Essay - Identifying a Sustainability Problem

Shelley2395

SolvingSustainabilityProblems_Book.pdf

Home >Environmental science homework help >Essay - Identifying a Sustainability Problem

Solving Sustainability Problems

Tools for a New Generation of Professionals

Arnim Wiek

Solving Sustainability Problems

Tools for a New Generation of Professionals

Arnim Wiek

Disclaimer

This book draft is currently under review with a publisher – thus, it is only intended for

use by the students of SOS 320 (Course Instructors: Arnim Wiek, Auriane Koster) in the

School of Sustainability at Arizona State University during the Spring 2016 term. Distri-

bution or any other type of use is not permitted.

Printed in the U.S.A.

Printed on FSC-registered acid-free paper that is 100% post-consumer recycled.

Suggested Citation

Wiek, A. (2015). Solving Sustainability Problems – Tools for a New Generation of Sustain- ability Professionals. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Cover Pictures

Sustainability activities in metropolitan Phoenix, AZ, Sonoma County, CA, and Guanacaste

Province, Costa Rica (Photo Credits: Own sources)

Contact

Arnim Wiek

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

[email protected]

Table of Content

Preface ............................................................................................................................... 6

I Introduction – A Framework for Sustainability Problem Solving .............................. 14

II Step 1 - How to Identify a Sustainability Problem and Problem-Solving Needs ....... 35

III Step 2 – How to Analyze a Sustainability Problem ................................................... 57

IV Step 3 – How to Create a Sustainability Solution Vision ........................................... 93

V Step 4 – How to Build a Sustainability Solution Strategy ........................................ 130

VI Step 5 – How to Implement a Sustainability Solution Strategy .............................. 163

VII Across All Steps – Using Professional Skills for Sustainability Problem Solving ...... 177

Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................... 188

List of References ........................................................................................................... 189

Biographical Note ........................................................................................................... 198

Preface

What this Book Offers

There are neighborhoods and communities in Phoenix, Arizona, where part of the

population lives under the poverty line, while working in monotonous low-wage jobs;

where many young people do not graduate from high school, and thus have very limited

career options; where water, soil, and air is contaminated, with negative effects on public

health and the environment; where sidewalks, street lights, shading structures, and

vegetation are sparse, deterring people from walking and being active; where alternative

mobility options are very limited, making people to overly rely on cars or put up with

exhausting traveling schemes; where housing and infrastructure conditions are poor,

negatively impacting quality of life and environmental performance. And then there are

other neighborhoods and communities where affluence reigns, with all the negative

impacts that come with excessive resource use, ubiquitous consumerism, and social

exclusion. Neither of these developments are sustainable. And the widening gap between

them aggravates the sustainability challenge. While this might be an inconvenient truth

about a city in a country of, supposedly, “infinite opportunity”, “established justice”, and

“asserted superiority”, this is the reality in many cities around the globe. And these

problems can, if left unattended, lead to the collapse of cities that suffer from them.

Collapse has many faces: living conditions might deteriorate until a location becomes

uninhabitable; people might abandon their homes, leaving a community disintegrated

and dysfunctional; or people could become so desperate and tired of being treated

unfairly that they seek violence as remedy to change their desolate living conditions. Civil

wars – such as recent breakouts in Syria and Sudan – are extreme cases that mark the

violent collapse of societies. These are all examples of what we call “sustainability problems” – they threaten the long-term viability or integrity of a society by often irreversibly compromising or degrading foundational social or environmental systems.

So, are sustainability problems simply happening by accident, despite good intentions –

the inevitable side effects of so-called “progress” and “development”? No, they are not.

They often happen because of deliberate choices, decisions, and actions people make and

take. There is an army of people benefiting from desolate situations that put people’s

health and livelihoods in jeopardy. Voracious business people, corrupt politicians,

unethical lobbyists, venal consultants, irresponsible researchers, and uninformed

consumers, all actively contribute to sustainability problems. The academic discourse on

sustainability tends to put emphasis on unintended negative consequences when

referring to sustainability problems. A view beneath the surface, however, reveals, it is

not so much the unintended negative consequences underpinning sustainability prob- lems. Instead, it is the willfully accepted negative consequences of lust for power, unre- strained profit greed, short-sighted mismanagement, and insatiable consumerism that

drive sustainability problems.

èExercise. Use a newspaper article, broadcast, essay, book, academic journal article, blog, or another credible source to provide an example of so-called “unintended” negative consequences in the context of sustainability problems. Describe the problem and the

negative consequences briefly and make a case for why these are not really unintended, but rather willfully accepted negative consequences. Specify the vested interests, i.e., who benefits from this problematic situation.

So, is there any hope of ever solving these daunting problems? Yes, there is. Wherever a sustainability problem manifests, there are people seeking peaceful solutions to the

problem. They actively try to create diverse, healthy, educated, tolerant, peaceful,

empathetic, and resource-efficient communities (with their people, businesses,

infrastructures, etc.). Yet, the problems are challenging and, at times, those who work on

them lack the necessary capacities or skills to be effective problem-solvers. The most

important capacities for successfully solving sustainability problems are passion, competence, and collaboration. If we don’t care, we don’t do anything. If we don’t know how to do it, it’s unlikely that we accomplish anything. And if we go about these problems alone, we will not succeed, because the problems are overwhelming for any individual. But there are ways to build these capacities.

èExercise. Use a credible source to identify and provide background information on an individual or a group of people you would consider sustainability problem-solver(s).

Describe the sustainability problem they have solved or work on solving, and make a case

for why we should get inspired by them, referring to their passion, competence, and

collaboration.

This book offers a set of tools, including concepts and procedures, for collaboratively

tackling and solving sustainability problems. Solving sustainability problems, however, is

first and foremost a bold aspiration. It is a daunting task, irrespective of how fancy the tools are. It takes significant and continuous effort, reflection and reconsideration, goal

revision, tough negotiations, convincing people in power, smart fundraising, forging

unconventional alliances, continuously motivating partners, strategically utilizing win-

dows of opportunity, learning from failure, and much much more. Yet, it all starts with

and is based on a novel way of thinking – sustainability thinking. One might assume

relevant tools are life-cycle assessment or recycling technologies. Yet, the type of tools

this book offers are much more fundamental – they are basic thought processes, on which tools like life-cycle assessment, recycling technologies, and many more rest.

Sustainability thinking integrates four basic ways of thinking:

• Systems Thinking – how to reveal the systemic-causal structure of problems and solutions

• Futures Thinking (Anticipation) – how to construct sustainability solution visions

• Values Thinking (Normative Reasoning) – how to assess the sustainability of problems and solutions

• Strategic Thinking – how to create viable paths from sustainability problems to solutions

Having strong skills in these types of thinking, in combination with other professional

skills, such as collaborative teamwork and impactful stakeholder engagement, establishes

competence in sustainability problem solving. Figure 1 illustrates the interplay of these

skills.

Figure 1. The interplay of skills in systems thinking, futures thinking, values thinking, and strategic

thinking, combined with professional skills, such as collaborative teamwork and impactful stakeholder

engagement, constitutes sustainability problem-solving competence. (The concept is described in:

Wiek et al. (2011a), Wiek et al. (2011b), Warren et al. (2014). The icons were developed by A. Warren

and her team at “Sustainability Science for Teachers”: http://sse.asu.edu/ways-of-thinking/)

Sustainability problems are often described as complex problems. But this is an insufficient description of what the challenge is: the key is that the problems are too complex for conventional problem-solving approaches. When confronted with sustain-

ability problems, we feel overwhelmed. It seems hard to find alternatives to using con-

ventional approaches, and much more convenient to continue with the normal mode of

operation. Research and education at universities have largely maneuvered themselves

into this corner. Researchers study and teach the challenges ad infinitum, until professors and students reach a state that resembles what has been called “paralysis-by-analysis”.

Much more effort is put into analyzing problems than finding creative and robust ways of tackling and solving them. This is particularly distressing because the problems of sustainability are urgent, calling for immediate action before irreversible damage occurs.

This situation leaves many students and graduates frustrated as they aspire, and were

promised, to become creative and determined problem-solvers. Further down the road,

many people become not only cognitively but also emotionally paralyzed, cynical, and

bitter.

But luckily this is not the only possible path. This book offers an alternative by building

problem-solving capacities specifically developed for sustainability challenges. Because

sustainability problems are too complex for conventional approaches to handle does not

mean we cannot solve them at all. We can. But it requires new and unfamiliar approaches, next to more familiar ones such as systems thinking. Novel ones are, among others, the

capacity to create value-based sustainability solution visions and to develop sophisticated

sustainability solution strategies. As sustainability problems are man-made, it is up to us

to develop the collective capacity to solve them.

This is intended to be an empowering book – it provides you with tools useful for planning and enacting positive change. Positive change comes in all forms and shapes including:

healthy food provision, sufficient and satisfying livelihood opportunities, renewable

energy sources, accessible public transit, affordable quality housing, high walkability,

health promotion, continuous educational opportunities, quality products and services,

cyclical and collaborative consumption, or social and cultural inclusion. And it can happen

anywhere – in cities, companies, organizations, schools, and community institutions.

Capacity building in sustainability is a continuous effort. This book offers initial guidance – it is intended to get the reader excited about learning more. After that, it is on you to

keep going and team up in pursuit of solving sustainability problems and thereby

cultivating your expertise and experience. We provide some support for continuous

professional learning in Chapter VII.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more about “the world’s least sustainable

city”, you might want to read Andrew Ross’ (2011) book “Bird on Fire”, which is based on

numerous interviews conducted in Phoenix and supplementary document review. 1

Naomi Oreskes’ and Erik Conway’s (2010) book on “Merchants of Doubt – How a Handful

of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”

provide in-depth insights into willfully accepted negative consequences that are present

in most sustainability problems. You might also want to follow the public investigations

recently initiated (2015) to clarify the role industries played in obscuring the truth about

climate change (despite knowledge to the contrary). If you are interested in the

“paralysis-by-analysis” situation when addressing sustainability problems, Gareth Kane’s

(2014) book on “Accelerating Sustainability Using the 80/20 Rule” provides some valuable

insights. Ann Langley (1995) argues for balancing ‘paralysis-by-analysis’ and ‘extinction-

by-instinct’ in the context of organizational development, which can be transferred to

sustainability problem solving. For inspiration on sustainability problem-solvers, you

might want to consult the book on “Practicing Sustainability” edited by Guruprasad

Madhavan and others (2013) that portrays sustainability activities undertaken by a very

diverse range of change agents. If you are interested in learning more about sustainability

capacity, you might want to review our articles on key competencies in sustainability

(Wiek et al., 2011a and b), with illustrative examples (job tasks). Chapter VII and the

readings indicated there provide relevant information on additional professional skills for

sustainability problem solving and how to build them.

For Whom this Book is Written

This book is written for professionals and students who are passionate about solving

sustainability problems; as stated earlier, nothing happens without passion. But there is

another trait that is important. The reader I envision is also dissatisfied with his/her

current performance in and capacity for dealing with sustainability problems. You need

to believe that sustainability problems require a different approach than other types of

problems. So, if you care and if you are looking for tools that can help you contribute to

sustainability solutions, then this book might be useful. It is not written for a specific domain of professionals; so, you should be able to use it if you work on water scarcity,

1 Recommended readings are referenced throughout this book by indicating, at least, the last name(s) of the author(s) and the year of publication. The readings are listed in alphabetical order of the name(s) in the list of references. Almost

all of the readings should be accessible though university and public libraries or the Internet. If not, e.g., for some

journal articles, you could contact the author(s) and ask for a copy (PDF) for study purposes.

food deserts, contamination, poverty, violent conflicts, or any other kind of sustainability

problems. In fact, this book is not even written specifically for sustainability professionals. Instead, it aims to offer capacity-building opportunities to all professionals. Sustainability pertains to all professionals and we need enthusiasm and capacity in all professions to

make the significant progress towards sustainability that is needed to secure a healthy,

happy, just, peaceful, and bright future. This is why I use a broad variety of case examples

from numerous professions throughout the book.

The final feature I have encountered and think is a useful trait for the reader is the

willingness to reclaim one’s education. You, a present or future professional with interest

in tackling sustainability problems, strive for a balance of being educated, educating

yourself, and educating others (and learning a great deal by doing the latter). You are

interested in evidence and you look for tools that can help you develop evidence-

supported solutions – which distinguishes you from many politicians, lobbyists, salesmen,

and advocates. But you are not interested in endless explorations and curiosity-driven pursuits – which distinguishes you from many academics and experts. It might sound

overly skeptical, but I think that present and future professional have not yet started to

really get educated or to educate themselves on solving sustainability problems. So, you

are the pioneering generation – and becoming successful pioneers is not going to happen

without you claiming ownership of and taking initiative in your education. If we succeed,

we – you and the teachers who are willing to accompany you – will have soon a force of

unarmed, peaceful, empathetic, culturally-sensitive, and collaborative individuals, highly

trained in developing strategies to solve sustainability problems. They will develop and

implement solutions in close collaboration with people from across society, providing

significant support and guidance. And you will be a member of this force.

Last but not least, the book is written for teams of people united in their passion to create a sustainable future and willing to pool resources, complement each other’s strengths,

and help each other out in these endeavors. As mentioned, there is no specific group of

professionals I have in mind – neither with respect to issues they address nor the type of

organizations they work for. Solving sustainability problems requires contributions from

everywhere – whether your present or future career in government, business, university,

or civil society. What will characterize you as a professional of a new generation is the

novel perspective and new way of thinking you will use when tackling sustainability

problems.

How to Use this Book

This book builds problem-solving capacity step-by-step, using case examples and

exercises, and recommending additional readings. The recommended readings are

quality publications, while including only few advanced technical or scientific sources. Yet,

to fully comprehend the tools described, you need to use them. Apply them in your professional work, in your studies, or in volunteering projects! The exercises will help you

to get a first sense for how to apply the tools, but there is still a big gap between using

them in exercises and using them “where it actually counts”.

The best way to learn is, in most cases, in groups. Discussing the tools, the cases, the exercises, and alternative ideas with other people, greatly enhances your understanding

and helps you internalize your insights. It trains you in articulating, shaping, adjusting,

justifying, and defending your approach for tackling sustainability problems. As the book’s

overall goal is to build collective problem-solving capacity, you might want to start working with other people from the very beginning. Collectively identifying a

sustainability problem, analyzing it, creating a sustainability solution vision, and building

a robust solution strategy – that is exactly what sustainability problem solving is all about.

There is a section in Chapter VII that can help you with getting started on this as a team.

The content can be applied to a study group as much as to a team of professionals.

While you travel along this path – with its many successes and setbacks – always keep

your eyes on the prize! This is just a book; it teaches you a way of thinking and the

necessary tools for approaching the world towards a sustainable future. But you have to do it.

Thanks

I have learned a great deal from my students – most importantly, being enthusiastic about

the tools taught in this book. I’d like to thank you all for your continued interest and trust

that this is something worth learning.

My former teaching assistants, Leonard Machler, Lauren Withycombe Keeler, Christopher

Kuzdas, Shirley-Ann Augustin, Briar Schoon, James Culver, Melissa Davidson, Kelsey

Devleer, Beatrice John, and Tamsin Foucrier contributed, over the years, valuable insights

on how to effectively teach the tools. These inputs informed the content and form of this

book.

My teaching colleagues at Arizona State University, in particular, Lauren Withycombe

Keeler, Braden Kay, Nigel Forrest, John Harlow, David Iwaniec, Annie Warren, Leland

Hartwell, Michael Schoon, David Manuel-Navarrete, Kelli Larson, Auriane Koster, and

Katja Brundiers; my former colleagues, Aaron Golub, now at Portland State University,

Sonja Remington-Doucette, now at Bellevue College, as well as my former doctoral

students, Rider Foley, now at the University of Virginia, and Matt Cohen, now at Furman

University, have taught and continue to teach the tools to hundreds of students. It is very

rewarding to see how they have used and further developed the tools.

My colleagues abroad, Daniel Lang from Leuphana University Lüneburg, Takashi Mino

from the University of Tokyo, Barry Ness from Lund University, as well as Van Miller from

Central Michigan University have used the tools in their courses and provided me with

valuable feedback on the tools and their experiences in teaching them.

My early mentors at the School of Sustainability, Chuck Redman and Sander van der

Leeuw, have provided me with the freedom of developing courses, in which I could teach

and further develop the tools.

Nigel Forrest and Christopher Barton provided very useful editorial support.

A big thank you goes to our spirited and good-hearted Kimberly Grout, Concierge at the

Global Institute of Sustainability, for all kinds of logistical and emotional support.

There would be no book without my loving wife Katja – I thank you for all your patience,

compassion, and laughs!

Tempe, Arizona | December 2015

Chapter I

Introduction –

A Framework for Sustainability Problem Solving

Chapter Content

1 What Triggers Sustainability Problem Solving ............................................................ 14 2 What does ‘solving sustainability problems’ mean? .................................................. 18 3 Problems from All Strands of Life ............................................................................... 21 4 The Problem Solving Framework – A Sequence of Steps and Tools ........................... 23 5 The Underlying Principles of the Framework ............................................................. 28 6 Recap and What Happens Next .................................................................................. 33

1 What Triggers Sustainability Problem Solving

In 2009, my colleague, Aaron Golub, and I began to hear bits and pieces about the

challenges facing the Gateway district of Phoenix (see picture). It came up in the media,

in meetings, and in conversation with col-

leagues and stakeholders. Our interest quickly

piqued, as the issues seemed to pertain to

sustainability. So, we visited neighborhoods in

the district and participated in community

meetings; invited other professors and stu-

dents to contribute their time and expertise;

supervised exploratory student thesis projects

and coached small student groups in con-

ducting initial research projects. After forming

a team, we conducted site visits, reviewed

documents, spoke to city planners, inter-

viewed residents, and held stakeholder workshops in order to find out what exactly was

wrong with the present situation in the Gateway district. Supported by officials, residents,

Visible and less visible challenges in the

Gateway district of Phoenix, Arizona (2014;

Photo Credit: own source).

and other stakeholders, our initial research confirmed the first impressions. High poverty

rate, contamination levels beyond thresholds, lack of economic and educational

opportunities, unavailability of healthy food (food desert), poor housing quality, blight,

and many other issues negatively affected the district. Based on specific criteria, our team

conceptualized the situation as a multi-faceted sustainability problem (not just any kind of problem). We saw the problem threatening the viability or integrity of the community

through (irreversibly) compromising or degrading foundational social and environmental

systems. Mandated by the mission of the School of Sustainability, we looked deeper into

the case and explore two additional issues. First, we determined the level of interest

among the key stakeholders to work towards easing and solving the identified problems.

Community leaders, parents, teachers, health professionals, planners, and other

stakeholders seemed committed to tackling the multi-faceted problem. Second, we tried

to understand the current level of problem-solving and intervention capacity that the

community possessed. This exploration revealed deficiencies with respect to the

community’s network, competence, and resources. With these results in hand, we

decided to set out to develop solutions to these problems in collaboration with the

community and other stakeholder groups. The research team now consisted of

professors, postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, undergraduate students, and a

few technical assistants. In research studios, individual thesis work, and funded research

projects, the team analyzed the identified problem, created a nuanced sustainability

solution vision, and built a bundle of solution strategies. Community organizations, health

professionals, neighborhood specialists, and planners subsequently implemented some

of these strategies (or parts of them), while the researchers supported the

implementation through specification, monitoring, and evaluation. Among many other

outcomes, these research efforts over more than five years – initiated as no-budget and

in-kind undertakings in 2009 – have contributed to the City of Phoenix winning a $10.3

million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation in October 2015. The grant will

be used to build a shaded multi-use path, high-intensity crosswalk beacons, and

pedestrian bridges along the grand canal cutting across the Gateway district. This is a

major achievement towards walkable and pedestrian-friendly infrastructures that

support an active, healthy, and happy community in the district.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more about the described research and

teaching projects our team has conducted in Phoenix, you might want to read the book

chapter “Worth the trouble?! An evaluative scheme for urban sustainability transition

labs (USTL) and an application to the USTL in Phoenix, Arizona” (Wiek et al., 2015); the

project report “Reinventing Phoenix towards Sustainability – From No-budget Explora-

tions to Large-scale Impacts” (Wiek et al., 2016); and the article “Learning while transfor-

ming – Solution-oriented learning for urban sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona” (Wiek and

Kay, 2015).

