Sustainability Science: It All Depends.. Bryan G. Norton* School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Research for this paper was supported by The Human Social Dynamics Program of the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant # 0433165. *Paul Hirsch contributed to the creation of this power-point presentation.
A Pet Peeve People who use the phrase: sustainability science without clarifying their sense of science Can the study of sustainability be a science? It all depends on what you mean by Sustainability and on what you mean by Science!!!
My Contention Ultimately, sustainability is a matter of Values: You have to know what you value before you can begin to specify what you should save. It is, however, very hard to believe that our current values are what will define what we should save. Therefore, we must be searching for sustainability values in a dynamic situation.
Sustainability Goals Given this argument, achieving sustainability: Presupposes that our goals as expressions of our values must be articulated if we are to know what should be saved (normative sustainability), however Our values are dynamic: any search for sustainability must recognize the possibility that communities will form AND RE-FORM their values over time; therefore Sustainability cannot be a science, unless science is understood to include opportunities to reformulate goals and values.
A Conceptual Geography of Sustainability Conceptions
Strong, Ecological / Normative Sustainability In Sustainability, I defined Sustainability as the practice of a generation which fulfills its needs and does not reduce the options of future generations.
A Hierarchical Model of Resource Use
Schematic definition of sustainability Generation G 1 is living sustainably over a given time horizon if and only if they fulfill their needs without reducing the mix of opportunities with constraints as faced by Generation G 2, G 3... G N.
What is distinctive about my approach? This definition may sound similar to others, but I introduce a process of democratic deliberation by communities to determine which options support their deepest goals and values. It is these considered (or RE-considered) values that allow a community to identify the options that must be held open for the future.
This approach to sustainability in complex, real-world situations Assumes a dynamic interaction of scientific information with value articulation Places great weight on the ability of communities to engage in social learning Embeds the formation and re-formation of social values into an ongoing process Embraces an approach to environmental pp management that is Adaptive
There is much confusion in this area It may seem promising to start with a statement that may receive nearly universal acceptance: GOOD MANAGEMENT MUST BE BASED ON GOOD SCIENCE The problem: there is no consensus regarding what is "good science" in a management context.
Our Changing g Views of Science A Revolution in the way we think about science (1950-?) The dominant view at mid-century: Positivism = the view that all true knowledge is valueneutral, objective and based on direct (unbiased) observation Today, Positivism has been dethroned: Science is now viewed as a human enterprise (with all attendant complications based on the selective nature of human perception)
Positivistic Science: 3 Key Tenets 1. Scientific discourse and value discourse are separable 2. In good science, descriptive and theoretical work should be isolated from normative discourse 3. Scientific explanation involves most basically PREDICTION
Positivistic science and Policy Process: The Serial View Facts / Descriptive Discourse Positivism Separates: Values / Normative Discourse gather science describe effect evaluate impacts of change place value on effect Positivism and its vestigial influences in the g sciences has resulted in many failures to obtain useful scientific guidance for public policy
Some TAKING-STOCK Questions What is "Good Science" in a Post-Positivist Positivist world? How can science best affect policy in a postpositivist world? MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: How should we EVALUATE anthropogenic change to ecological systems? How do such evaluations connect to the values and goals of SUSTAINABILITY
Implications for Science in Management Contexts: Funtowicz and Ravetz have noted that science now takes place in new contexts, and they distinguish: Curiosity-Driven Science from Mission-Oriented Science This idea has important implications for Adaptive Management: Adaptive Management is Mission-Oriented Science AM will necessarily function in value-laden, controversial contexts AM cannot be "value-neutral" science
We need a New Approach to understanding how science contributes to evaluative discourse Aldo Leopold, the first adaptive manager Thinking Like a Mountain: a multi-scalar approach to environmental management
Definition of Adaptive Management Experimentalism: AMs respond to uncertainty by undertaking reversible actions and studying outcomes to reduce uncertainty at the next decision point Multi-scalar Modeling: AMs model environmental problems within multi-scaled ( hierarchical ) space-time systems Place-Orientation: AMs address environmental problems from a place ; embedded in local natural and political contexts
How Leopold Learned to Think Like a Mountain Leopold was a careful observer and kept careful notes Leopold had assistants and gathered a great deal of data on deer and wolf populations He was prepared to recognize the CAUSE of the die-off, because he had documented gradual increase as wolf populations were reduced Accepted new, "more complex" model of deer, hunters, wolves, and vegetation Shifted his evaluation of wolves and their role in nature The transformation was triggered by an encounter with a dying gg y y g wolf, which he used to cause a shift in metaphors from "productive system" to "land system"
The Problem While the line of reasoning I m Im developing seems to demand that we have a systematic way of discussing VALUES, we get little help from the two key disciplines: Environmental Economics and Environmental Ethics So, We need a whole new approach to evaluating anthropogenic environmental change
The Great Debate: Environmental Ethicists: Believe that most (or at least many) environmental problems are irreducibly moral problems Often appeal to "non-anthropocentric" values Deny that economic calculations can capture the essential moral aspects of environmental problems Environmental Economists: Believe that all or most environmental values can be measured in economic terms Reduce" moral values to "existence" values and consumer preferences, measured as "willingness to pay" (wtp), to protect a moral value (CV / Shadow Prices) Treat all environmental goods as "commodities" that can be assigned a price
This difference corresponds to another divide id Those who favor Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) as the central methodology of environmental decision making (Gifford Pinchot) Those who believe environmental goals should be set by political means, which includes a public debate about aesthetic and moral values, including "noninstrumental" value (John Muir)
I call these two approaches CHUNK-AND-COUNT CHUNK-AND-SORT $$$ Instrumentally valued $$ OR $ Intrinsically valued $$$$$$
An End to Chunking I propose p to reject their common assumption that the values in nature and in resources can be chunked. This rejection undercuts the whole debate by making the question: Which things are morally considerable moot. We do not have to answer it in order to evaluate environmental change. This opens the way for a new approach to evaluation: Evaluating various "development paths, according to multiple criteria
Elements of a process approach Development pathways Scenarios Back-casting Multiple criteria
Community Performatives * What we owe the future is not to ensure they can afford what they want, but rather To articulate a suite of social values that define the best in our culture, and to Do our best to project those values into the future, through h education and throughh Protect physical and ecological dynamics that support the options/opportunities nities associated with those values * J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words
Dynamics and Indicators Rather than arguing about the nature of value, I suggest: Communities focus on developing indicators that will track the physical and ecological dynamics associated with their community s values Focus their discussion on what is important and what measurable indicators will express the values contained in the commitment involved in the community performative
Normative Sustainability I propose that we include both mission-oriented science AND reconsideration of social values In Adaptive Management As essential aspects of Social Learning within an Adaptive Management process, we can set in motion a transformation in public consciousness that will create both the values and the science necessary to begin and to continue the the search for a sustainable lifestyle.
Now, to answer my original question: Can sustainability studies be scientific? My answer is YES, provided: By science, one means a robust Adaptive science that embraces a process of social learning that is broad enough to: Engage issues as mission-oriented science Encourage discussion of values, metaphors, and models The search for sustainability should involve the dynamic correction of values as well as beliefs