed by the global community. But how can and should researchers respond to this societal demand on science? We argue that answering this question requires systematic engagement with the fundamental normative dimensions of the 2030 Agenda and those of the scientific community—and with the implications these dimensions have for research and practice. We suggest that the production of knowledge relevant to sustainable development entails analytic engagement with norms and values through four tasks. First, to unravel and critically reflect on the ethical values involved in sustainability, values should increasingly become an empirical and theoretical object of sustainability research. Second, to ensure that research on social–ecological systems is related to sustainability values, researchers should reflect on and spell out what sustainability values guide their research, taking into account possible interdependencies, synergies, and trade-offs. Third, to find common ground on what sustainability means for specific situations, scientists should engage in deliberative learning processes with societal actors, with a view to jointly reflecting on existing development visions and creating new, contextualized ones. Fourth, this implies that researchers and scientific disciplines must clarify their own ethical and epistemic values, as this defines accountability and shapes identification of problems, research questions, and results. We believe that ignoring these tasks, whether one is in favor or critical of the 2030 Agenda, will undermine the credibility and relevance of scientific contributions for sustainable development.
Competition over land is at the core of many sustainable development challenges in Myanmar: villagers, companies, governments, ethnic minority groups, civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations from local to the international level claim access to and decision-making power over the use of land. Therefore, this article investigates the actor interactions influencing land-use changes and their impacts on the supply of ecosystem services and human well-being. We utilise a transdisciplinary mixed-methods approach and the analytical lens of the social-ecological systems framework. Results reveal that the links between land-use changes, ecosystem services and human well-being are multifaceted; For example ecosystem services can decline, while human well-being increases. We explain this finding through three different pathways to impact (changes in the resource systems, the governance systems or the broader social, economic and political context). We conclude with implications of these results for future sustainable land governance.
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.
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.
This assessment concept paper provides a methodological approach for the formative assessment and summative assessment of GIZ’s International Water Stewardship Programme (IWaSP) and its component partnerships. IWaSP promotes partnerships between the private sector (corporations and SMEs), the public sector and the society to tackle shared water risks and to manage water equitably to meet competing demands. This evaluative assessment concept describes the generic approach of the assessment, the cycle for the assessment of partnerships, the country coordination and the programme.
The overall goal of the assessment is to provide evidence for taxpayers in the donor countries and for citizens in the partnership countries. It also aims to examine the relevance of the programme’s approach, its underlying assumptions, and the heterogeneity of stakeholders and their specific interests. Since the assessment is also formative feedback to GIZ and IWaSP stakeholders, it aims to guide the future implementation of the partnerships and the programme.
The assessment is guided by several generic principles: assessing for learning (formative assessment); assessment of learning (summative assessment); iteration; structuring complex problems; unblocking results; and conformity with other assessment criteria set out by the OECD the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and GIZ’s Capacity Works success factors (GTZ 2010).
These generic criteria are adapted to the three levels of the IWaSP structure. First, the assessment cycle for partnerships includes the validation of stakeholders (mapping), the analysis of secondary literature, face-to-face interviews and a process for feeding back the findings. Generic tools are provided to guide the assessment, such as a list of key documents and an interview guide. Partnerships will undergo a baseline, interim assessment and final assessment. As progress varies across individual IWaSP partnerships, the steps taken by each partnership to assess shared water risks, prioritise and agree interventions, are expected to differ slightly. In response to these differences the sequencing and content of the assessment may need to be adapted for the different partnerships.
Second, the country-level assessment considers issues such as the coordination of partnerships within a country, scoping strategies, and interaction between partnership and the programme. Information gathered during the partnership assessment feeds into the country-level assessment.
Third, the assessment cycle for the programme involves a document and monitoring plan analysis, reflection on the different perspectives of the programme staff, country staff and external stakeholders.
The final section is concerned with reporting. Several annexes are provided relating to the organisation and preparation of the assessment, including question guidelines and analysis procedures.