So, sustainability problem solving is not a simple undertaking. People don’t “just do it”. It

is an intricate endeavor. A series of conditions need to be fulfilled and tasks need to be

completed before sustainability problem solving becomes a reasonable undertaking. Let’s

tease out these conditions.

First, a situation needs to get recognized and judged to be adverse, in terms of sustainability, on justifiable grounds, and by a group of legitimate stakeholders. Without a clear articulation of why the situation is considered negative, i.e., what is negative and for whom and what, professionals will have a hard time to convince others to recognize

the situation as a problem. It is critical that professionals learn to become aware of and articulate the negative effects of a problematic situation on the sustainability of a society,

i.e., jeopardizing its integrity or even its viability. This and other criteria must be met in

order to make a claim “on justifiable grounds” that the problem at hand is indeed a

sustainability problem, not just any kind of problem. We will discuss the specific features of sustainability problems in the next chapter. Criteria can help professionals and

constituencies to define a situation as problematic. Yet, it is a collective process of

deliberation and negotiation that ultimately leads to the recognition of negative effects

and the fact that we have a sustainability problem on hands. Not only arguments count

in this process. Emotions and affects are equally relevant (if not more). Legitimate

stakeholders are the key group in this process. They are people who “have a stake” in the

problem in question. They might be negatively affected by, benefitting from, causing, or

being rightfully concerned about the problematic situation. It is important to note that

not all stakeholders, as defined here, might be willing to contribute to the problem solving

effort because they benefit from it or cause it. And not everybody who is concerned might

be rightfully so, as a public interest or mandate is required. Having clarified what a legitimate stakeholder is, let’s go back to their role in triggering problem-solving efforts.

If the situation is not recognized as negative by a group of legitimate stakeholders, the situation bears no weight to get addressed. This is often true even if professionals are

rightfully concerned (public mandate) and trying to make a case for it. Yet, professionals

can help, for instance, affected stakeholders to become aware of and articulate a

sustainability problem on justifiable grounds. Only if this condition is sufficiently fulfilled

can sustainability problem solving resume in a meaningful way.

Second, building on the previous condition, there needs to be an honest interest in doing something to resolve and mitigate this situation, articulated by a group of legitimate stakeholders. There might be a problem, recognized on justifiable grounds (using sustainability criteria) and by a group of legitimate stakeholders. But if there is no agreed-

upon interest in finding a solution – whatever the reasons might be –, there is no incentive

for sustainability problem solving. The interest needs to be “honest”, meaning that there

are no hidden agendas that just seek to divert attention or stall the process. Many

problems suffer from the lack of honest interest in finding a solution. A number of superfund sites (large-scale contaminated sites) in the U.S. are in standoff states because

the parties in power are not honestly interested in finding a solution and stall the cleanup

process. A key reason is that the costs of the necessary cleanup are often very high. So,

can interested parties with unethical agendas block the triggering of sustainability

problem solving? Yes, they can (and they do)! But there are still ways to trigger problem

solving anyway. The negatively affected (and thus legitimate) stakeholders need to get

organized and make their voice heard. Professionals and stakeholder liaisons can help

with this process. Similar to the first condition, if the interest in finding a solution is not

expressed by legitimate stakeholders, it bears no weight to get acted upon. Hence, only

if this condition is sufficiently fulfilled can sustainability problem solving meaningfully

resume.

Third, building on the previous two conditions, there needs to be a demonstrable lack of problem-solving capacity or activity among the stakeholders to develop and implement a solution. As stated above, sustainability problem solving is an intricate undertaking. Identifying the lack of problem-solving capacity or activity among the stakeholders is crucial for justifying such an undertaking. If the capacity to solve the problem already

existed, a more straightforward approach or no support at all would suffice. Sustainability

problems often pose overwhelming challenges to a society’s ability to observe,

document, plan, collaborate, and act. The lack of problem-solving capacity or activity is often ascribed to the “wickedness” of these problems. This expression refers to the key

features of sustainability problems, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Similar to

the two previous processes, professionals can help a group of legitimate stakeholders to

become aware of their limitations in solving the sustainability problem at hand.

Insufficient problem-solving capacity or activity among legitimate stakeholders needs to be fulfilled as the third condition. Only then, sustainability problem solving as a process

supported by professionals can resume in a meaningful way.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more about any of these three conditions,

you might want to read the chapter “Why do some societies make disastrous decisions?”

in Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” (2005).

In many cases, sustainability problem solving is not pursued because at least one of the three described conditions is not sufficiently met. Yet, sustainability students and

professionals often assume that sustainability problems are obvious; that everybody has

an interest in solving them; and that problem solving should be undertaken regardless of

interests and capacities. As indicated above, this is overly optimistic and often not

matched by reality: there are many cases where people do not recognize the problem; certain people do not have an interest in solving it (because they benefit from it); or there is no need for sustainability problem solving because stakeholders have sufficient capacity and initiated sufficient activity to solve the problem (yet, there might still be the need for

a different kind of intervention to strengthen this capacity or initiate additional activities).

Hence, with the three conditions in hand, we have a good first orientation that helps us

avoid a naïve approach to sustainability problem solving, and therefore set ourselves up

for success rather than failure.

èExercise. Use a newspaper article, broadcast, essay, book, academic journal article, blog, or another credible source to provide an example of a sustainability problem that is currently not suitable for sustainability problem solving because at least one of the described conditions is not sufficiently fulfilled. Describe the problem briefly and make a case for which of the conditions is not sufficiently fulfilled. After this, do the reverse: find

an example of a sustainability problem that is suitable for sustainability problem solving because the three conditions are sufficiently fulfilled.

2 What does “solving sustainability problems” mean?

Now that we have a first sense of what conditions need to be in place in order to have a

reasonable starting point for sustainability problem solving, let’s look more closely at

what this actually means – to solve a sustainability problem?! Straight forwardly, it is the process that resolves or mitigates situations that jeopardize the viability or integrity of a society (or other societies impacted); or more positively, that enhances and secures the viability and integrity of the society; or, less abstract, that creates and maintains diverse,

healthy, educated, tolerant, peaceful, empathetic, and resource-efficient communities

(with their people, businesses, infrastructures, etc.). It is important to add here that this

process of resolving and mitigating is bounded by a limited timeframe – it needs to

happen before the viability or integrity of a society is irreversibly harmed. This feature of sustainability problems, i.e., urgency, is a key factor to consider when undertaking

sustainability problem solving.

The three conditions discussed in the previous section help us to further refine our under-

standing of what “solving sustainability problems” means. Namely, by asking about the

who of problem-solving. The process of solving sustainability problems requires coordi- nated actions among a variety of people, most of them acting as legitimate stakeholders. That means, they are negatively affected by, benefitting from, causing, or being rightfully

concerned about the problematic situation. Yet, other support is necessary, too, most

often delivered by professionals from various fields. They rarely solve the problem

themselves but rather support and build capacity in legitimate stakeholders or support

ongoing activities to solve the problem. It is most advantageous for problem solving when

the legitimate stakeholders assume ownership not only of the problem but of the solution

as well. We even better understand this point when taking a closer look at the nature of

sustainability solutions in Chapters III and IV.

It is important to recognize that the term “solving”, similar to the term “solution”,

includes both the actual achievement (result) and the process of achieving it. As there is no certainty about the outcome before it is actually achieved, in the strict sense, the term

“solving” is only valid when used retrospectively (ex-post). Only after a problem has been

solved, we can confirm that the process was indeed problem solving. Nevertheless, I propose to use the term “solving” prospectively (ex-ante), too. The intention is to convey

aspiration and promise. Using the term “solving” implies more ambition than just

“tackling” or “addressing” a problem. It implies commitment and reasonable optimism.

To make sure that the optimism is indeed reasonable, a robust process of problem-solving needs to get adopted. This starts with confirming the three conditions described in the

previous section, and continues with using tested procedures that incorporate and create

evidence for reaching the aspired solution.

Some academics and experts are very sensitive with respect to attempts to solve

sustainability problems. They argue that sustainability problems cannot be solved

because they are too complex, or it’s not clear what a solution would look like, or it’s not

possible to determine whether or not a solution really works, and so forth. Some of these

arguments are valid, others less so. A good share of this academic discourse becomes

problematic in light of the urgency sustainability problems pose. Open-ended reflections

are a luxury we cannot afford in times where people around the world struggle with pain,

decline, and collapse. Over the course of the book, we will engage with the valid concerns

skeptics might hold against sustainability problem solving efforts. But we will do so in a

pragmatic way in order to avoid any form of unproductive blockade.

This book adopts a constructive and optimistic rationale: as sustainability problems are

man-made, it is up to us and should be in our reach to develop the collective capacity to

solve and prevent them. This might seem a bit simplistic, similar to the polluter-pays

principle according to which the party that causes an emission or a contamination is

responsible for cleaning it up. Yet, we will successively become aware that the concept of

solving sustainability problems, as suggested here, is much more sophisticated than

cleaning up a mess. It questions and develops alternatives to the very foundations and

root causes that have led to the mess. Looking back in history and around the world can

provide us with hope and inspiration for such undertakings. Human societies have a track

record of resolving sustainability problems and avoiding collapse. Jared Diamond and

other anthropologists have described many successful cases – some fairly smooth

transitions, others painful transformations.

That does not mean, societies do not fail. In fact, Jared Diamond’s most famous book is

not called “Survival and Integrity”, it is called “Collapse” (Diamond, 2005). So, as much as

we can point to success cases, human societies also have a track record of not resolving sustainability problems and collapsing. Failure in sustainability problem solving takes on

various forms and shapes. The simple type is that a proposed and implemented solution

does not solve the problem. That‘s it. More complicated cases are such efforts that lead to what appears to be a solution, but eventually cause another problem (negative side

effects). For example, asbestos was promoted as an additive for construction materials,

promising to enhance the insulation capacity and fire resistance of buildings. And they

did. Yet, after decades of widely using asbestos in the construction industry, it became

apparent that the benefits were overshadowed because asbestos causes lung cancer and

other diseases. Another example of a solution with negative side effects, which might

outmatch the benefits, is the increased use of pesticides for crops tolerant to water

scarcity. Special cases of failing solutions are those where the solution is not only not

solving the problem, but actually aggravating it. This is often described as negative rebound effect. Such cases include, most prominently, increase of energy use after the introduction of energy-efficient measures; but also the depletion of water resources after

the introduction of technologies allegedly saving water; or the degradation of natural

habitats after the introduction of alleged conservation policies.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more about how problem-solving efforts,

despite good intentions, can lead to new or aggravated problems, you can find examples

in the article “Complexity of coupled human and natural systems” by Jianguo Liu and

colleagues (2007). Specifically on the negative rebound effect, I would recommend

reading some contributions in the volume “Energy Efficiency and Sustainable

Consumption – The Rebound Effect” edited by Horace Herring and Steve Sorrell (2009).

The book includes a great deal of prominent studies demonstrating how the switch to

energy-efficient technologies can lead to increased energy use, partially attenuating the

energy-efficiency gains. An ironic and insightful perspective on the same challenge is

provided in the Onion article “New Technological Breakthrough to Fix Problems of Previous Breakthrough” from May 9, 2001.

With these examples in mind, we should not be naïve about the challenges that are

associated with sustainability problem solving. The problem-solving approach conveyed

in this book recognizes the well-known potential of failure and actively conveys

procedures and tools that help avoid such pitfalls. So, is there a guarantee for permanent

success? No, there is not. The future is open and full of surprises. Problem solving has

often failed because of such unforeseen incidents and developments. Similarly, resolved

situations can relapse into problematic ones in the future. However, that does not mean

we cannot pursue sustainability problem solving at all. Instead, it means that we ought to be as smart as possible in doing it – learning from the failure before us and keep on

learning as we move forward with our sustainability endeavors.

èExercise. Use a credible source to provide an example of a sustainability problem solving effort that, despite good intentions, led to a new problem or aggravated the

existing one. Try to find an example other than the well-described negative rebound

effects of energy-efficient technologies. Describe briefly the initial problem, then the

problem-solving effort, and finally the result. Then do the reverse: provide an example of

sustainability problem solving that successfully maneuvered through the potential pitfalls

and succeeded.

3 Problems from All Strands of Life

Sustainability problems are not simply environmental or social problems – despite the

fact that this confusion is prevalent, even among professionals. While we often perceive

problems through a sectoral or somewhat constrained perspective, sustainability thinking

encourages us to open up our perspective and look out for the ‘big picture’. This is often

inconvenient, because such a perspective depends on multiple realms of experience,

competence, and jurisdiction. Acquiring such a perspective requires communicating and

collaborating with professionals from various fields and people from all strands of society.

So, let’s quickly run through some examples of the broad variety of issues we might be

confronted with as we engage with sustainability problems. This list is neither exhaustive

nor tailored to any specific professional domain. It just provides a few examples, ranging

from obvious ones to less recognized sustainability problems.

One example of a sustainability problem is the childhood obesity epidemic in the

industrialized world. This is a major challenge for future generations as most overweight

children continue being overweight as adults. It compromises societies’ integrity through

significant detrimental effects on personal health, public costs, and environmental

quality. Fueled by food with high concentrations of fat and sugar, the problem is

cultivated by industrial food industry, sedentary lifestyles, car mobility, urban sprawl, and

inadequate green public spaces. Another example is excessive extraction or diversion of

surface water and groundwater overdraft for residential and industrial purposes. These

activities result in degraded riparian ecosystems, land subsidence, inequitable water

access, violent water conflicts, and burdens placed on future generations. Water-intense

economic activities, ranging from irrigated agriculture to mass tourism, as well as water-

intense lifestyles relying on water-intense toilets, showers, pools, and gardens, are some

of the driving factors behind these challenges. There is also the problem of globally

distributing and using weapons, toxic chemicals, and nuclear materials. While

economically profitable in the short-term, these technologies and substances adversely

affect socio-political stability, public health, and environmental quality over the long-

term. From a comprehensive perspective of public finance and goods, they are very

costly. The drivers are manifold, ranging from irresponsible innovation, corporate

ideology to maximize profits, lax regulation, and a lack of control over convenience,

perceived entitlement, aggressor “defense” rhetoric, and uninformed consumer

behavior. Mass production and consumerism poses another key problem to

sustainability. Energy and consumer goods industries, as well as insatiable consumers,

drive the global production, distribution, consumption, and disposal of countless

consumer goods. These goods are often produced using cheap labor under unsafe

working conditions and have detrimental environmental effects along the production and

distribution chain. Ironically, in industrial countries, only a small fraction of the purchased

consumer goods are actually being used, even less are really “needed”. Many of the

relevant drivers in this problem constellation have been mentioned before. Climate

change, forced migration, violent conflicts, etc. etc. etc. – this list of sustainability

problems could be continued for pages, chapters, and books.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more about the array of sustainability

problems, please read the seminal, if not quite up-to-date article “Long-term trends and

a sustainability transition” written by Robert Kates and Thomas Parris (2003). Among

others, they describe major classes and long-term global and regional trends that

constitute challenges to a sustainability transition. Yet, there are many other sources and

compendia available that describe sustainability problems, even if not always explicitly

conceptualized as such. For example, the “Handbook of Social Problems – A Comparative

International Perspective” edited by George Ritzer (2004) is a valuable, if not quite up-to-

date compendium of sustainability problems. Many international and national agencies

regularly publish reports on sustainability problems, for example in the context of the

Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015), now superseded by the Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030).

This initial compilation of sustainability problems should convey three points: First, all of

these problems have in common that they jeopardize the long-term viability or integrity

of a society, or of the global society at large. Second, the challenges are abundant and

require significant and coordinated efforts to mitigate them. And third, the problems

often cluster and are highly interconnected, which makes it hard to label them, or

pinpoint where they start and where they end.

Problems of this type, i.e., genuine sustainability problems, call for sophisticated problem-

solving skills, which we will build using the framework introduced next.

4 The Transformational Problem-Solving Framework – A Sequence of

Steps and Tools

A procedural framework provides an aid for successfully solving sustainability problems.

It is composed as a standardized sequence of steps that apply specific tools. The frame-

work helps us to undertake the demanding effort of sustainability problem solving in a

structured and transparent way. Doing problem-solving in a structured way, means we follow evidence-supported instructions of what to do first, next, and so on (steps), as well as how to do them (tools). Doing problem-solving in a transparent way allows for reflection and adaptation, when things don’t work out the way envisioned.

The framework for sustainability problem solving introduced below is called “transfor- mational”. This term is being widely used, with varying meanings. For the time being, let’s take a pragmatic approach by asserting that the framework presented here is intended

to support transformations, i.e., significant changes, towards sustainability. Unlike

procedural frameworks only designed for enhancing understanding of problems, this procedural framework ultimately aims at guiding action to resolve problems. I will explain and illustrate what this means in more detail below. For now, it suffices to know that this

framework is specifically designed for problem solving, not just problem understanding.

The transformational framework is not the only procedural framework there is for solving sustainability problems. There are several frameworks of this kind. Yet, this one is based

on the combined experiences of sustainability scholars and professionals and has been

tested in numerous projects. Using such a framework allows for sharing insights and ideas

across a large and growing community of professionals when learning and doing

sustainability problem solving. Adopting such a tested framework builds an initial level of

expertise. Fully developing sustainability problem solving capacity, however, requires

applying the framework to many cases and gaining first-hand real-world experiences in problem solving.

èReadings. There are various valuable sources on problem solving in general and

sustainability problem solving specifically. These sources show good convergence among

different problem-solving frameworks. With an open mind and some translational efforts,

it is possible to navigate different frameworks and become aware of key commonalities.

For example, a well-developed general framework for societal problem-solving, similar to

the transformational problem-solving framework, is applied in intervention research. The

book “Intervention Research – Developing Social Programs” by Mark Fraser and

colleagues (2009) provides a good introduction. Paul Raskin and colleagues (2002) outline

strategies for the “Great Transition” towards sustainability, generated through a process

template similar to the transformational problem-solving framework. Just as a side

remark: an additional component of this template is that it also develops future scenarios,

in contrast to the vision. Scenarios account for the uncertainty of the future and explore

multiple plausible pathways that lead to future states less sustainable and desirable than

the vision. As such, scenarios provide an additional reference point for strategy building,

urging us to consider path dependencies and to actively avoiding unsustainable future states (not just pursuing the vision).

Imagine you are member of a team tasked with supporting legitimate stakeholders as

they attempt to solve a sustainability problem in a desolate neighborhood of Phoenix,

Arizona. How would you go about this? Obviously, you need to know a bit more about the problem before you can reasonably tackle it. And then, what does this mean to tackle it

and eventually solve it? As mentioned above, it seems to be useful when solving a

problem to have a general idea of what positive change might look like. It helps with

guiding, coordinating, controlling, and adapting actions. The question is: what would the

situation in the neighborhood look like if we could assert and justify that the problem has

been solved? So, we anticipate what a sustainable state of the neighborhood would look

like. As introduced earlier in other words, sustainability promotes human and social

prosperity and well-being in an equitable manner, while protecting and enhancing local,

regional, and global life support systems. Thus, in a sustainable state, the neighborhood

would host a diverse, healthy, educated, tolerant, peaceful, empathetic, and resource-

efficient community with functioning services and infrastructures, satisfying jobs, and in

an intact natural environment. What’s next? The vision of a sustainable state is useful as

a guiding aid, but it does not tell us what needs to be done in order to get there. So, the next critical step is to develop a plan of action, i.e., a strategy. This plan would need to

spell out in detail – and support with evidence – who needs to do what and when in order

to solve the problem. In other words, the plan details the ins and outs of how to move the problematic state of the neighborhood towards the envisioned sustainable state. Several

different means of change need to get combined to create powerful strategies towards

sustainability. For example, such a plan could combine an investment program while using

non-financial ‘nudging’ approaches and a legislative initiative to incentivize behavioral

and institutional changes toward sustainability.

From this example, we can see that the transformational framework aspires to produce

actionable knowledge that can be put into practice to solve the problem at hand. The key

aspiration is to develop evidence-supported solution strategies that are guided by a

sufficiently understood problem-to-solve as well as a sufficiently elaborated solution

vision-to-pursue. The core of the procedural framework is visualized in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The core steps of the transformational framework for sustainability problem solving. The

framework links analysis (problem) with visioning (solution vision) and strategy building (solution

strategy). In several respects, this is a multi-layered, iterative process (reverse arrows).

Problem analysis and solution development (through visioning and strategy building)

fulfill different functions and work in tandem. The identified and analyzed problem often

motivates stakeholders to join a problem-solving effort. However, stakeholders stay on board and are motivated to actively contribute to the problem-solving effort (imple- mentation stage) only if the developed solution vision and solution strategy are inspira- tional and compelling.

Let’s keep the three aspired and interlinked results (problem model, solution vision,

solution strategy) in mind as we turn to the questions that can guide the process. The

rationale of the transformational framework for sustainability problem solving can be

condensed into answering three guiding questions:

i. What is the systemic-causal structure of the problem, in particular, what are its drivers or root causes?

ii. What is a solution vision, i.e., a sustainable state that would qualify for ‘problem solved’?

iii. What is an effective solution strategy, namely the sequence of actions that intervene at root causes of the problem (see i.) and successfully achieve the

sustainable state (see ii.)?

The final element are the steps and tools that allow us to answer these questions in a robust way. While there are more steps to be taken and tools to be applied when solving

sustainability problems, the three steps at the core of the transformational framework

are: analysis, visioning, and strategy building. These steps and their tools are described in

detail in Chapters III-V.

èExercise. Use a newspaper article, broadcast, essay, book, academic journal article, blog, or another credible source to provide an example of sustainability problem solving that is in line with the transformational framework. Describe the problem briefly and then

how it was addressed through analysis, visioning (goal setting), and strategy building. If

you cannot find a suitable example, use one that is close enough and outline how the

problem could get addressed through analysis, visioning, and strategy building.

As mentioned above, the comprehensive version of the framework includes additional

steps, namely, problem identification (first step) and strategy implementation (fifth step).

The extended version of the procedural framework is visualized in Figure 3.

2 7

F ig u r e 3 . C o m p le t e t r a n s f o r m a t io n a l f r a m e w o r k f o r s u s t a in a b ilit

y p r o b le m s o lv in g . T h e f r a m e -

w o r k is c o m p o s e d o f f iv e s t e p s t h a t e m p lo y f iv e d if f e r e n t t o o ls a n d g e n e r a t e f iv e r e s u lt s ( o u t p u t s )

t h a t b u ild o n e a c h o t h e r . T h e f iv e - s t e p p r o c e d u r e is f r a m e d o n o n e e n d b y t h e t r ig g e r in g p r o b le m

a n d o n t h e o t h e r e n d b y t h e s o lu t io n t h a t , in

t h e c a s e o f s u c c e s s , s o lv e s o r m

it ig a t e s t h e p r o b le m .

T h r e e s t e p s ( 1 , 4 , 5 ) c a n le a d t o f a ilu r e s t h a t in it ia t e a r e - v is it in g o f t h e p r o b le m - s o lv in g s e q u e n c e .

N o t a ll s

t e p s n e e d t o b e e x e c u t e d s e q u e n t ia lly ( a s e x p la in e d in t h e n e x t s e c t io n ) .

Before problem solving with problem analysis, visioning, and strategy building can be

triggered, the problem at hand needs to be identified as a sustainability problem. This determines that it falls into the expertise of professionals with an interest in addressing

sustainability problems (and not just any kind of problems). Moreover, it needs to be confirmed that there is an actual need for problem-solving, as explained above.

Also, in the end, the problem-solving sequence results in a solution strategy. But even if

the strategy is carefully designed and tested, the strategy is a plan of action, not action itself. A plan of action does not solve the problem, unless it is successfully implemented.

So, the final stage of the problem-solving sequence is the implementation of the strategy, or putting the plan of action into practice. This stage requires carefully monitoring the

implementation process and adapting the strategy as necessary, depending on its

performance (success or failure).

Figure 2 provides an overview of the five steps, the tools that help with achieving these

steps, the expected results, and potential dead-ends (and what to do in case of failure).

The tools are the centerpieces of the book and eventually will assist you, as professionals,

in solving sustainability problems. All five steps of the transformational problem-solving

framework will be explained in detail in Chapters II-VI.

Before turning to the individual steps of sustainability problem solving framework, let’s

review the principles that underlie the framework and can guide its application.

5 The Underlying Principles of the Framework

There are eight principles that are particularly important to keep in mind when applying

the transformational sustainability problem solving framework. They do not apply to any

one step in particular, but cut across several or all steps of the problem-solving sequence.

The principles are visualized in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Principles underlying the transformational sustainability problem solving framework

Generic. The proposed framework is generic in a way that it can be applied to sustain- ability problems of all kinds. It can equally be applied to various issues, including food,

mobility, education, recreation, etc. and affiliated challenges including overuse of

resources (water, energy, material), lack of livelihood opportunities, and injustices. Slight

adjustments might be necessary depending on the specific problem at hand, but the

general structure of the framework remains the same across different applications.

Transformational. The attribute “transformational” indicates – beyond the pragmatic definition above – that the proposed framework is specifically designed for solving

sustainability problems. Despite the similarity to and adoption of some elements from generic problem-solving frameworks, this framework accounts for the special nature of

sustainability problems and solutions to them. Such problems are most likely not being

solved through incremental improvements, step-by-step developments, and smooth

transitions. These pathways are expected to be too slow to meet the urgency of the

sustainability challenges faced around the world. The harmfulness and urgency of

sustainability problems, instead, calls for significant, disruptive, radical, leaping changes

that resemble revolution more than evolution. For example, to address issues of climate

change massively higher efficiency in the order of 80-90% is required in manufacturing,

distribution, consumption, and disposal of consumer goods instead of 10-20%. This is

being said notwithstanding earlier comments about the ineffectiveness of efficiency-

reliant solutions and the questionable necessity of many consumer goods. The attribute

“transformational” serves as a reminder that sustainability problem solving by means of

this framework pursues transformational solution visions and strategies, as opposed to

continuous and incremental ones. We need to think about bold alternatives to the current

state and adopt very innovative ways of making that change happen.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more about the transformational nature of

sustainability problem solving, you might want to explore links between complexity,

urgency, and transformation. Alan AtKisson’s (2011) Book on “The Sustainability

Transformation: How to Accelerate Positive Change in Challenging Times” offers in its

introductory chapters an accessible reflection on the challenges and tensions between

complex and urgent problems, the need for transformation, and limited resources and

capacity to make such a transformation happen. Andres Edwards (2005) provides an

informative introduction into features of a sustainability revolution in his book “The

Sustainability Revolution – Portrait of a Paradigm Shift”. Shalmali Guttal (2012) outlines

bold and radical changes in response to the current crises of finance, fuel, food, and

climate in her article “The Urgent Need for a Paradigm Shift”. Sander van der Leeuw and

colleagues (2012) explore in “How much time to we have? Urgency and rhetoric in

sustainability science” the changes necessary to make research and education more

relevant and impactful in response to urgent sustainability problems.

Pragmatic. When applying the proposed framework, professionals need to account for the urgency of the sustainability problem tackled. Time is limited for all steps of the

framework. Professionals motivated to solve sustainability problems face the significant

challenge that the problems are harmful and urgent. We cannot wait on mitigating social unrest, climate change, or childhood obesity. The reason is the real threat that it might

be too late, which means that irreversible damage has already been done before we feel we are ready to take action. This is the ugly truth of sustainability problem solving – a

great deal of shortcuts, provisional constructs, compromises, improvisations, sub-optimal

procedures, in short, pragmatism will be necessary when solving sustainability problems.

Sufficiently sophisticated. While sustainability problems are harmful and urgent, they are also complex, which is why they are often described as “wicked”. Being transformational

and pragmatic are the framework’s responses to deal with harmfulness and urgency. Yet,

the complexity of sustainability problems also requires that the solutions are sufficiently

sophisticated to accomplish the aspired transformations. For example, an energy system

that relies completely on renewable energy sources requires anticipation and innovation

with respect to all facets of the system. Coordinated ways of production, storage,

demand-side management are needed, as well as collaborative planning for surprises,

including outage, demand fluctuations, and lack of critical supplies. Thus, when it comes

to applying the framework, professionals should not adopt an “anything goes” mentality.

This would inevitably lead to failure and might even aggravate the problems tackled

(‘extinction by instinct’). As much as reasonable in light of urgency and needed capacity, sustainability problem-solvers should use “just enough” established procedure, rigor, and

evidence. In summary, the attribute of being “sufficiently sophisticated” means balancing

the urgency of the problem (“don’t be too slow”) and the looming failure of the problem- solving effort (“don’t be too fast”).

Flexible. The proposed framework needs to be handled flexibly in order to realize its full potential. This means two different things. First, it means encouraging a culture of

anticipation, reflection, learning, and adaptation. While the framework suggests that

linking problem understanding, creating a solution vision, and building a robust solution

strategy is a promising approach for sustainability problem solving, none of these

components are considered to be carved in stone. They are tentative and malleable. As

mentioned, sustainability problems are best described as “wicked” (harmful and complex and urgent). Thus, they require thinking on our feet and making adjustments to any of those components when new insights emerge or dead-ends become apparent. Flexibility

includes both being pragmatic and sophisticated, depending on the results and feedback received over the course of the problem-solving effort. Second, flexibility more

specifically pertains to the sequence of steps proposed in the framework. In general, it is

advisable to carry out the steps sequentially. It is uncommon and often not advantageous

to develop a solution strategy without conducting prior analysis and visioning. Yet, in

some cases, there might be good reasons for not following the standard sequence. For instance, a team might start with visioning (instead of problem analysis) in order to

overcome “path dependent thinking”. This encourages creative thinking about the

sustainable state (vision; ‘problem solved’) without being constrained by the current

problematic state. The other example is skipping or cutting analysis and visioning short.

This might respond to urgency, demand, and available evidence (even if limited). In such

cases, a somewhat sufficient problem model and a somewhat sufficient solutions vision

are still required to develop a solution strategy. But it can be done pragmatically. A refined

understanding of the problem and a specification of the vision can be accomplished

indirectly when designing and testing solution strategies.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more about the importance of flexibility

when solving sustainability problems, you might want to review resources that discuss

the drawbacks of overly rigid, command-and-control, top-down problem-solving

schemes. Such publications are often not easily comprehensible, but the reader’s effort

will be rewarded. Tim Blackman and Roberta Woods (2004) in “Social Problems and Public

Policy” assess differently flexible (and successful) ways of public policy intervening in

complex social problems. Andy Stirling (2014) touches on flexibility and several other

principles, above and below, in “Emancipating Transformations – From Controlling ‘the

Transition’ to Culturing Plural Radical Progress”. He argues for caring as the key process in transformational efforts towards sustainability, in contrast to command-and-control approaches.

Creative. For solving a sustainability problem, undoubtedly, one needs creativity. The “non-normal” nature of sustainability problems requires responsible innovation, explo-

ring new pathways of thinking, producing, consuming, distributing, governing, in different

socio-economic and cultural contexts. The proposed framework allows for creativity

being channeled. In other words, problem solving is best undertaken in a creative, yet,

structured and transparent way. The proposed framework includes several steps where

creative processes are essential, for instance, in visioning. Yet, the framework helps

taming this creativity to some extent in order to yield results that are implementable.

Collaborative. There are a variety of professional skills that can help fully utilizing the potential of the proposed framework. One important skill is to apply the framework in

collaborative settings, which means, helping people to collaborate on solving

sustainability problems. Sustainability problems are relevant to many people, for

instance, as responsible parties, contributors, rightfully concerned, or affected

stakeholders. Thus, sustainability problem solving is always a collaborative effort that requires numerous people joining forces across all domains of society. The framework

can be used for various types of stakeholder collaboration – helping government agents

working with citizens, or businesses cooperating with non-profit organizations, or

community organizations collaborating with university researchers, or any other

partnerships. Issues of power and justice are particularly important to address and

balance when applying the framework in collaborative settings. Sustainability problems

far more negatively affect people who live in poverty, pushed to the margins, and

disempowered. Collaborative arrangements for sustainability problem solving need to

make their voices heard, secure their participation, and make sure that solutions really improve their situations. In that respect, sustainability problem solving not only challenges, but creates decision-making settings that are very different from the status

quo.

Professional Skills. As mentioned above, each step of the proposed framework is best performed by activating professional skills. These include effective and compassionate

communication, collaborative teamwork, comprehensive project management, impactful

stakeholder engagement, caring self-management, and advanced continuous learning.

Each of these skills advances the problem-solving effort, in terms of enhanced quality,

impact, and efficiency. What these skills entail is described in more detail in Chapter VII.

6 Recap and What Happens Next

Let’s briefly review the main points of this chapter:

We have started with exploring the conditions that trigger sustainability problem solving.

First, a situation needs to get recognized and judged to be adverse, in terms of sustain-

ability, on justifiable grounds, and by a group of legitimate stakeholders. Second, there

needs to be an honest interest in doing something to resolve and mitigate this situation,

articulated by a group of legitimate stakeholders. Third, there needs to be a demonstrable

lack of problem-solving capacity or activity among the stakeholders to develop and

implement a solution.

We have then drilled into the idea and notion of “solving sustainability problems”. While

guided by the bold aspiration of a sustainable world, sustainability problem solving

navigates away from both simplistic command-and-control approaches as well as from

paralysis-by-analysis. Informed by the urgency of sustainability challenges, sustainability

problem solving is a collaborative and structured process that is aware of and anticipates

the potential of failure. It actively adopts procedures and tools that help avoid such

pitfalls.

I have then given you a first idea of all the problems that could be addressed in sustain-

ability problem-solving efforts. Not limited to any sectoral or otherwise constrained

perspective, sustainability problem solving addresses all types of challenges that

jeopardize the long-term viability or integrity of a society, or of the global society at large.

The challenges are abundant and require significant and coordinated efforts to mitigate

them. Also, the problems often cluster and are interconnected, which makes it hard to

pinpoint where they start and where they end.

Finally, I have outlined the key steps and principles of sustainability problem solving that

will be detailed in the following chapters.

So, we have now a first understanding of the overall process of sustainability problem

solving. As we move forward into the next chapters, we will regularly get back to the

overall five-step framework displayed in Figure 2, above. This allows us to put each of the

five individual problem-solving steps into context. It allows us to see what each step is

based on, using input(s) from the previous step(s), and what each step generates,

producing input(s) for the next step(s).

The next five chapters (II-VI) will guide the reader through the five steps and the following

Chapter VII will address the professional skills that would ideally be used throughout the

problem-solving process to enhance its enhanced quality, impact, and efficiency.

Chapter II

Step 1 –

How to Identify a Sustainability Problem and Problem-

Solving Needs

Chapter Content

1 All the problems in the world? .............................................................................. 35 2 Why We Benefit from a Tool for Identifying Sustainability Problems ................... 37 3 Defining Sustainability as a Base for Defining Sustainability Problems ................. 38 4 Framing and Re-Framing Sustainability Problems ................................................. 41 5 Drilling into the Details – Features of Sustainability Problems .............................. 42

1. Significantly harmful over the long term ........................................................... 43 2. Urgent ................................................................................................................ 46 3. Dispersed effects ............................................................................................... 47 4. Complex causes .................................................................................................. 48 5. Contested ........................................................................................................... 49

6 Sustainability Problems Identified – Who cares, how much, with what capacity? 50 7 Putting the Tool Together ...................................................................................... 53 8 Filling the Tool with Life ........................................................................................ 54 9 Recap and What Happens Next ............................................................................. 55

1 All the problems in the world?

Sustainability problem solving starts with people being passionate, empathetic, and

caring, in a comprehensive sense. Individuals or groups are concerned about a prob-

lematic situation. Less with a clear identification, it often starts with a general sense of

discomfort, maybe along with feelings of helplessness and urgency. People have become

more and more concerned about the development of our cities, landscape, companies,

and, in fact, with ourselves – a lot of things are going wrong.

Sustainability problems seem to mushroom and become omnipresent, across various

outlets. CBS News broadcasted a feature on climate change and coffee bean extinction (October 17, 2011). The scientific journal

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA published an article on urban development in the context of the 2011 Great

East Japan Earthquake and resulting tsunami

(Sidle et al., 2013). The New York Times reported on a Supreme Court decision on

economic land use development and per-

mitting practice (Echeverria, 2013). The latest

“World Survey on the Role of Women in

Development” by the United Nations deals

with the social, economic, and environmental

consequences of the loss of essential eco-

systems for women (UN Women, 2014) (see

picture). The Global Observatory, published by the International Peace Institute, featured an article on the increasing number of armed conflicts and violence against civilians

around the world (Bellamy, 2015). And so forth. All of these sources make explicit

reference to problems as sustainability problems or challenges of sustainable develop- ment.

Many claims about the occurrence of sustainability problems are being made. While many

of them might be legitimate, very rarely is a justification provided as to why this or that

problem is considered a sustainability problem. Most claims assume that there is a clear definition of what a sustainability problem is, and that everyone knows it. Yet, neither of

those assumptions is correct. Even if you ask sustainability professionals and researchers,

they often provide very diverse or dissimilar examples of what they consider being

sustainability problems. While feeling comfortable giving examples, most of them have

trouble coming up with a robust definition of what a sustainability problem is that reflects

the state of the art in sustainability theory and practice.

Sustainable development problems harm

women and girls in particular. Taking turns at

the tap in Maane Dobhaan, Nepal, 2013 (UN

Women, 2014, p. 108; Photo Credit: C.

Sharada Prasad).

2 Why We Benefit from a Tool for Identifying Sustainability Problems

While there is some value in a diversity of examples and definitions, the ambiguity of what

qualifies for a sustainability problem and what does not is problematic in several respects:

Lack of clarity can center attention, resources, and efforts on addressing problems that

do not or not fully pertain to sustainability, and thereby distract from addressing real

sustainability problems. For example, environmental problems such as the environmental

impacts of an oil spill focus on narrow aspects of broader problem constellations and

thereby divert attention, resources, and efforts from addressing and resolving the

broader challenge. In extreme cases, such lack of clarity can even capture “sustainability”

efforts that are contradictory to the idea and practices of sustainability. For example,

under the label “economic sustainability” we see business initiatives emerging that

pursue profit maximization over the long-term. This stands in stark contrast to the idea

of sustainability as the balanced pursuit of economic, environmental, and social objectives. Mislabeling and flawed designations (e.g., green-washing) is only part of the

challenge, however. The other part is that there are many problems that are not being recognized and addressed as sustainability problems. For example, childhood obesity is a

major public health challenge in industrialized nations. Yet, sustainability professionals

and scholars have not recognized it as a sustainability challenge that falls into their realm

of expertise and mandate. Hence, childhood obesity lacks problem-solving efforts

undertaken by professionals and scholars working on sustainability challenges. In all of

these cases, progress towards sustainability solutions would benefit from clarity on what

qualifies for a sustainability problem and what does not – and therefore, who is

responsible or mandated to develop effective solutions.

Lack of clarity on what a sustainability problem is can also translate into a lack of clarity

of what appropriate solutions are. For example, “green,” “clean,” “carbon-neutral”

technologies are often promoted as panaceas to sustainability challenges, based on a

flawed understanding of what a sustainability problem actually is. For example, in one of

our studies (Wiek et al., 2012), we have demonstrated for the case of “green” or

“sustainable” nanotechnologies that these technologies have in fact very limited

capacities to mitigate complex sustainability problems. At best, they can fulfill a small role

in a comprehensive solution strategy. Similarly, “soft sustainability” approaches

advocating for self-regulation of industry and incremental progress, among others, often

do not lead to substantial improvements. Instead, they often distract from taking the

steps necessary for effective transitions towards sustainability. For example, one of the

recent (2011-2013) reports on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the Ford Motor

Company highlights the fact that “a large majority of suppliers have developed

management and governance structures to address climate change” (Ford Motor

Company, 2012). Yet, when focusing on the two main indicators, i.e., GHG emissions per

vehicle and overall GHG emissions, the reductions are small and largely based on reduced

sales due to the economic downturn. They are not close to the extent of reductions

needed to mitigate climate change.

Lack of clarity can finally undermine efforts to develop recognizable expertise and job

profiles, as well as educational programs specific to sustainability. For example, employers often lack an understanding of what graduates with a degree in sustainability

are capable of – because it is not clearly communicated by the schools or by the graduates

themselves. Sustainability students and professionals interested in sustainability often

struggle when asked to clearly explain what they become experts in or are experts of. The

intention of this book is to build capacity of professionals who can help solve problems of

sustainability. These professionals ought to be clear about what kind of problems they

are trained to solve. While this is often considered simply a communication challenge, it

is a more profound challenge. Not only that students and professionals feel they cannot

sufficiently articulate their expertise, they are often not sure if they know it. Fuzzy or incoherent profiles of expertise and educational programs lead to frustration on the side

of students and professionals, and to confusion on the side of employers, clients, and the

public.

èExercise. Use a newspaper article, broadcast, essay, book, academic journal article, blog, or another credible source to illustrate the described flaws that come with a lack of clarity on what a sustainability problem is.

In order to focus attention on real sustainability problems, develop effective solutions,

and shape professional sustainability profiles, we benefit from reliably identifying the

type of problems in question.

3 Defining Sustainability as a Base for Defining Sustainability Problems

As mentioned in the introduction chapter, not all problems are sustainability problems. In other words, not all problematic situations are in conflict with or violate genuine

sustainability principles or values. So, what is a sustainability problem then?

èExercise. Pick one of the problems mentioned above (Section 1 of this chapter), or use a credible source to select a sustainability problem of your interest. Describe the problem briefly, and provide some arguments why you consider this a sustainability problem (not

just any kind of problem). In other words, what do you think makes this problem a genuine

sustainability problem?

I have already indirectly defined sustainability problems in the introductory chapter

above. Here, let’s take a step back and discuss a definition of sustainability as the base for

defining what sustainability problems are. Sustainability is the collective ability and willingness of a society, with its people, businesses, infrastructures, etc., to maintain its viability and integrity over long periods of time, while allowing other societies to maintain their viability and integrity. In other words, sustainability ensures a sufficient and equitable level of social and economic welfare within and across societies, without

compromising the long-term viability or integrity of the supporting social, environmental,

and economic systems (within and across societies).

This definition is based on early concepts of sustainability and sustainable development,

including the Brundtland Report “Our Common Future” (WCED, 1987) and the Agenda 21 – A “Program of Action for Sustainable Development” (UN, 1993). The Brundtland Report was based on the work of the World Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED) in the mid 1980ies and got published in 1987. The WCED was created by the UN

General Assembly in 1983. It was and is still being chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland (this

is why the 1987 report is called Brundtland Report), at that time the Prime Minister of Norway. The Agenda 21 resulted from intensive negotiation processes among United Nations member states during the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development (UNCED), the so-called “Earth Summit”, which took place in Rio de Janeiro,

Brazil, June 3-14, 1992. In 2000, the United Nations agreed upon pursuing eight

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), operationalized in 18 targets (UN, 2000). The MDGs are: eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary

education, promoting gender equality, reducing child mortality, improving maternal

health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensuring environmental

sustainability, and developing a global partnership for development. 15 years later, the

United Nations agreed on pursuing a new set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), operationalized in 169 targets (UN, 2015). The SDGs include the eight MDGs and

additional goals such as reducing inequality within and among countries; making cities

and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; ensuring sustainable

consumption and production patterns; and taking urgent action to combat climate

change and its impacts. While the MDGs and the SDGs provide more specific directions,

they align with the general definition of sustainability introduced above.

èReadings. The Brundtland Report and the Agenda 21 mark early milestones in the development of the sustainability concept and are still valuable sources to consult for a

more in depth understanding of the concept’s origins (WCED, 1987; UN, 1993). The

Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2000) and the Sustainable Development Goals (UN,

2015) provide excellent resources on the operationalized concepts of sustainability or

sustainable development in international and global contexts. A short review of specific

conceptual threads that contributed to the development and refinement of the

sustainability concept is provided in an article by John Harlow and colleagues (2013). The

book “Sustainability – A Cultural History” by Ulrich Grober (2012) offers a more detailed

overview of the historical roots. Robert Gibson (2006) has provided a very valuable dense

synthesis of sustainability principles that have informed the definition suggested above.

A couple of comments on this initial definition of sustainability: First, sustainability is here

conceptualized as collective ability and willingness, and less as a state, process, or outcome. Accordingly, there is a difference between sustainability and sustainable

development. Yet, to keep things simple, sustainable development can be brought in line

with sustainability if it is described as the process that maintains a society’s viability and

integrity over long periods of time, while allowing other societies to maintain their

viability and integrity. So, these concepts can be translated into each other and aligned,

if necessary. Second, the term “maintain” is not being used as opposed to “change”. It

does not imply rigidly hanging on to a particular type of system. In fact, development, change, and transformation are critical for maintaining a society’s viability and integrity

over long periods of time. Third, a society’s viability and integrity are two different levels

of a society’s wellbeing. Viability refers to a basic level of survival (satisfaction of basic needs and life support). Integrity (or vitality) refers to states of where a society flourishes but not on the expense of certain social groups, or other societies. All parts of society are

mutually supporting, maintaining an intact whole and do not conflict or degrade one

another. Fourth, when referring to “a society” I follow the idea that the world is still

hosting numerous different societies, despite strong interregional, international, and global ties. A society is characterized, to varying extents, by particular location, language,

culture, climate, practices, and so forth. Nonetheless, the definition equally applies, with

minor amendments, to alliances of societies as well as the global society in its entirety.

Fifth, sustainability is concerned with long-term dynamics, so called inter-generational development, spanning more than 25 years (more than one generation), at least. We will

discuss this feature of sustainability in more detail below.

This definition provides us with a base for initially defining sustainability problems:

Sustainability problems are situations that threaten the viability or integrity of a society

through (irreversibly) compromising or degrading foundational social or environmental systems.

èExercise. Start with a fresh example of a problem, or use a problem example from a previous exercise. Review your example against the initial definition of sustainability

problems: Is it a sustainability problem? Why, or why not?

4 Framing and Re-Framing Sustainability Problems

With this initial definition in mind, we have taken a first step to reliably identify

sustainability problems. But what does it actually mean to identify sustainability problems?

It is important to recognize that problems are not simply “out there”. They are, as social

scientists have called it, “socially constructed”, which means they are based on norms,

values, and preferences. This holds true even if those values are considered widely shared

and therefore often taken for granted or even “hidden”. Such values are represented

through terms such as “desirable”, “catastrophic”, “bad”, or “good”. To call a situation a

“problem”, “problematic”, “negative”, or “adverse” is a normative judgment that is based on values and preferences, which vary among individuals, groups, cultures, and times. For

any qualified judgment that a given situation is a problem a justification is beneficial.

A sustainability problem, however, is defined by more features than just being a situation with adverse or negative effects. It is a situation of a particular nature. We will discuss this

in more detail in the next section. Yet, the initial definition of a sustainability problem

provides a first orientation what type of problems we look out for in sustainability

problem solving.

Identifying a problem as a sustainability problem is an active process. In a lot of cases, a problem might not be revealed or framed as a sustainability problem in the first instance.

The first framing might just focus on a few aspects critical from a sustainability

perspective. This is when identifying turns into a constructive process or re-framing comes into play. Reframing is not just reformulating – reframing is the active process of including

new and other aspects into the problem description. For example, the impacts of an oil

spill (like the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) could initially be described as adverse for

the marine environment. A reframing from a sustainability perspective would point out

that there are many more negative impacts, including impacts on public health, the

fishing industry, and local tourism services. Sustainability problems feature negative

impacts that cut across different societal value domains (environmental, social,

economic). Hence, accounting for the full breadth of impacts in the problem identification

is a key step in reframing the problem as a sustainability problem. Obviously, the process of reframing is not making up problem features that are not there. Each feature needs to be supported by empirical evidence (for example, you need to demonstrate on justifiable

grounds that there are negative impacts other than environmental ones).

èReadings. Anne Jerneck and Lennart Olsson (2011) have written a journal article on

framing and reframing problems in sustainability problem-solving efforts. They explain

that “reframing is a process of shifting one’s thinking into a different system and structure

of concepts, language and cognitions” which can trigger “redefinitions of problems,

dilemmas or conflicts” (p. 258). The key is here to understand that the process of

adequate framing is critical for problem solving. Jerneck and Olsson assert that reframing

is a powerful tool that “can serve to show the complexity and diversity of an issue; point

out possible driving forces and interpretations; and shape practical solutions to act upon”

(ibid.).

So, we are on the lookout for more specific features of sustainability problems that

provide us with clear instructions on how to identify sustainability problems – be it

through an initial framing or the re-framing of a previous problem definition – in a

consistent and repeatable fashion.

èExercise. Use the problem example from the previous exercise. If your review indicated that the selected problem does not comply with the initial definition of sustainability problems, re-frame the problem in a way that it aligns with the definition.

5 Drilling into the Details – Features of Sustainability Problems

This section peels back the layers of the initial definition and spells out the key features

of sustainability problems. This catalogue provides guidance for identifying, or, in other

words, defining and (re-)framing a problem as a sustainability problem.

èReadings. Sustainability problems share features with problems that have been

described as “wicked”, “intractable”, “unstructured”, and “persistent”, since the 1970s

(e.g., Rittel and Webber, 1973). More than 20 years ago, Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome

Ravetz (1993) published an influential article on these kind of problems with an initial

compilation of features, namely that such problems are “universal in their scale and long-

term in their impact”; they are “novel, complex and variable”; and “decisions must be

made, under conditions of some urgency” (p. 742). In summary, we are dealing with

problems “where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”

(p. 744). Similar attempts to compile features of sustainability problems can be found in

Dovers (1996). The second stream of relevant readings is fed by topic-oriented compilations of sustainability problems. As mentioned earlier, Robert Kates and Thomas

Parris (2003) have provided a compilation of such challenges. Finally, some scholars have

focused on “syndromes of global change” (e.g., Lüdeke et al., 2004), which can be aligned

and integrated with the features of sustainability problems proposed in the other streams

of literature.

It is important to recognize that identifying problems as sustainability problems is not the

same as analyzing sustainability problems (which will be discussed in the next chapter). Identifying is the process of initially revealing key features of the problem, but not

providing a detailed account of the systemic-causal structure of the problem. Both steps

are critical for sustainability problem solving, but they fulfill different functions. The first

step (identifying) makes sure that we have an accurate overall perspective on the problem

as a sustainability problem, so that the mandate of professionals concerned with sustainability can be justified and their expertise can be fully utilized. The second step

(analyzing) then has the goal to unfold the systemic-causal structure of the problem in

order to identify promising intervention points and craft effective strategies for change.

The following features or attributes have been suggested to qualify a problem as a

sustainability problem. They ought to be all present, even if to varying degrees.

1. Significantly harmful over the long term

The first feature has already been captured in the initial definition. Sustainability

problems threaten the viability or integrity of a society. As mentioned earlier, this does

not only pertain to life-threatening situations where people, animals, and ecosystems die

or collapse, but also to threats against the broader wellbeing of a society, i.e., jeopardizing

its integrity (vitality). In sustainability problems, society is not just confronted with

harmful effects of any sort. Instead, the threats exceed a critical (significant) level of harm.

Accordingly, the adverse effects of sustainability problems entail death, decay, collapse,

and extinction, in short, effects that are catastrophic. Once more, it needs to be

emphasized that “harm” (like “problem”) is not an objective entity. Instead, harmfulness must be constructed and judged. Therefore, it is critical when identifying sustainability

problems to identify the kinds, rates, and magnitudes of the disturbances that represent

a considerable degree of harm. This should be done through identifying the adverse

effects against principles of integrity, resilience, vulnerability, and so forth. In addition, it

is beneficial to identify the specific public and collective goods (items of protection) that

are threatened by these problems. These qualitative assessments can then be specified

through quantitative thresholds or tipping points. Thresholds need to be carefully

constructed to ensure that they account not only for survival but also for the integrity

(vitality) of a society. Finally, it is important to spell out who specifically is being affected by these problems. For example, a problem might threaten the quality of water resources

that the farmers of a region depend upon for their livelihood opportunities and wellbeing.

Contaminants might significantly exceed critical thresholds, putting the farmers and their

families, and even the larger population at significant health risks. Sustainability

problems, however, often do not affect a population equally. In fact, they usually put far

more burdens on minorities, marginalized, and disenfranchised groups. It is important to

make sure that the problem identification sufficiently accounts for this fact.

A pragmatic approach to identify in how far a problem is significantly harmful is to use

sustainability principles or criteria. The following set of principles is based on the

compilation offered by Robert Gibson (2006). A problem is significantly harmful when it

threatens the majority of the following goods:

(1) Viability or Integrity of Ecosystems. The problem threatens that sufficient quantity and quality of water, air, climate, and soil ecosystems are maintained not only for their bare

viability, but also for their integrity and full functionality. Ecosystems are valuable goods

in themselves (bio-centric ethical perspective), and they are indispensable for services

ranging from climate regulation, detoxification, and geological stability to services for

recreation and tourism.

(2) Human and Social Wellbeing. The problem threatens that sufficient quantity and quality of health, education, safety, and public participation are maintained not only for

the survival of a society, but also for people’s wellbeing and happiness. Human and social

wellbeing is considered a basic human right and the backbone of viable and vital societies

(distributional equity).

(3) Equitable Opportunity for Livelihood and Economic Activities. The problem threatens the equitable opportunity for all people to pursue livelihood and economic activities.

Those activities are a means to human and social wellbeing, which is considered a basic

human right and the backbone of viable and vital societies (distributional equity).

(4) Justice across Societies (Inter-regional Justice). The problem threatens the viability or integrity of ecosystems (Principle 1), human and social wellbeing (Principle 2), or

equitable opportunity for livelihood and economic activities (Principle 3) for people living

in connected regions that are affected by the society in question.

(5) Justice from one Generation to the Next (Inter-generational Justice). The problem threatens the viability or integrity of ecosystems, human and social wellbeing, or

equitable opportunity for livelihood and economic activities for future generations and

over the long term. This principle is critical for sustainability and has been a major focal

point since the emergence of the concept. The concept of sustainable development was

originally conceived in the 18 th

century as a natural resource maintenance problem over

the long term – avoiding the overconsumption (collapse and extinction) of natural

systems such as forests or watersheds. The key point here is that significant harm might

not play out as the immediate result of current actions, but might only affect a society one or more generations later. The principle of inter-generational justice points to the

obligation to avoid such catastrophic situations that might only occur over the long term.

For an exemplary sustainability problem being significantly harmful over the long term

consider current practices of water contamination in numerous parts of Indonesia. This

problem threatens the ability to maintain sufficient water quality levels in ecosystems

across the country with significant detrimental effects on fish populations and other

aquatic life forms. At the same time, contaminated drinking water and poisoned fish harm

the health of numerous communities in these regions. Livelihood opportunities are

negatively impacted as agricultural and fishing activities decline. Constituting cases of

inter-regional injustice, downstream communities are negatively impacted by water

contamination originating from industrial sources upstream. In some regions, water

contamination has reached levels that will require tremendous remediation efforts over

decades, putting significant burdens on future generations (inter-generational justice).

In addition to the five qualitative specifications of sustainability problems, compilations such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) identify quantitative thresholds for poverty, hunger, education, equality, health, and other domains of societal concern (UN,

2000; UN Millennium Project, 2005; UN 2015). Some of those thresholds can be

considered minimum levels for survival, some levels aim higher and are oriented towards

integrity and resilience. Other compilations like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Reports (MEA, 2005) and studies on planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009)

suggest similar thresholds for environmental systems such as nitrogen cycle or

biodiversity on different spatial levels (from local to global). Such thresholds or “tipping

points” can help to identify the degree of harm displayed by a problem. The recently

agreed upon UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide an integrated framework

of environmental, social, and economic goals and quantified targets.

It is important to recognize that identifying in how far a problem is significantly harmful

requires a collective process of mediation and negotiation. What appears as significantly

harmful to one group of stakeholders does not necessarily do so to another group.

Normative aids (e.g., sets of sustainability principles or criteria) can help identifying what

is at stake in a transparent and reliable way.

The guiding question for this problem feature is: Is the problem significantly harmful in the long term, in other words, does the problem threaten essential public and collective goods to a degree that the viability or integrity of a society is threatened over the long term, and if so, which ones?

2. Urgent

Sustainability problems are not only significantly harmful over the long term, there are

also urgent. That means, they threaten the viability or integrity of a society right now – even if the full impacts are projected to occur at a later stage. Sustainability problems are

therefore considered urgent or pressing. The attribute of urgency is defined as the degree to which a problem requires immediate attention. In other words, it is of a time-sensitive nature. Therefore, urgency can be defined as irreversibility in the short term (time sensitivity). While related, urgency is different from harmfulness over the long term

(Feature 1, above). The link between urgency and harmfulness over the long term is that

the latter can depend on actions undertaken now. Path dependencies and inertia can lead

to harmfulness over the long term, and therefore change is required over the short term,

if significant harm over the long term is to be avoided. Unlike harmfulness over the long

term, urgency has an explicit short-term temporal dimension and specifies the temporal dimension of “tipping points” and “points of no return” (Rockström et al., 2009). For

example, the problem of climate change is urgent because we are soon (short term) reaching a point of no return after which detrimental effects cannot be reversed (irreversibility), most likely. If the criterion of irreversibility in the short term is not fulfilled, we do not consider a problem as urgent.

The nine planetary boundaries defined in Rockström et al. (2009) define the estimated

level of significant harm (over the long term). Yet, at least three of these boundaries,

namely, rate of biodiversity loss, climate change (atmospheric greenhouse gas

concentration), and human interference with the nitrogen cycle, refer to urgent problem constellations (in the meaning defined here), as critical thresholds or tipping points are

currently being surpassed. Framing sustainability problems as urgent problems requires explicit reference to the passing of critical thresholds or tripping points in the short term.

The level of urgency for a given sustainability problem needs to be determined by

considering not only the current distance-to-threshold, but also the pace by which this

distance is decreasing. So, historical records and time series are important to consider

when determining specific levels of urgency.

Two special cases require additional explanations. First, in the case that a threshold has

already been passed (e.g., climate change), immediate action might still be advisable

instead of simply abandoning all concerns (because it is too late). The reason is that the

situation might still get aggravated the farther the threshold is getting passed. Second, in

the case of a non-urgent problem that fulfills all other key features, sustainability problem

solving might still be triggered based on anticipation and precautionary commitments.

Yet, it seems more important to tackle problems that more urgently need professional

capacities and resources to get resolved over the short term.

The guiding question for this feature is: Is the problem urgent, in other words, does the problem display features of irreversibility in the short-term, and if so, how?

3. Dispersed effects

It is often difficult to pinpoint the harmful effects of sustainability problems described

above. Sustainability problems play out in their effects at various locations and times. In

other words, sustainability problems pose the challenge of containing the effects. This has been described as cascading, triggering, or dispersed effects. Let’s take the example

of hydraulic fracturing (hydro-fracturing or fracking), which is the injection of water, sand,

and chemicals with high pressure into rock formations to create small fractures that allow

harvesting gas or petroleum. It has been demonstrated that the injected water and

chemicals can become a source of contamination as they are released into streams and

groundwater resources as a result of the fracking process. While the source of

contamination is contained, the contaminated water can travel and yield negative

impacts tens or hundreds of miles away from the source. In addition, the impacts from

hydraulic fracturing can shift from environmental impacts (contamination of ecosystems)

to public health impacts (contamination of drinking water) over time as the contaminated

water travels downstream. Such dispersed effects can be observed with various

sustainability problems, including the spread of violence from mistreatment of people, or

cascading effects from unhealthy living conditions (low walkability, food deserts, etc.).

The feature of dispersed effects can be described in two different forms. First, there is the

characteristic that the effects of sustainability problems cut across different spatial levels,

from local to global. That means they are not limited to local effects but can spread far

beyond the local and even effect global phenomena. Water contamination, climate

change, but also disease and violence can spread across regions, countries, and even

continents. Second, there is the observation that the effects of sustainability problems

cut across different sectors, domains, or spheres – often described as social, environ-

mental, economic, and other domains. Hence, experts refer to the three spheres of

sustainability, which means that sustainability problems negatively affect social, environ-

mental, and economic goods simultaneously, even if to varying degrees.

As stated before, it is important to note that while the problem identification needs to

provide some indication of the dispersed effects, it is not necessary to fully analyze the

cause-effect structure of the problem at this point. This is what follows in the next step

(problem analysis).

The guiding question for this feature is: Are the adverse effects of the problem in question dispersed, or, in other words, do the adverse effects of the problem cut across different spatial levels and different sectors (provide examples)?

4. Complex causes

Sustainability problems are complex problems in three respects. First, there are multiple

causes that contribute (equally or with different strengths) to the harmful effects

identified before (Features 1 & 3, above). In the 2010 oil spill example, several causes

contributed to the negative effects, including consumer demand for cheap products and

services, corporate ideology to maximize profits, lax regulation, lack of controlling, and so

forth. Second, the causes often cut across social, environmental, economic, technical, and

other domains. For example, particular environmental factors in conjunction with

particular management practices and technical issues led to the catastrophic oil spill

situation in 2010. It is important to note the difference from, yet similarity to the previous

feature of dispersed effects. Similar to the dispersion of effects, the present feature

indicates a dispersion of causes. Third, the causes are structured into long and indirect chains of causes and effects with numerous chain components, indirect effects, feedback

loops, inertia and delays. For example, the lax regulation enabled particular management

practice that eventually led to particular drilling practices that later caused the spill. So, the legal framework had indirect effects on other factors.

As stated above, it is important to note that while the problem identification needs to

provide some indication of complex causes, it is not necessary to fully analyze the

systemic-causal structure of the problem at this point. This is what follows in the next

step (problem analysis).

The guiding questions for this feature is: Are the underlying causes of the problem manifold, cut across different sectors, and characterized by long and indirect cause-effect chains (provide examples)?

5. Contested

Sustainability problems are often contested. Contestation can appear in different forms

such as disagreement on effects or causes of the problem, or the degree of harm or the

urgency of the situation. Basically all four features of sustainability problems discussed

above can be subject to contestation. Contestation and disagreement are always based

on conflicting interests, values, and preferences. In the majority of sustainability

problems, the contestation is “naturally” emerging because of path dependencies,

inertia, and vested interests inherent in the dominant regime and practices that lead to

resistance and reluctance to change. In some critical cases, however, contestation is

strategically or politically motivated and fiercely pursued. A key reason for this intentional

contestation is the fear that solutions will significantly change, i.e., transform, the status quo, and this transformation might turn the “winners” currently profiting from the status

quo into “losers” in the future.

In sustainability efforts, there is broad agreement that contestation needs to be

countered with democratic settings of deliberation and negotiation in order to scrutinize

the legitimacy of positions and eventually to create shared ownership for the problem in

question. Deliberation and negotiation is intended to reveal the conflicting interests,

values and preferences that the involved stakeholder groups hold. For this process, it is

critical to overcome the naïveté that everybody is simply thrilled to recognize and address

sustainability problems. Most often, the “winners” and beneficiaries of the status quo are

not. Examples including controversial technologies, developing urban sprawl, non-

renewable energy supply, and industrial food production provide ample evidence that

vested interests can be powerful enemies of recognizing and addressing sustainability

problems.

èReadings. In the study “Merchants of Doubt”, mentioned before, Naomi Oreskes and

Erik Conway (2010) provide a great deal of evidence on how powerful special interest

groups, including scientists, willfully distort facts and thereby hinder the clear

identification of sustainability problems because of vested interests. Examples include the

destruction of the atmospheric ozone layer, the cancer potential of tobacco, and the

causes and impacts of climate change. The willful distortion of facts by industrial

stakeholders in pursuit of profit maximizing interests is a long-standing controversy in the

case of climate change. An article in The New York Times from December 5, 2013 (Davenport, 2013) points out: “Koch Industries, a conglomerate that has played a major

role in pushing Republicans away from action on climate change, is ramping up an

already-aggressive campaign against climate policy — specifically against any tax or price

on carbon. Owned by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, the company

includes oil refiners […]”. These observations become relevant in light of the public

investigations recently initiated (2015) to clarify the role industries played in obscuring

the truth about climate change (despite knowledge to the contrary).

Articulating contestation of the problem in question, helps preparing problem-solving

efforts by highlighting points of resistance that need to be considered when developing

solution strategies. Addressing this feature benefits from systematically exploring the

following set of questions: who contests, which feature of the problem, with what arguments, and with what intention? The best way to demarcate legitimate from illegitimate claims is to carefully evaluate the identified claims against principles of

accuracy, evidence, and sustainability.

The guiding question for this feature is: Is the problem in question controversially discussed and even willfully obscured, and if so, who presents conflicting interests, values, and preferences, with what arguments and interests, and eventually, which ones are legitimate and which ones are not?

èExercise. Start with a fresh example, or use a problem example from one of the previous exercises. Use the five features of sustainability problems to identify the

problem you selected as a sustainability problem. First identify the features that are

fulfilled, then the ones that are not. Finally, check if you could reframe the problem in a

way that all features are being fulfilled.

6 Sustainability Problems Identified – Who cares, how much, and with

what capacity?

So, let's assume we have identified a sustainability problem by the presence of the five

features described in the previous section. That alone does not constitute a need for

sustainability problem solving, as explained in the previous chapter. Often-made

experiences are that there is a lack of collective recognition of the problem; or not enough

buy-in to develop a solution; or, at times, sufficient problem-solving efforts are already

underway.

The discussed features of sustainability problems pose specific challenges to recognizing

the problem, the willingness-to-act, and effective problem-solving efforts:

- As sustainability problems have negative impacts over the long term, they are not easily detectable, for instance, if the observation period is too short (e.g., loss of

biodiversity).

- Sustainability problems also pose the threat of becoming irreversible, which requires immediate action and rapid change – a key challenge for societies caught

up in large-scale production systems, complex power constellation with strong

inertia, or inflexible bureaucracies (e.g., obesity epidemic).

- Sustainability problems show dispersed effects often appearing in various shapes and locations (even if the causes are the same), which requires advanced

monitoring, coordination, and communication (e.g., climate change).

- Similarly, sustainability problems are caused, directly and indirectly, by many interacting factors that are not easily disentangled and addressed (e.g., violent

conflicts).

- Finally, sustainability problems are often being contested by people who benefit from them and thus willfully distort and hamper problem-solving efforts (e.g.,

natural resource exploitation).

èExercise. Start with a fresh example, or use a problem example from one of the previous exercises. Provide an illustration of why problem recognition, willingness-to-act,

or effective problem-solving efforts are difficult for the selected problem. Explicitly refer

to the five specific challenges mentioned above.

So, before moving on, we need to answer three critical questions (as discussed in the

previous chapter):

First, is the situation recognized and judged as negative or adverse, in terms of sustainability, on justifiable grounds, and by a group of legitimate stakeholders? The last of the previously presented features is the critical one here (after having identified the

previous four). In particular, this pertains to overcoming contestation on the negative

effects of the problem. We need to specify who (stakeholder groups) considers which of the described adverse effects as critical and how legitimate is their perspective. This is a

collective process of deliberation and negotiation that ultimately leads to the recognition

of negative effects and a sustainability problem in hands. If the situation is not recognized

as negative by a group of legitimate stakeholders (other stakeholders might be unaware

or ignorant), the situation bears no weight to get addressed. Hence, only if this condition

is sufficiently fulfilled, sustainability problem solving can get triggered.

Second, is there an honest interest in doing something to resolve and mitigate this situation, articulated by a group of legitimate stakeholders? If there is no agreed-upon interest in finding a solution – whatever the reasons might be –, there is no incentive for

sustainability problem solving. The interest needs to be “honest”, meaning that there are

no hidden agendas that just seek to divert attention or stall the process. Similar to the

first condition, if the honest interest in finding a solution is not articulated by a group of

legitimate stakeholders, the interest bears no weight to get acted upon. Hence, only if

this condition is sufficiently fulfilled, sustainability problem solving can get triggered.

Third, is there a demonstrable lack of intervention capacity or activity to develop and implement a solution that mitigates or resolves the identified problem? As stated above, sustainability problem solving is a significant undertaking. Identifying the lack of

intervention capacity or activity is critical to justify such an undertaking, but also to avoid

duplicating efforts. The features of sustainability problems often pose overwhelming

challenges to society’s capacity to observe, document, plan, collaborate, act, and so forth.

This incapacity could result, for instance, from the mismatch between the level of

complexity that characterizes many modern socio-technical systems (e.g., large-scale

energy systems such as nuclear power plants), on the one hand, and the cognitive,

emotional, and organizational capacities (e.g., communication, coordination, controlling),

on the other hand. A strong indication for a demonstrable lack of intervention capacity is

the previous failure of problem-solving efforts. For example, some policies intended to

protect endangered species or incentivize conservation of scarce resources have failed to

achieve the objective, and have, in some cases, even aggravated the initial situation.

Capacity does not always translate into sufficient activity though. Thus, both aspects need

to be equally evaluated here. If this condition is sufficiently fulfilled, sustainability

problem solving can get triggered.

èExercise. Use an example of a sustainability problem from one of the previous exercises. Use the three conditions that ought to be fulfilled to trigger sustainability

problem solving and identify the ones that are fulfilled, then the ones that are not. Finally,

argue what could be done (by whom) that all conditions would be fulfilled.

7 Putting the Tool Together

The tool for identifying, i.e., defining and (re-)framing, sustainability problems focuses on

two bundles of features and questions, respectively. The first one pertains to effects,

causes, and contestation of the problem. The second one deals with problem recognition,

as well as problem-solving interest, capacity, and activity. Figure 5 visualizes the two

bundles of aspects.

Figure 5. Features of sustainability problems and how they are linked – structured into features

of the sustainability problem and features of the problem-solving efforts.

In detail, the tool includes the following eight guiding questions:

1. Is the problem significantly harmful in the long term, in other words, does the problem threaten essential public and collective goods to a degree that the

viability or integrity of a society is threatened over the long term, and if so, which

ones specifically?

(1) Viability or integrity of ecosystems (2) Human and social wellbeing (3) Equitable opportunity for livelihood and economic activities (4) Justice across societies (inter-regional justice) (5) Justice from one generation to the next (inter-generational justice)

2. Is the problem urgent, in other words, does the problem display features of irreversibility in the short-term, and if so, how?

3. Are the adverse effects of the problem in question dispersed, or, in other words, do the adverse effects of the problem cut across different spatial levels and

different sectors (provide examples)?

4. Are the underlying causes of the problem manifold, cut across different sectors, and characterized by long and indirect cause-effect chains (provide examples)?

5. Is the problem in question controversially discussed and even willfully obscured, and if so, who presents conflicting interests, values, and preferences, with what

arguments and interests, and eventually, which ones are legitimate and which

ones are not?

6. Is the situation recognized and judged as negative or adverse, in terms of sustainability, on justifiable grounds, and by a group of legitimate stakeholders?

7. Is there an honest interest in doing something to resolve and mitigate this situation, articulated by a group of legitimate stakeholders?

8. Is there a demonstrable lack of problem solving capacity or activity, i.e., capacity or activity to develop and implement a solution that mitigates or resolves the

identified problem?

8 Filling the Tool with Life

Over the course of the previous sections, we have slowly built up initial familiarity and

capacity to understand a tool for identifying problems as sustainability problems in a

reliable and transparent way. Yet, such a tool needs applications in the real world to

consolidate professional capacity.

This requires skills in data search, collection, assessment, interpretation, and transfer. For

instance, data is not always readily available for all eight questions. In some cases, data

sets are not easily accessible, or they are costly, or of questionable quality. In those cases,

it is important to be aware of and experienced in using effective coping strategies.

èReadings. I have written an article about identifying the challenges at Lake Victoria in east-central Africa as a sustainability problem (Wiek, 2013). This study demonstrates how

to apply a tool for problem identification, and also discusses challenges and coping

strategies in applying the tool. This study does not exactly apply the tool presented here,

as it uses a previous version of the tool. But all features are covered by and large.

In most cases using the tool for problem identification and applying it to real-world data

will be challenging. Thus, we need to adhere to the principle of pragmatism in this process. A well-described phenomenon in research is ‘paralysis-by-analysis’ – getting

stuck in the early stages of a problem-solving process, e.g., the problem identification or

the analysis, and therefore not ever getting to the critical stages of developing solution

visions and strategies. While sustainability professionals ought to avoid inaccurate

problem identification, they need to strike a balance between precision and sufficiency.

Often, a good share of key information suffices for identifying a problem as a

sustainability problem, even if not all of the features are fully demonstrated or justified.

If, on completing the initial identification procedure, not all features seem to be present

then it may be that the problem needs to get re-framed. This may involve expanding the

spatial and temporal boundaries of the problem and thinking more extensively about the

causes, impacts, and stakeholders than the immediately obvious. It is not absolutely

necessary that all features be strongly identified, if most seem to be and there.

9 Recap and What Happens Next

After understanding the overall sequence of sustainability problem solving, we have now

familiarized ourselves with the basics of the first step in sustainability problem solving,

namely, how to identify a sustainability pro- blem and a problem-solving need (see picture).

The tool, composed of eight elements and gui-

ding questions, can help us reliably identify

sustainability problems and problem-solving

needs.

We have started from the argument that

sustainability problems display specific fea-

tures and that a tool for identifying these fea-

tures bears several advantages compared to an

approach that just vaguely pursues an

unarticulated scheme of sustainability.

We have then explored definitions of sustainability and sustainability problems and also

reflected on the process of using these definitions in the process of framing and re-

framing sustainability problems.

I have then presented and explained the five key features of sustainability problems,

namely being significantly harmful over the long term, being urgent, having dispersed

effects, being caused by a complex network of factors, and being contested.

And we finally returned to the three conditions (already outlined in the introductory

chapter) that need to be in place to trigger sustainability problem solving.

As indicated in the picture, after having acquired our first tool for sustainability problem

solving, the next chapter will familiarize us with a tool for reliably analyzing sustainability

problems. While closely linked to problem identification, problem analysis reveals the

immediate and root causes of sustainability problems with the intent to identify

promising intervention points.

Chapter III

Step 2 –

How to Analyze a Sustainability Problem

Chapter Content

1 Focus of Public Attention – What’s the damage? ................................................... 57 2 Why We Benefit from a Tool for Analyzing Sustainability Problems ...................... 62 3 The Basic Systemic-Causal Structure of Sustainability Problems ............................ 64

1. Where is the pain? Adverse effects and affected stakeholders .......................... 66 2. Who is to blame? Causing activities, actors, and technologies ........................... 67 3. Who wins anyway? Benefits and benefiting stakeholders .................................. 70 4. What is below the surface? Drivers of people’s actions ..................................... 72

4 Too Much to Handle - Mismatch between Complexity and Capacity ..................... 86 5 Putting the Tool Together ....................................................................................... 88 6 Filling the Tool with Life .......................................................................................... 89 7 Recap and What Happens Next ............................................................................... 91

1 Focus of Public Attention – What’s the damage?

Tom Hanks skillfully plays Captain Phillips in the thriller with the same title directed by

Paul Greengrass. The film is based on the hijacking of the container ship MV Maersk Alabama off the coast of Somalia in April 2009. Captain Richard Phillips and other crewmembers were taken hostage during this incident. In the final rescue intervention by

the U.S. Navy three of the four hijackers, 17-19 years old, got killed. The hijacker who

survived got sentenced to more than 30 years in prison. On November 19, 2008, just six

months before this hijacking incident, USA Today reported on the hijacking of the container ship MV Sirius Star off the coast of Kenya (Vanden Brook et al., 2008). The newspaper article presents a great deal of details about this incident and similar ones, the

tactics of the pirates, the damage, and so forth. Yet, only a few sentences at the end of

the article are offered that hint at the root causes of these incidents. They include the civil

war situation (persisting since 1991), political instability, lack of economic opportunities,

public health challenges, and environmental degradation in Somalia. Most of these issues

are directly or indirectly rooted in colonialism, imperialism, and military interventions that

were led by various foreign countries, including the United States and several European

countries. While viewers and readers enjoy the live news and closely follow the unfolding

of the catastrophe, little attention is being paid to what lies beneath the surface – the

manifold and messy web of intermediate and root causes.

Popular media outlets are full of such examples of sensationalism, and thus we are used

to dramatic, superficial, and episodic information about issues of societal relevance,

including sustainability problems. The

three Cs – crimes, catastrophes, and

casualties – dominate the media.

Remember how media and public

attention quickly centered on oil slick,

fire, and smoke resulting from the Gulf of

Mexico oil spill disaster in April 2010.

Another environmental catastrophe was

pronounced and visually exploited. Yet,

the root causes, ranging from ever-

increasing energy demand of consumers

and industries, complex oil-extraction

technologies, business mentality of profit-above-all, lack of accountability in

government–business relations, to uninformed, uninterested, or disempowered

consumers – all of this remained largely unexplored in the popular media.

Even quality media succumb to presenting information on sustainability problems this

way. In February 2010, NPR broadcasted a feature on “pesticide drifts” from agricultural

sites into schools, hospitals, and child-care centers (Khokha, 2010). The report presents a

lot of insights on the actual phenomenon and its negative effects. However, it leaves most

of the deeper and much more relevant questions unasked: Why aren’t the existing

regulations reinforced and fines paid? Who is benefiting from the application of

pesticides? Why are there farm workers without health insurance? Why do we use

pesticides? What are alternatives? And so forth. The same pattern, which diverts public

attention and hides true causes, can be found in a majority of reports on societally

relevant issues such as security, crime, health, and education.

Explosions on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the

Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (The New York Times, Dec 25, 2010; Photo Credit: Anonymous, provided to

The New York Times).

èReadings. If you want to learn more about the patterns and effects of dramatic,

superficial, and episodic information provided in public media, you might want to review

research done by Lori Dorfman and her team in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley.

This research reveals how the media frame public health issues, what the effects are on

public perceptions, and what alternative framing and reporting strategies could be (e.g.,

Dorfman, 2005). Various studies have addressed more specifically the effect of such

reporting on public perception, opinion, cognition, and emotion – from early studies such

as the one on “The Dramatic Presentation of News and its Effects on Cognitive

Complexity” conducted by Milburn and McGrail (1992) through the seminal book on

“Seducing America” by Roderick Hart (1999), to the recent review "Understanding the

Content of News Media" by Stephen Reese and Jae Kook Lee (2012).

It would be simplistic to only blame the media for this shortsighted approach of

addressing complex societal challenges, including sustainability problems. These patterns

are more pervasive. Two other, less obvious examples are the atomic bomb museum in

Nagasaki, Japan, and the animated documentary film “Waltz with Bashir” directed by Ari

Folman (2008). Both almost exclusively focus on terminal events and related experiences,

not offering any substantive insights into the long and complex chain of causes and effects

that led up to the respective events and effects. Visitors of the atomic bomb museum are

exposed to many details of what happened on August 9, 1945 and the aftermath, but no

attempt was made to reveal the causes, actors, motives, politics, and cultural norms that

enabled and led up to the event. Similarly, the film “Waltz with Bashir” documents the

personal quest of a former soldier in the Israeli Defense Force to regain his memory of

the Sabra and Shatila massacre and related experiences. In this massacre more than 3,000

Palestinian and Lebanese Muslim civilians were killed by the Christian Lebanese Forces

with connivance of the Israeli Defense Force on September 16-18, 1982 (Shahid, 2002).

The quest about the event is the focal point of “Waltz with Bashir” – a deeper

understanding of the root causes of the massacre and the involvement of the soldier is,

however, not conveyed.

That public attention often centers on events and incidents rather than on causes and

drivers is not happening accidentally. As with other social practices, it is happening by design. From instructions in journalism schools and particular editorial practices to different strings of influence by powerful people with vested interests – there are many

deliberate choices to keep the patterns of dramatic, superficial, and episodic information

provision in public media in place. These are complementary strategies to the ones

discussed about contestation of sustainability problems.

While the described patterns prevail, there are examples of journalism and public media

communication that intend to inform the viewers and readers more comprehensively

about causes and drivers of societally relevant challenges. A good example is the article

on “Earth is Parched Where Syrian Farms Thrived” published in The New York Times in October 2010 (Worth, 2010). The article points to and exemplifies a complex web of

causes (actions, politics, decisions) that resulted in detrimental environmental, economic,

and social effects for the society in Syria. In anticipation, the article highlights processes

and mechanisms that eventually contributed to the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in

March 2011. Another good example is the series on causes and effects of childhood

obesity that got published in The Washington Post in May 2008 (e.g., Levine and Stein, 2008).

Other examples of thoroughly engaging with the causes of societal problems can be found

in the arts. As we discussed the event-focused perspective of “Waltz with Bashir” above,

other directors take a different approach. For example, the feature film “Paradise Now”

directed by Hany Abu-Assad (2005) focuses on the individual motives, political

propaganda, social norms, educational practices, and collective involvement that enable

and lead up to suicide attacks in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To emphasize this

perspective, the terminal event is not even part of the film (the final sequence fades out

before the detonation).

In the fewer cases where sensationalism is circumvented by reporting on the underlying

causes, viewers and readers are confronted with the challenges of learning either too little or too much about underlying causes. Public media often single out one or very few causes that provide often simplistic explanations of events and problems. Blaming the

market, the government, or fate, is convenient compared to looking into the complex

network of causes and calling on responsibility of specific individuals and groups,

including ourselves. For example, media attention on childhood obesity has highlighted

for a long time, and still continues to, unhealthy eating habits and/or lack of exercises as

the causes of childhood obesity. Only over the past 10 years, more comprehensive perspectives on the causes of childhood obesity have begun to enter the wider public

discourse, pointing to the role of urban planning, industrial agriculture, food distribution

in schools, and other contributing factors that are accepted or ignored by the public.

The other challenge is the opposite of the former – expert communication and quality

media often overwhelm the audience with too many causal factors, which are challenging

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/childhoodobesity/index.html

to process, particularly if they are not presented in a structured way. Psychological

research dating back to the 1950ies and 1960ies has demonstrated that most people have

a quite limited capacity in meaningfully processing and storing various information. That

means, if you look at a diagram with numerous causes and effects, it is usually hard to

make sense out of it, except when the effects are clustered into fewer categories that

reduce the number of elements to process and remember. In April 2010, The New York Times published a critical article about overly complex diagrams, using the example of mapping the challenges in Afghanistan for developing military strategies (Bumiller, 2010).

You might have experienced the same feeling of being overwhelmed by the number of

relevant causes when you started identifying sustainability problems in the previous

chapter (Feature “complex causes”).

In summary, there are three challenges that we encounter when confronted with

societally relevant problems, including sustainability problems, in public media. The first

is end-of-pipe thinking with much of the attention paid to events and incidents (three Cs), and very little, if any, to the underlying causes. The second challenge is simplistic causal thinking, singling out one or very few causes as the drivers of a problem, neglecting the more complex web of underlying causes, And the third challenge is overwhelmingly complex causal thinking, compiling a large number of causes and interrelations, and leaving them unstructured, which exceeds the limits of our processing capacity and leaves

the audience overwhelmed.

All three challenges provide negative guidance for how (not) to analyze sustainability problems, which is the topic of this chapter. Dealing with these challenges links back to

the process of framing and reframing sustainability problems. Framing and reframing is

not only relevant when identifying sustainability problems (as spelled out in the previous chapter), but also when analyzing sustainability problems.

èExercise. Use a newspaper article, broadcast, essay, book, academic journal article, blog, or another credible source that deals with a sustainability problem of your choice. Determine if and in how far the article does or does not use patterns of dramatic,

superficial, and episodic information provision (end-of-pipe thinking). In addition, review

if and in how far the article displays patterns of the two other deficits described above,

i.e., simplistic causal thinking, or overwhelmingly complex causal thinking. If you find any

of these patterns, try to reframe the problem in a way that the reader can learn about

the main underlying causes without getting overwhelmed.

2 Why We Benefit from a Tool for Analyzing Sustainability Problems

Analyzing sustainability problems is the process of dissecting and clarifying the systemic- causal structure of sustainability problems in a way that allows identifying critical intervention points and systems relations (for the subsequent problem-solving efforts), without overwhelming the stakeholders involved (and thereby stalling the problem- solving process). Understanding the complexity of sustainability problems in pursuit of problem-solving efforts is a new lens, a new mindset for approaching problems. It

requires looking beneath the surface and behind the façade. It requires, for example,

looking past what comes out at the end of the pipe, namely, greenhouse gas emissions,

to see what drives energy production. It requires tracing back contamination,

exploitation, death, and decline, along with success, equity, peace, and beauty to their

roots and creators. According to Elinor Ostrom’s and colleagues’ (2007) seminal work on

overcoming the deceptive nature of panaceas in sustainability problem-solving efforts, a

sustainability professional ideally would “dig deeply into the structure of the problem”,

examine “attributes of a problem, layer by layer, and focuses on traits that are thought

to be essential in a particular context” (p. 15177).

Yet, while we need to peel back the layers of the problem, we also need to find the

adequate amount of information useful for problem understanding and solution efforts. In short, we look for a tool that balances revealing of (root) causes and processing

information in a meaningful way (not too many, structured). Such a tool helps us

simultaneously avoid the three flaws, outlined above. It can help us analyze sustainability

problems in a reliable and transparent way. A tool is useful because it is difficult, if not

impossible, to grasp the complexity of sustainability problems by only relying on intuition

or previous experience. Before we build such a tool, let’s briefly review some of the

quality criteria the tool should possess.

First, the tool needs to be functional. Keep in mind that all steps of the framework described in Chapter 1 have the ultimate objective of solving sustainability problems. Thus, the goal of analyzing sustainability problems needs to align with this objective.

Accordingly, the goal of analyzing sustainability problems is to reveal causes of the

problem in order to identify promising intervention points that can help to craft an effective solution strategy. This requires focusing the analysis on people, their activities and aids (technologies), as well as their underlying drivers (motives, rules, etc.). Rarely is

it that bad things happen by accident. Most often it comes down to people and their

activities – people contaminate water, sell junk food, force children to work in mines,

lobby for unconstrained weapon trade, bribe officials, break contracts, pass lax

regulations, hunt for more and more profits, and so forth. If we want to induce change,

we have to convince people to do things differently. For this, we need to know who is causing the problem how and why.

Second, the tool needs to be systemic. It is not sufficient to just determine an immediate cause of the problem at hand and hope we got the right one. We need to sufficiently understand the web of causes, the mechanisms and processes that underlie the problem

and make it persistent. To this end, we adopt systems thinking. Systems thinking allows us to understand not only the direct causes of the problem, but also more complex

features such as indirect effects (one factor influences another one via a third factor) or

feedback loops (one factor influences itself via one or more other factors). A good

example for the importance of systems thinking for analyzing sustainability problems is

the case of the endangered giant panda in Wolong, China (Liu et al., 2007). Local residents

harvest wood from the bamboo forest for their daily activities, including heating and

cooking. This puts pressure on the giant panda population that lives in and depends on

the bamboo forest. In this problem constellation, there is an indirect effect from the daily

activities of the local residents on the panda via the harvesting of bamboo wood. After

recognizing this challenge, the Chinese government passed a regulation that puts the

panda habitat under protection. However, designating the habitat as protected area for

an endangered species has stimulated touristic activities that now lead to more economic

activities of the local residents, which in return puts even more pressure on the panda

population. More appropriate conservation measures are now being considered. In this

extended problem constellation, there is a feedback loop from the initial conservation

measures back to the reconsidering of the measure through the described chain of causes

and effects.

Third and finally, the tool needs to be pragmatic. On the one hand, we don’t want to miss important causes or misinterpret critical systemic relations. On the other hand, we don’t

want to over-study the problem and thereby hamper progress towards a sustainability

solution (paralysis-by-analysis). Scientific research tends to paralyze itself by pursuing a

comprehensive, often conceived of as infinite analysis of the cause-effect structure. Even more paralyzing is research that diverts attention away from causal relations towards

correlations. In short, we don’t need comprehensive information about the systemic- causal structure of the problem. Instead, we need sufficient information that enables us to craft an effective solution strategy. Pragmatism is a balancing act – at times it requires to complexify our thinking about the problem, at other times, it requires to simplify our

thinking about the problem. A key strategy for keeping the amount of information about

the problem at a manageable level, i.e., keep it comprehensible, is to clearly structure the

problem. Even if the number of individual causes is large, there are ways to cluster them

into a manageable number of categories. We will discuss such a general systemic-causal

structure of the problem in the next section.

èReadings. There are many academic and popular readings available on the basics of

systems thinking. Frederic Vester (2008) published a good introductory book on “The Art

of Interconnected Thinking – Ideas and Tools for Dealing with Complexity”. Donella

Meadows (2008) wrote the compelling book “Thinking in Systems – A Primer” on the

basics of system dynamics, a particular type of systems thinking. More specific problem analysis approaches that employ ideas of systems thinking are, for example, root cause

analysis, causal chain analysis, or cognitive mapping. The problem analysis tool described

in this chapter (below), however, is in part quite different from some of these approaches.

For instance, the proposed tool provides a more robust conceptual structure for

classifying causes compared to conventional causal chain analysis. Also, the tool puts

more emphasis on people and their actions, which is often neglected in system analysis

approaches. For a dense, but illustrative compilation of systems features that are of

relevance for sustainability problems, I recommend to read the review article on

“Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems” by Jianguo Liu and colleagues

(2007).

3 The Basic Systemic-Causal Structure of Sustainability Problems

The objective of identifying particular problems as sustainability problems asserts that they get addressed by professionals with expertise in sustainability. The step of analyzing sustainability problems has three objectives:

1. Dissecting the systemic-causal structures of the problem. 2. Identifying critical intervention points and systems relations. 3. Doing this without overwhelming the stakeholders involved.

As justified above, the ultimate goal is to support the problem-solving efforts in the

subsequent steps (described in the following chapters).

It is important to recognize that the step of analyzing the problem builds upon the results of the previous step, i.e., identifying a sustainability problem. We use the results from the

previous step, and specify, complement, substantiate, and refine them here. For example,

the feature “complex causes” has already revealed some relevant causes as well as exemplary chains of causes and effects in the problem constellation. These insights are a useful starting point for the problem analysis.

The core of the analysis is organized in a sequence of four sub-steps, with an additional

sub-step added at the end (Section 4, below). The rationale underlying this sequence is

the following:

1. We begin the analysis backwards, in reverse order of the conventional cause- effect link. We revisit, specifying, and refining the adverse or negative effects and who is being affected, as the entry point of the problem analysis. Results from the identification phase are important here, including information on the features

“significantly harmful over the long term” and “dispersed effects”.

2. Next, we trace those adverse effects back to the immediate causes, which means, to the actions, activities, and behavior of people, as well as the technologies and infrastructures they use. It is important to recognize that sustainability problems are often not caused by isolated, unusual actions (sometimes they are). Most often they are caused by everyday activities and behavior of many societal actors.

It is also important to carefully observe the technologies and infrastructures that

often amplify activities and behavior, and thereby the effects, too.

3. We then analyze the benefits that are generated by doing these activities, and the people that benefit from them. The reason is that most activities that lead to detrimental effects also result in benefits, real or perceived ones. The benefits are often considered to outweigh the negative effects. They might not appear in the

same realm (e.g., location) as the negative effects and might not pertain to the

same people.

4. Next, we trace the causing actions, activities, and behavior back to their drivers and causes. These are so-called background drivers or root causes of the identified and analyzed detrimental effects. We differentiate five types of background

drivers, namely motives, capacities, rules, resources, and external factors. These

root causes are powerful potential intervention points.

5. Finally, we consider external drivers, such as a change in climatic conditions, and analyze their influence on the other drivers as well as on the causing actions and

activities.

èExercise. Use the article “Earth is Parched Where Syrian Farms Thrived” published in The New York Times (Worth, 2010). As mentioned above, the article points to and exemplifies a complex web of causes (actions, politics, decisions) that resulted in

detrimental environmental, economic, and social effects for the society in Syria. Try to

identify detrimental effects and affected stakeholders; causing actions, activities,

behavior, as well as related technologies and infrastructures; benefits and benefitting

stakeholders; background drivers such as motives, capacities, rules, resources; and finally

external factors. Don’t try to do a thorough analysis, just apply the concepts based on

your current understanding. The goal of this exercise is that you get a first “feel” for the

analytical tool. You will refine your understanding of each element as we move forward.

1. Where is the pain? - Adverse effects and affected stakeholders

The introductory section of this chapter pointed to the importance of going beyond the

focus of public attention (what’s the damage) and addressing the underlying causes of

sustainability problems. That does not mean that we should ignore the damage. Accordingly, significantly harmful and dispersed effects have already been captured

during the identification phase. Yet, the account of damage is, unlike in popular media,

only the entry point of the analysis, and not its end.

Here it is about revisiting, specifying, and refining the adverse or negative effects we have

captured during the identification phase. Have we identified and documented all

damages, loss, decay, suffering, pain, injuries, deaths, and extinction? In summary, have

we captured all the detrimental issues that ultimately manifest that there is a problem of significance? In addition, we need to make sure that we sufficiently refer to critical

thresholds and tipping points in order to justify a significant degree of harm. The genuine perspective on sustainability problems requires revisiting, among others, the long-term implications of the identified effects, as impacts on future generations are important for

sustainability efforts. We review and revise, if necessary, the results from the

identification phase where we demonstrated how the problem threatens:

(1) Viability or integrity of ecosystems (2) Human and social wellbeing

(3) Equitable opportunity for livelihood and economic activities

(4) Justice across societies (inter-regional justice)

(5) Justice from one generation to the next (inter-generational justice)

We also use insights from the identification phase to summarize and specify the dispersed

effects (across sectors and spatial boundaries).

Finally, we spell out who is currently or will be negatively affected by the identified issues, in short, the affected stakeholders. This is important because it motivates problem- solving efforts. Let’s reflect on the negative effects of an average product imported from

Asia into the U.S. We need to know the specific circumstances of how consumers

negatively affect local and regional livelihood, social structure, and environment by their

demand. We also need to know how the greenhouse gases emitted during the long-

distance transportation of the product negatively affect people in specific regions in

South-East Asia (e.g., sea level rise) or in Central Africa (e.g., droughts). Further, we need

to know the detrimental labor conditions of immigrant workers who package and

distribute the product in the U.S. And so forth. It is often challenging to develop a sense

of empathy for the groups and individuals affected in sustainability problems (see Section

4, below). Yet, this sense of concern, empathy, and responsibility is a key impulse to work

on mitigating these problems.

2. Who is to blame? Causing activities, actors, and technologies

Similar to the compilation and summary of the adverse effects and affected stakeholders,

as the entry point of the analysis, we should rely on results from the identification phase

(feature “complex causes”) when analyzing the immediate causes. We trace the effects

back to activities (used here interchangeably with actions or behavior), and identify the causing stakeholders. As mentioned, we do a functional analysis of the problem that helps us understand the critical cause-effect relations (and systemic features), in order to

identify promising intervention points. For convincing and incentivizing people to do

things differently, we first need to know who is causing the problem how, and secondly, why.

We focus on stakeholders responsible for the actions and behavior in question, in short,

the causing stakeholders. Identify the causing actors builds the base for assigning and negotiating responsibilities at a later stage. Responsibility has developed as one of the key normative terms and guiding principles in the sustainable development discourse (e.g.,

“Corporate Social Responsibility” or “Responsible Innovation”).

What is then a good way to characterize activities? First, it might be useful to use

standardized categories, so that it is easier to compare the results from different problem

analyses and draw insights across them. For instance, instead of using the terms

“ingesting”, “having a meal”, “dining”, or “taking in”, it would be better to use the

standardized term “eating” (with standardized qualifiers, if necessary). Second, it is

helpful to specify the activities as much as is reasonable. Instead of stating that the

causing activity is “consuming energy”, it is more tangible to describe the activity as

“watching TV” (with standardized qualifiers, if necessary). Third, when describing and

categorizing activities it is more relevant to formulate an actual activity, not the lack

thereof. For example, instead of stating one of the immediate causes of obesity as lack of physical activity, it is more accurate to state sedentary recreational activities (e.g.,

watching TV, playing video games, browsing the internet). It is also important to recognize

interactions, collective actions, and groups. In most sustainability problem constellations,

the causing activities include interactions and collective actions (working, trading, communicating, etc.) with the actors forming groups.

èReadings. There are several standardized systems for capturing people’s actions,

activities, and behavior, including interactions and collective activities. Psychological

research, and related disciplines such as behavioral economics, have developed and

applied several frameworks. For example, Daniel Kahneman and colleagues (2004) have

developed a survey method for characterizing daily life experience, for which they

developed standardized activity categories, including socializing, relaxing, working,

commuting, shopping, exercising, eating, and so forth. Even more applicable here, namely

to link effects and activities, is the article by Joachim Spangenberg and Sylvia Lorek (2002)

on sustainable household consumption. The authors propose an analytical framework

that links environmental impact categories to activity clusters and dominant acts of

consumption (within each cluster), including clothing, cleaning, recreating, housing, etc.

Similarly, Nigel Forrest and I (2014) used an analytical activities framework to capture the

immediate causes of positive and negative effects in small-scale communities.

One reason that many activities have significant negative impacts on other people and

the environment is that they are linked to technologies (including automated processes)

and infrastructures. They often amplify the effects of actions and activities. For example,

modern mobility behavior relies on large-scale technical systems, including cars, road

infrastructure, energy supply, raw material extraction, and so forth. This amplification is

the result of a technological transition process. Imagine doing laundry in a central

European city in the 18 th

century, which was mainly based on manual labor, simple

technologies (e.g., washboard), and fairly simple infrastructure (water system); versus doing laundry there in the 21

century, which is most often free of manual labor, while

based on complex technologies and infrastructures, namely laundry machines linked to

complex material, water, and energy infrastructures. Such a historical perspective sheds

light on the successive ‘complexification’ of production, consumption, and distribution

patterns in modern society. It also allows to explore past models of activities, technology,

and infrastructure that might be used as positive visions for the future, for instance,

deliberate simplification.

Complementary to the analysis of activities, we identify the technologies and infra-

structures in use. Considering the ‘technological throughput’ of industrialized societies,

this step focuses attention on the innumerous technologies and infrastructures that

enable, mediate, and often amplify the effects of activities. Examples include nuclear

power plants for running work places; weapons, surveillance technology, and walls for

securing premises; laundry machines and water infrastructure for cleaning; mobile

phones and IT infrastructure for entertaining; and so forth. There are hardly any activities

in modern societies that would not heavily rely on large-scale technology and infra-

structures.

Of particular interest are in this context emerging, complex (high-risk), ambivalent, and

controversial technologies because they feature increased levels of risk and negative

effects. Emerging technologies such as nanotechnology or synthetic biology, while often

praised as remedies for society’s problems, are also suggested to lead to various negative

impacts on the environment and public health (e.g., asbestos-like features). In addition,

they often enhance other technologies that contribute to the current state of sustain-

ability problems. Complex, high-risk technologies, such as nuclear power plants, have a

track record of creating long-lasting damages to environment and society, often spanning

several decades (e.g., nuclear catastrophes in Chernobyl and Fukushima). Ambivalent and

controversial technologies, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), while not

conclusively linked to detrimental effects (yet), are considered by a large part of society to have negative impacts, and thereby have negative effects (social amplification of risk).

Also important from a causal perspective is that technologies and infrastructures are

“structural” factors, which channel and predetermine activities along certain predefined trajectories. That technologies and infrastructures, on the one hand, and activities, on the

other hand, reinforce each other has been described as the process of “structuration”.

For example, a sprawled urban design developed for car mobility leads to dominant

mobility patterns that favor cars over walking, biking, transit use. In return, dominant car

mobility leads to maintaining and expanding sprawled urban design. Structuration

processes are important to recognize to understand path dependency and persistence of

behavioral patterns and their negative outcomes.

èReadings. There are numerous interesting readings on the role of technology in

society, many of which are relevant for sustainability problem solving. Historical studies

have been undertaken to reveal dynamics of long-term transitions in the societal domains

of mobility, energy, food, etc. An exemplary study by Frank Geels (2005) reconstructs the

co-evolution of water infrastructure and personal hygiene between 1850 and 1930 in the

Netherlands. We undertook a study to reveal the ambivalent features of nano-

technologies, with focus on urban development and sustainability (Wiek, Guston, et al.,

2013). Charles Perrow (1984) deconstructs in his pioneering study the complex character

of high-risk technologies such as nuclear power plants and aircraft systems. Anthony

Giddens (1984) developed the theory of structuration, linking structures (including infra-

structures) and actions. Bethany Cutts and colleagues (2009) provide an illustrative

example of structuration by showing how urban design and physical infrastructure

channels unhealthy mobility behavior.

Actors in their activities are often influenced by other actors. For example, children’s

activities (e.g., watching TV) are influenced by their parents’ activities (e.g., spending less

time with their family on recreation and instead more time working). And technologies

and infrastructures used in actions and activities are the result of other actions and

activities. For instance, nanotechnologies are the result of complex innovation processes

with multiple intertwined actions and actors. This adds another level of complexity to the

cause-effect structure of sustainability problems that needs to be addressed in the

analysis.

We therefore apply this analytical perspective in iteration to identify chains of actions, activities, and behavior that ultimately lead to the adverse effects identified. This provides

an overview of the net of immediate causes.

èExercise. Select a routine activity (e.g., doing laundry) and deconstruct it in terms of

constituent actions, technology used, supporting infrastructures, and so forth. Consider

the purpose of the activity and why it is done in a certain way, if it is standardized (i.e.,

most people do it this way), if there are viable alternative ways of fulfilling the purpose, and the extent to which individuals are able to use alternatives.

3. Who wins anyway? Benefits and benefiting stakeholders

Someone’s loss is most often someone else’s gain. Prominent examples are catastrophes.

While they leave hundreds or thousands of people killed, injured, traumatized, and

exposed, they also provide business opportunities for planners, architects, construction

industry, and social workers to provide shelter, food, and clean water. Similarly,

sustainability problems do not only entail detrimental effects, they also include benefits

that result from the same activities that create harm and peril. Let’s take the example of

water contamination through the release of pesticides from agricultural activities. While

contaminated water is clearly a negative effect, the agricultural yield is a benefit that

results from pesticide use, too. It is not even uncommon that the same stakeholders gain

benefits and simultaneously suffer the negative consequences from their actions. For example, the consumption of unhealthy food provides comfort and results in negative

health effects for overweight children. In summary, there are benefits and winners

stemming from the same activities we just identified as immediate causes of the

detrimental effects we intend to mitigate or erase.

In order to capture benefits and benefitting stakeholders, we now move forward (not backwards) from the causing activities to the (perceived) positive effects. Such benefits

are of a wide range, including profits, safety, capacity, social connections, happiness, and

comfort. The benefits are a key factor for the persistence of sustainability problems. Thus,

it is important to account carefully and comprehensively for these benefits and bene-

fitting stakeholders. This will enable us to anticipate resistance and reluctance to inter-

vene in the problem constellation. Intentions to change the status quo inevitably lead to

opposition from those who benefit from the current state. For example, Koch Industries,

heavily invested in non-renewable energy supply, have launched several well-funded

initiatives in order to undermine renewable energy initiatives that take action on climate

change (Davenport, 2013).

Let’s turn to the dynamic between positive and negative effects. First, can we accumulate

benefits infinitely, or are there point when benefits turn into detriments, independent

from already accompanying negative effects? Many examples support the assumption

that benefits are only beneficial within boundaries. Let’s take the extraction of wood from a forest. Within reasonable limits harvesting wood generates benefits (e.g., use of wood

for construction and heating). Yet, too much extraction (overuse) can lead to extinction

and collapse. Similarly, research has shown that a sufficient level of material wealth

supports happiness. Yet, when continuously increased, at one point, no additional happi-

ness is gained and, in fact, very high levels of material wealth come along with worries

and conflicts (Kahneman et al., 2006).

Accounting for benefits and adverse effects simultaneously, we can reveal the

comparative weighting of negative and positive effects, so-called “trade-offs”. The

concept of sustainability, as pointed out in the previous chapter, is devoted to a balance between different value spheres (environment, society, economy) and across different

spatial and temporal boundaries (inter-regional and inter-generational justice). There-

fore, sustainability proponents argue for bounded or conditional trade-offs, as well as the fair distribution of gains and burdens among benefitting and negatively affected stake- holders. These are obviously major challenges, and one-sided benefits or unequal sharing

of gains and burdens are dominating in sustainability problems.

Finally, as mentioned in Chapter I, negative effects in sustainability problems are less

“unintended” (as in the prominent phrase about “unintended consequences”) than

“willfully accepted”. They are accepted because they are considered to be outweighed by

beneficial effects. The wrinkle is, however, who is considering here – often those taking the gain without carrying the burden. For example, industrialized nations are still willing

to accept the negative impacts of over-consumption because they are far less suffering

the “unintended consequences” of climate change.

èReadings. Robert Gibson (2006) highlights the relevance of bounded or conditional

trade-offs, i.e., that “no significant adverse effects in any core [sustainability] category

can be justified by compensations of other kinds, or in other places” (p. 175). Makena

Coffman and Karen Umemoto (2009) provide examples from planning practices in the

U.S. that illustrate this important rule of conditional trade-offs, as opposed to unbounded

ones.

4. What is below the surface? Drivers of people’s actions

We have identified activities, as well as the used technologies and infrastructures as the

immediate causes of the detrimental effects in which a given sustainability problem

manifests. Now we take the next step back and look deeper into the systemic-causal

structure of the problem. Namely, we intend to reveal the root causes of the problem,

which means, we trace the causing activities as well as the thereby used technologies and

infrastructures back to their drivers and causes. We then arrive at background drivers or root causes of the detrimental effects. The guiding question for background drivers is: Why do people do what they do in their activities? A common pattern when answering this question is to provide reasons, explanations, or a justification for one’s actions. For

example, “I did this because I/we wanted to have fun”; or “We did this because it’s the law”; or “I did this because I had the money to do it”. Often, there is more than just one driver to reveal in order to fully explain what drives an action.

In order to not get overwhelmed by all the drivers at play, we differentiate six

standardized types of background drivers, namely motives, assumptions, rules, capacities, resources, and external factors. In simple terms:

1. Motives make us do what we do

2. Assumptions guide us in what we do

3. Rules regulate what we do

4. Capacities enable us to do what we do 5. Resources allow us to do what we do

6. External factors force us to do what we do

While there are alternative ways of categorizing drivers, these six categories have proven

to provide a robust orientation. Let's apply these categories to the case of childhood

obesity and one of the causing actions, namely sedentary recreational activities, e.g.,

watching TV, playing videogames, or communicating via social media. The following

background drivers, among others, come into play:

1. Desire for convenience and comfort [Motives]

2. Assumption that sedentary recreational activities do not create negative effects [Assumptions – note that also false assumptions can drive actions]

3. Peer expectation to participate in social media communication [Rules]

4. Technical literacy to use social media for communication [Capacities] 5. Funds to buy and use entertainment technologies [Resources]

6. Heat that limit outdoor recreational activities in arid climates such as Phoenix, AZ [External factors]

It is important to remember the overall purpose of the problem analysis (functional

approach) – namely, to identify powerful intervention points that allow stakeholders to

intervene in the problem constellation and ultimately to resolve it. Activities, as well as

the used technologies and infrastructures are important intervention points. Yet, it is

often difficult or even impossible to change them directly. Most often one needs to address the background drivers or root causes to change activities. Knowing why people do what they do provides relevant information for change. For example, in order to

change children’s physical activities with the goal to mitigate childhood obesity it would

be effective to:

1. Instill in kids a desire for being active outdoors and having fun doing it [Motives]

2. Provide kids with knowledge on the positive effects of healthy lifestyle choices [Capacities]

3. Train kids in respecting rules for physical interactions, for example, rules of soccer, basketball, or dancing [Rules]

4. Teach kids motor skills for physical activities [Capacities]

5. Provide kids with funds to access recreational facilities [Resources]

6. Create vegetation and shading structures that would enable outdoor activities in arid environments such as Phoenix, AZ [External factors]

All of these are not direct interventions into the physical activities themselves – they all target background drivers in order to change children’s physical activity.

Similar to the reinforcing linkages between actions and infrastructures, the theory of

structuration (see above, 2.) also applies to the link between those primary drivers

(immediate causes) and the background drivers. Activities that are, for example, driven

by rules contribute to their reinforcement and persistence.

Finally, activities are also induced and imposed by force or external conditioning, at times.

This includes natural as well as human force. These external factors will be addressed in

the final section (4.6.). The occurrence of any of the six factors does not completely

predetermine specific activities – not even the external ones. There are always different

options and choices to make.

èReadings. Philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, neuroscientists, and other scholars

and professionals have conceptualized what drives people’s actions. Prominent theories

– some of them refined since the ancient philosophers and spiritual leaders – include

determinism, behaviorism, ethnocentrism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, and others. Also

religious and spiritual schools of thought contributed various perspectives. Within and

across these theoretical and spiritual frameworks, various issues have been (fiercely)

discussed over hundreds, even thousands of years. For example, the extent of free will

and freedom in taking actions; the role of authority in driving actions; the accessibility of

background drivers, such as motives, that are not directly observable; the evolution of

background drivers over long periods of time; and the variance of background drivers

across different cultures. The reader “A Companion to the Philosophy of Action” edited

by Timothy O'Connor and Constantine Sandis (2010) provides a compilation of numerous

essays on these and other themes addressing the link between actions and their drivers.

Anja Kollmuss and Julian Agyeman (2002) review – more specifically related to

sustainability – different models of what drives sustainability-related actions.

4.1. Motives, needs, preferences, values

A strong driver for activities (or actions and behavior) are motives, needs, preferences,

values, intentions, wants, desires, instincts, affects, and so forth. While they display all

slightly different features, they have a great deal in common. And this commonality is

what we focus on here. They all have in common that they tend to make us do what we do. Activities are not randomly occurring, but most often, at least to some extent,

intended. That means they pursue a particular purpose – they are purpose-driven. For example, eating is driven by hunger or appetite and the intention to satisfy this need. In

the following we discuss a variety of features pertaining to motives, needs, preferences,

values, etc. that are relevant in the context of analyzing sustainability problems (Figure

6).

Figure 6. Features of motives, needs, preferences, values, etc. important for analyzing sustainability

problems.

When determining poverty levels, people’s needs are often differentiated into basic needs for subsistence vs. healthy or sustainable needs for well-being. Basic needs drive actions to survive. They motivate daily activities to preserve a minimum level of health. This includes producing or obtaining and maintaining basic material necessities, including

food, clothing, medicine, shelter, communication device, etc., as well as immaterial goods

such as social relations and happiness. Healthy or sustainable needs aspire more. They strive for an individual’s survival and integrity. Following the concept of sustainability introduced above, these needs pursue survival and integrity, but do not compromise the

viability or integrity of society’s foundational social or environmental systems. Different

societies and cultures have significantly differing ideas on what basic and sustainable

needs are. Similarly, they can change over time. While needs refer to essential for survival

and integrity, the wide spectrum of wants refers to desires. Wants are very powerful driver of activities. They often go along with feelings of entitlement. It is those wants that

are at the root of most sustainability problems. It is important not only to identify needs

and wants, but also critically assess their legitimacy against ideas of responsibility and

solidarity, as well as the introduced principles of sustainability.

Another useful differentiation for sustainability problem solving is between conscious and unconscious intentions. While we are aware of some of our motives and preferences and we can articulate them to others, this is not always the case. Deeply internalized needs

or desires might play out as instincts or affects with little consciousness and control by

the actor. There are powerful internalized preferences such as fear that have a strong

impact on what people do, individually and collectively. There is a multi-billon dollar

industry in the U.S. that provides civil security devices (guns, walls, fences, locks, electric

wires, alarm systems, etc.) that are supposed to protect us – from each other. Fear, or

more precisely the “culture of fear”, is one of the core drivers of these types of actions

and technologies.

The drivers categorized here (motive, needs, etc.) are often of a personal nature – I claim it is my intention (or will, fear, etc.) to do X or Y. Yet, through interactions with others, including peers, colleagues, friends, and family, we often adopt other people’s intentions,

consciously or unconsciously. So, motives can be widely shared, even if we consider them

being of a personal nature. The culture of fear mentioned above indicates such a shared

set of motives. Let’s take, as another example, the need and want for communicating and

thereby using communication technologies. Currently, the average actual lifespan of a cell

phone in the U.S. is only 1-2 years, a fraction of its functional lifespan. Considering that

more than 200 million cell phones are in use in the U.S., it is not hard to argue that the

driver for continuously buying new cell phones is a collective desire. This example highlights the transition between motives and rules (formal and informal ones). Motives

are less standardized and accessible than rules. Yet, the former might morph into the

latter over time. For example, one might argue that the need or want for a new mobile

every 1-2 years is now rather a social expectation or informal rule than an individual or

collective motive.

Another important issue is that motives can be weak and might not lead to any activities. While most motives make us do what we do, the weak ones might not. Let’s assume you might have had the intention to do something, but eventually you did not do it. While this can be positive, for instance, by avoiding harm (caution), it can also be negative if one

does not act according to his/her sustainability values. The value-action or intention- action gap is widely described for sustainability matters as the lack of following through despite good intentions. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the lack of

action is rarely only a lack – most often it is just doing what we are used to doing, driven

by default intentions. For example, one might not buy fresh, healthy food, despite his/her

intentions to eat healthier, because it is easier to buy and consume convenience food.

There is not a lack of intention, but the intention of convenience dominates the intention

of eating healthy. Being aware of the intention-action gap and knowing the intention that

drives the current action are both important information for problem-solving efforts.

Motives, needs, preferences, and values do not remain constant over the lifetime of an

individual or a collective. They change. Yet, some more easily than others. This has led to the differentiation between preferences and values. Let’s say Lea is used to a meat-based

diet. She might not be willing or might have a hard time to change to a vegetarian diet

despite health and environmental benefits. One reason is that this would mean to change

some of the values embodied in her eating habits. Preferences are often considered more

peripheral and we are more willing or able to shift them. Values, which are often

embodied in habits, are deeply rooted and we are less willing or able to change them.

This is important for intervention efforts, which need to get designed differently,

depending on whether they aim at changing preferences or values.

Sustainability problems often display conflicts in motives, needs, preferences, values, etc.

among different stakeholder groups. Conflicts manifest when one party has the means

and uses them to enforce their interests (see Section 4.4. below). Revealing conflicts is a

first step, but does not necessarily resolve them. Actively reconciling such conflicts is an

important activity in sustainability visioning (see Chapter IV). Motives, needs,

preferences, values, etc. can even be in conflict when held by the same person. Let’s take Peter as an example, who is used to drive with his car to work. Since he heard about

extended drought periods in the southwestern U.S. and other impacts, he is getting

concerned about climate change. While he thinks it is important to mitigate climate

change, he is not willing to shift his mode of transportation. So, convenience and concern

are in conflict. We usually deal with these tensions by putting different weights or giving

different priorities to our preferences or values.

While activities, as well as the technologies and infrastructures used, are directly

observable and can be documented in facts and figures, motives are less easily accessible.

Most often we rely on reasons, explanations, or justifications people offer for why they do/did what they do/did. But some people might lie or deceive others. In sustainability

problem solving it is important to recognize that not all intentions are necessarily put on

the table by the involved stakeholder groups. Some groups might have an interests in not

disclosing their true intentions.

While the differences to the other drivers will be explained and illustrated in the following

sections, it is important to recognize the difference between motives and benefits. Before

benefits are being realized, we develop expectations, aspirations, and intentions. Benefits

are already realized, while motives intend to realize benefits.

èReadings. Peter Schmuck and Wesley Schultz (2002) provide a good overview of the

role and relevance of motives, needs, preferences, values, etc. for sustainability in their

book “Psychology of Sustainable Development”. Anthony Leiserowitz and colleagues

(2006) provide an overview of sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors from a global

perspective. Reflecting on the poverty discourse since the World Summit on Social

Development in Copenhagen in 1995, Chris Sarlo (2007) discusses the concepts of needs

as drivers of consumption in the article “Measuring poverty – what happened to

Copenhagen?”. Frank Furedi (2006) wrote an influential book on the “culture of fear” that

explores fear as an important driver of our activities (or actions, behavior). More recently

(2015), two articles have been published in international media (The Economist and the Global Edition of the Handelsblatt) on “The Politics of Panic” (The Economist, 2015; Williams, 2015). Both articles analyze how the Republican Party in the U.S. plays on the

fears of voters shaken by terrorism and how Republican Party candidate Donald Trump

tries to capitalize on this fear by calling for the exclusion of Hispanics, Muslims, and

immigrants. Both articles allude to the multi-layered impact of fear on activities. Susan

Strasser (1999) explores the link between motives and material-intense consumption

patterns in “Waste and Want – A Social History of Trash”. Giles Slade explores the

conditioning of consumers to want more, better, faster products in his book “Made to

Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America” (2006).

4.2. Assumptions, Beliefs, Knowledge

While the previous section was about needs and wants, i.e., drivers that often make us do what we do, this section is about assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge. These are

drivers that guide us in what we do. Different assumptions and beliefs are considered to be true by different people. Also, different assumptions and beliefs display different levels

of approval. Knowledge is a set of assumptions or beliefs that is considered true and has been approved by some mechanism of confirmation, including experience, authority, or

peer review. Peer review is a prominent approval mechanism that relies on a community

of trusted people, e.g., among professionals or scientists.

The introduced definition of knowledge as true and approved assumptions pertains not only to scientific knowledge, but also to other types of assumptions that have been

confirmed through a mechanism of approval. Over decades or even centuries, topical or

issue-related clusters have been cultivated into scientific or academic disciplines, as repositories of topical knowledge. Such disciplines include philosophy, biology, sociology,

medicine, and so forth. There are other bodies of knowledge that have been nurtured

over equally long or even longer periods of time, for instance, through oral history. Other

important categorizations of assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge account for their

temporal reference, or what they are used for. For instance, assumptions on the future,

or knowledge on how to design impactful policies can become important drivers of

actions. For analyzing sustainability problems, it is important to review the claims asso-

ciated with assumptions and beliefs against accepted criteria. Such a review offers

opportunities for a particular type of intervention, namely providing arguments and

convincing people. Yet, first and foremost, it is important to acknowledge and reveal the

assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge that drive the activities in question.

Even if assumptions or beliefs are false, given certain true/false criteria, they might still

guide us, or, more precisely, misguide us. Let’s take as an example the false assumptions held by climate change deniers. The assumptions that climate change is not happening or

that it is not caused by human activities runs contrary to broad scientific evidence, which

has been peer-reviewed by a wide community of scientists around the world, including

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Still, these false assumptions

drive activities of climate change deniers. Another example is the lack of understanding

the complex structure of and processes in ecosystems, which often leads to sub-optimal

conservation efforts. For analyzing sustainability problems, it is important to differentiate

situations in which individuals or groups base their actions on false or insufficient

assumptions vs. situations in which individuals or groups base their actions on motives in

contradiction to sustainability values. The former is driven by flawed assumptions, the

latter by unsustainable values. The outcomes of their actions might be the same, but the

drivers are different. Thus, the interventions need to differ accordingly in order to be

successful.

Assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge vary across different individuals, age groups, social

groups, nations, and cultures. Cognitive development is a key process for children to

acquire knowledge that successively guide them in their doing. Similarly, learning and

continued education allows for life-long acquisition of new knowledge. Through pro-

cesses of sharing and collaborating, assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge become

collective goods. For example, running a solar cooperative requires that a number of

people with complementary knowledge sets collaborate. Only the collective knowledge set enables the group to run the solar cooperative. Yet, every individual contributes

particular pieces of knowledge to the overall endeavor.

Similar to the intention-action-gap, discussed in the previous section (4.1.), it is important

to recognize the occurrence of knowledge-action-gaps. In other words, knowledge as

enabling factor of actions is often a necessary condition, yet, not a sufficient one for

actually taking an action. Let’s say, Tom would like to be more physically active, such as working out in a gym, to achieve health benefits. But he doesn’t know where a gym is, how to become a member, how to use the machines, and so forth. Lack of knowledge is

a major barrier to taking the intended action. This is why we call knowledge a necessary condition for executing action. Yet – and this is critical here – even if Tom knows how to work out in a gym, this might not lead to Tom actually working out in the gym, because

he might not be motivated to do so. This is why we call knowledge a necessary, but not a

sufficient condition for executing action. So, there is a strong link between motives and knowledge that need to play together in order to actually drive an action.

Similar to the analysis of intentions, it is more useful for analyzing sustainability problems

to describe the existing assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge that drive actions, instead

of pointing out a lack thereof.

èReadings. If you are interested in more foundational perspectives on assumptions,

beliefs, and knowledge, you might want to review cognitive studies, neuroscience,

science and technology studies (STS), or epistemological studies. Epistemology is the

study of how people acquire and apply knowledge; it is a sub-discipline of philosophy and

psychology. Just be aware that only a small part of this literature addresses the link from

knowledge to action (you need to specifically search for this). Jean Piaget and colleagues

(1969) have developed a detailed theory on the evolution of knowledge (also in the

context of actions) in early childhood. More recently, Esther Thelen (1996) has written an

influential book entitled “A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition

and Action”. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have pioneered the study of flawed

assumptions, heuristics, and biases in everyday judgments (Gilovich et al., 2002). Cross-

cultural psychologists and anthropological scholars have written on the cultural

differences pertaining to assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge. An influential book is

Edward Evans-Pritchard (1976) “Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande”. Less

academic, but easily accessible and insightful is Nigel Barley’s (1983) book “The Innocent

Anthropologist”. A short and provocative perspective on the same topic provides Richard

Rorty’s (2002) article “Solidarity or Objectivity?”. David Cash and colleagues (2003) frame

the challenges of sustainability through the lens of knowledge (and the lack thereof) in

the article “Knowledge Systems for Sustainability”.

4.3. Rules, norms, laws

Rules influence and regulate people’s actions, activities, and behavior, to varying degrees.

There is a wide variety of rules, including norms, standards, guidelines, regulations, laws,

common sense, customs, and so forth. Rules provide an additional analytical component

for our understanding why people do what they do.

While motives and assumptions are considered largely attributes of individuals (with the

overlaps discussed above), social rules are being shared among collectives. These collectives can be as large as the citizenry of an international consortium of nations such

as the United Nations and their human rights codex. They can also be as small as native

groups with not more than a few dozen people sharing a particular custom. Rules don’t

have to be place-based, they can even function in highly dispersed settings, for instance,

in case of grammatical rules or rules of popular games.

One can distinguish between formal and informal rules. Formal rules are written in law or are part of established codes such as road rules, building codes, or safety manuals.

Informal rules are norms shared in a collective, e.g., etiquette, but they are not officially

coded in law or other officially enforced or enforceable structures. Formal rules and

enforcement of them are closely linked. Therefore, one might say that formal rules usually

“appear” in the form of people enforcing them. A great deal of formal rules, for instance,

appear in form of the police. That does not mean that informal rules are less powerful.

Informal rules are as important as formal ones in guiding activities, and they are equally

enforced, even if more subtle than formal ones. In fact, the enforcement of formal or

informal rules does not necessarily include any kind of physical force. For example,

authority is a very powerful mechanism for rule enforcement that most often functions

without physical force (prominently illustrated in the so-called “Milgram Experiments” –

see recommended readings below).

There is a productive tension between motives and rules. While motives drive actions

rather through the individual (we already discussed exceptions), rules drive actions

through the collective. That does not mean that people cannot disobey rules. They can,

they have, and they will. But the threat of rule enforcement puts greater pressure on the

individual to comply with rules. It usually outmatches the drive of motives or intentions

the individual sets for himself/herself, if they are in conflict with the rules. There are quite

often cases where individual motives and collective rules are in conflict.

In some cases, such conflicts can trigger individual and collective disobedience. This can,

in some cases, eventually lead to a change of rules (structural changes). Social movements

often result in a change of rules. A critical factor in this process is that the tension reaches

a critical number of people. In these cases, what starts from a few individuals not com-

plying with rules leads to a large number of disobeying people, which can eventually shift

the rule in question. The Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. was based on this dynamic of

cumulative disobedience.

However, rules are often introduced and enforced to drive actions that create benefits

for only a few groups in society, such as elites and leaders. The true intent of such rules is

often obscured through propaganda, misinformation, and other refined mechanisms

delivered by the beneficiaries. Let's take the example of gun control, and the lack thereof,

in the U.S. Every year, several ten thousands of people die from guns in the U.S. Yet, there

is a lack of political will to address this problem seriously by changing critical rules. For

example, this was demonstrated by the U.S. senate’s negative vote on low-level gun

control through basic background checks on April 17, 2013. President Obama’s speech

after the rejection (see the video archive of The New York Times) articulates how this decision was taken against the public’s will, as polls had indicated that the majority of the

U.S. public would support this type of background check. So, this rejection, or, in other

words, upholding the lenient rules in place was driven by powerful private interests, including the National Rifle Association, gun producers, and other special interest groups.

The irony is that there is no accountability of politicians or corporations for the ongoing

killings. This provides another example of how society lacks its constitutionally granted

right to influence politics and business interests towards public interests. For analyzing sustainability problems, it is important to understand that the influence of special interest

groups works in various ways, some of which are not easily revealed.

For example, in the same case of gun control, there is an important development to

recognize that did not reach the public discourse, but is of high relevance. It is the

defunding of research on gun control and related issues over the past decade. Reduction

of funding is not just accidentally happening. In many cases, it is the result of strategic

decisions and influences executed by powerful special interest groups to avoid, in fact,

prevent that particular research results (evidence) are being produced. Garen Wintemute (2013), who is a professor at the University of California Davis, explains the mechanism

for the case of defunding research on the prevention of gun violence: “The disappearance

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research program in this field in

the 1990s has been well documented. A complementary program at the National Institute

of Justice survived longer, thanks to the tenacity of its program officer, but ended after

she retired in 2008. Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there

are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a

dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers

primarily on firearm violence. Only 2 are physicians. Only 1 has evaluated the effective-

ness of an assault weapons ban. Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were

producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation’s firearm policies. To

those whose interests were threatened by such reforms, it made perfect sense to choke

off the production of the evidence. This effort was led by Congressman Jay Dickey, self

described “point person for the NRA.” It succeeded. When rates of firearm violence were

at historic highs and appeared to be increasing, the government abandoned its

commitment to understanding the problem and devising evidence-based solutions.”

(Wintemute, 2013, p. 741-42)

As with the previous problem features, it is more useful for analyzing sustainability

problems to describe the existing rules, norms, and laws that drive actions, instead of

pointing out a lack thereof.

èReadings. Institutional theory and various fields of sociology provide frameworks for

how to analyze rules. For example, Elinor Ostrom (1990) developed a prominent, often

applied framework for the analysis of rules and collective actions in the context of

resource use. An exemplary study on rules (and their evolution), particularly relevant for

sustainability, is Elizabeth Shove’s (2003) work on comfort, cleanliness, and convenience.

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway (2010) published a groundbreaking study on how

powerful stakeholder groups deliberately use their influence against public interests. If

you are interested in learning more about the general link between actions and rules (in

their various sub-forms) you might want to review studies by Michel Foucault (1984 –

historical studies on institutions and actions), Pierre Bourdieu (1977 – theory of practice

as habits), and Anthony Giddens (1984 – structuration theory on reinforcing mechanisms

between rules and actions). Unsettling insights into the complex link between authority

and action are derived from Stanley Milgram’s experiments on “Obedience to Authority”

(1974).

4.4. Capacities, skills, competence

This section is about drivers that enable us to do what we do, including capacities, abilities, capabilities, skills, and competence. We focus here on capacities, skills, and

competence of a practical nature, i.e., how to do something. For example, how to retrofit a house, use the public transit, or resolve a conflict. Capacity always embodies and

activates assumptions and knowledge. Capacity in conjunction with assumptions and

knowledge enables action. For example, some plumbers know how to install a greywater

harvesting system. Accordingly, capacities can be defined as a functionally linked complex

of knowledge and skills that influence actions.

Types and levels of capacities vary significantly across different individuals, age groups,

social groups, nations, and cultures. Levels of capacities can be differentiated from novice

and intermediate to advanced levels. With the emergence of the convenience society and

its endless stream of products and services, large parts of the population in industrialized

nations do not acquire certain skills relevant for sustainability. For instance, in such

societies there is an increasing lack of capacity to live healthy lifestyles, including

nutritional knowledge, how to cook a healthy meal, how to store fresh produce, how to

stay active, and so forth. While the international development discourse often refers to

under-development, sustainability is equally concerned with over-development and the outsourcing of capacities.

Through processes of collaboration, capacities can become collective. For example,

running a farm requires that a number of people with complementary capacities collabo-

rate and coordinate their actions. One could argue that only the collective capacity en- ables the group to run the farm. Yet, every individual contributes particular skills to the

overall endeavor.

Most features presented above under 4.2. (Assumptions) apply here in a similar way.

Capacities need to be acquired, can lock us into certain unsustainable behaviors, etc.

Similar to the other problem feature, it is more useful for analyzing sustainability

problems to describe the existing capabilities that drive activities, instead of pointing out

a lack thereof. It is tempting to use competencies in sustainability or other concepts for

addressing problems of capacities. Yet, it is important to focus on the existing capabilities

to start from where the current problem resides, instead of hastily rushing to the

envisioned capacities (which will be brought up in the next chapter about sustainability

visioning). This should inform the subsequent steps of the problem-solving sequence, for

example, when exploring educational programs to alter capacities or build new ones.

èReadings. Several groundbreaking studies have been published on capacities, and the

lack thereof, that become drivers in sustainability problem constellations. Charles

Perrow’s (1984) study on “Normal Accidents” deals with deficient capacities in operating

high-risk technologies. Dietrich Doerner (1996) wrote the book “The Logic of Failure”

revealing deficits in capacities when planning and taking decisions on complex systems.

As mentioned in the section on assumptions (4.2.), Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky

pioneered the study of limited capacities focusing on heuristics and biases in everyday

judgments (Gilovich et al., 2002). The capability approach introduced by Amartya Sen

(2001) is a normative concept that defines basic human capacities that should be

maintained on a sufficient level. It can be considered an anthropocentric sustainability

concept. A great deal of educational literature has been written on capacities and

competencies required for sustainability (see for a review: Wiek et al., 2011).

4.5. Resources

Resources, similar to capacities, allow us to do what we do. They are here defined as material and social supporters of action, even if virtual in form of money. The lack thereof prohibits people to do other actions. Prominent resources include money, property,

natural resources, time, trust, or a supporting social network. Let's assume a community

builds a playground. All of the mentioned resources are necessary, or, at least, come in

handy in support of this action.

Resources are often shared (like in the example above). Yet, in most societies, resources

are disproportionally allocated to certain individuals and groups through heritage, jobs,

trade, exploitation, or other mechanisms. As widely reported over the past years, the

current income distribution in the U.S. is highly unequal. In fact, the income inequality,

on the rise since the 1970ies, is now highest since the 1920ies. The 2013 documentary

film “Inequality for All”, directed by Jacob Kornbluth, on the life and work of economist

Robert Reich provides background information on the history and the current trends of

income inequality in the U.S.

A related critical issue for the U.S. and many societies worldwide is the level of poverty,

meaning the lack of minimum resources to pursue actions that satisfy basic and

sustainable needs (cf. Sen’s capability approach). The past reports on the U.N. Millennium

Goals and the upcoming reports on the Sustainable Development Goals indicate that

progress on poverty alleviation is still slow, which manifests unsustainable states in many

societies. At the same time, affluence in industrial nations allows citizens to over-

consume, which also manifests unsustainable states in many societies. Recent studies

show that the level of household and consumer debt in the U.S. is stagnating on very high

levels. So, the U.S. population cannot really afford the consumptive lifestyle it maintains.

This, in return, might offer an interesting perspective on a win-win situation when it

comes to using the available resources in pursuit of actions that foster sustainability.

èReadings. Robert Reich’s (2010) book entitled “Aftershock: The Next Economy and

America's Future” deals with the widening income inequality and provides rich historical

and background information. Niall Ferguson (2012) has recently published a short article

in Newsweek on “Rich America, poor America” that illustrates the detrimental effects of

the widening income inequality in the U.S.

4.6. External Factors

Finally, external factors or forces influence actions from the outside, with limited options to directly change them. Climate change and its manifestations in floods and droughts are

human-induced, natural forces that can heavily influence what people do. In a desert

environment like in Phoenix, AZ, heat is a powerful force in conditioning people’s actions.

For example, it drives people to do the majority of their activities (or actions, behavior) in

air-conditioned facilities and cars. Other populations are exposed to other external

factors.

Considering dominant schemes of violence, exploitation, and slavery in many parts of the

world, the second external factor that influences actions from the outside is human force. People are often forced, pressed, conditioned to do certain things. Examples include

forced immigration, prostitution, child labor, and so forth. Human force is also often used

to condition behavior, for instance, in military and working camps.

èExercise. Depart from the same article “Earth is Parched Where Syrian Farms Thrived” published in The New York Times in October 2010 (Worth, 2010), used above. Search for additional sources and revise the initial problem analysis you have undertaken above:

review the detrimental effects and affected stakeholders; causing activities, as well as

thereby used technology and infrastructure; benefits and benefitting stakeholders;

background drivers such as motives, assumptions, rules, capacities, resources, and

external factors. Finally, create a conceptual figure that links all these factors in a causal

diagram!

4 Too Much to Handle – Mismatch between Complexity and Capacity

The complexity of systems including actions, technologies, and infrastructures created in

industrial societies is considered in many ways too complex to handle – and thus leads or contributes to the sustainability challenges these societies experience. Motives are often

too short sighted or lack inclusion (caring); knowledge is often too limited; and rules are

often too lenient or conflicting to manage or govern the systems of actions, technologies,

and infrastructures in a way that significantly harmful effects over the long-term can be

avoided.

It seems that we are often one step behind in “catching the rabbit” when it comes to

understanding and managing the complexity of the systems we design. A good example

is the modern version of technological innovation. There is a tension between techno-

logical advancements and insufficient understanding of adverse side effects, which is

usually resolved in favor of the technological advancements. It has been described in

technology studies since the early 1980s. Still, one of the predominant responses to

increased complexity is a call for greater knowledge. This call drives the science enterprise

in general and large-scale programs on life-cycle assessment, material and substance flow

analysis in particular. While we are largely incapable of anticipating, let alone managing,

adverse side effects of complex technologies and systems, we continue chasing the

rabbit. Yet, there are good reasons for doubting that a more refined study, a larger

sample, a better data processor might deliver the ultimate answers we are looking for.

These challenges pertain beyond knowledge. They equally apply to motives and

intentions. Let’s reflect on an average product imported from Asia into the US. Let’s even

assume we know the specific circumstances of how the production affects local and

regional livelihood, social structure, and environment. Also, let’s assume we know how

the greenhouse gases emitted during the long-distance transportation of the product

affect people in specific regions in South-East Asia (e.g., sea level rise) or in Central Africa

(e.g., droughts). Finally, assume we know the detrimental labor conditions of immigrant

workers who package and distribute the product in the US. And so forth. In short, let’s

assume we can catch the rabbit. Does this make us capable of dealing with the complexity

of the systems we designed? Do facts and figures suffice for that? It comes back to the

human scale and limits of capacity, here, with respect to motives, empathy, and solidarity.

Do we feel a sense of empathy for the person or ecosystem along the supply chain, even

if we do know details about them? Motives and emotional capacity are intangible, yet,

essential drivers of sustainability, and this adds another dimension to the challenge of

coping with complexity. The key challenge that emotional distance correlates with

geographical and cultural distance.

èReadings. The mismatch between complexity and capacity in a wide sense, as a constellation that perpetuates sustainability problems, has been demonstrated for large-

scale organizations, financial systems, planning processes, technology management, and

many other domains. The prominent sources by Doerner (1996) and Perrow (1984) have

already been mentioned above. More recently, a short and informative article on the

topic was written by Michael Crow (2007) entitled “None Dare Call it Hubris – The Limits

of Knowledge”.

Balancing systems complexity with limited motives, knowledge, and rules might be a good

guiding concept for sustainability problem solving, in particular for the two following

steps. It would replace accepting adverse side effects that often inevitably result from the

complexity of the systems we design. Instead, we might want to avoid such “normal

accidents” by designing simpler systems we have a better chance to understand, relate

to, manage and govern.

5 Putting the Tool Together

The tool for analyzing sustainability problems builds on the results from the problem

identification and focuses on the immediate and root causes of the identified problem. It

is structured into four analytical steps that lead from the adverse effects (1) to the

immediate causes (2), from there back to the benefits (3), and finally to the root causes

(4) of the problem constellation. Figure 7 visualizes the two different logics of the problem

analysis – namely, the systemic-causal structure of the problem and the process of

revealing it in the analysis.

Figure 7. Systemic-causal structure of sustainability problems with a set of causal categories and

links. The solid arrows (à) indicate causal links. The dashed grey arrows indicate the logic of the problem analysis, going back and forth, to eventually lead to the root causes of the problem.

In detail, the tool includes the following nine guiding questions:

1. What are the adverse effects? Who are the affected stakeholders? [Brief summary of the relevant results from the problem identification; specifying and refining, if

necessary]

2. What are the immediate causing activities (or actions, behavior), as well as the thereby used technologies and infrastructures? Who are the causing

stakeholders?

3. What are the benefits associated with these actions? Who are the benefiting stakeholders?

4. What are the causing actors’ motives, needs, preferences, and values that motivate the actions?

5. What are the causing actors’ assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge that guide the actions?

6. What are the rules, norms, and laws that regulate (encourage, permit) the actions?

7. What are the causing actors’ capacities, skills, and competence that enable the actions?

8. What are the causing actors’ resources that allow taking the actions?

9. What are relevant external factors that influence the actions?

In addition, the tool entails as final overarching question:

10. Is the problem constellation, entirely or in part, caused by a mismatch between the actors’ limited motives, knowledge, capacities, rules, and resources on the one

hand, and the complexity of chain of actions, technologies, and infrastructures

that cause the detrimental effects?

6 Filling the Tool with Life

We have built up initial familiarity and capacity to understand a tool for analyzing sustain-

ability problems in a reliable and transparent way. Yet, such a tool needs applications to

real-world sustainability problems to consolidate professional capacity.

This requires skills in data search, collection, assessment, interpretation, and transfer. For

instance, data is not always readily available for all ten guiding questions. In some cases,

data sets are not easily accessible, or they are costly, or of questionable quality. In those

cases, it is important to be aware of and experienced in using effective coping strategies.

Most importantly, data sets and information should always be peer-reviewed (approved

by a community of experts). This is the case for scientific publications, and often also for

research reports published by government agencies or non-profit research institutions.

All sources need to be fully referenced, in detail pointing to the part the information is

extracted from (including direct citations).

A key process in providing empirical data in the problem analysis is to define measurable

indicators that operationalize the larger analytical categories. For example, a formal rule can be operationalized through a law; or, a motive can be operationalized through a

justifying statement. Indicators allow data collection on the larger analytical categories.

Also, we seek to validate the causal relations between the analytical categories. That means, we need to substantiate, for instance, the claim that a motive is the key driver for

an action. Validation of causal relations can be done through a variety of methods,

including interviews (interpretation) or statistical analysis (factor analysis).

Finally, it is helpful to visualize the systemic-causal structure of the problem through a

systems graph (see Fig. 6). The system graph (or causal map) includes boxes for the analy- tical categories (and indicators) and arrows for the cause-effect relations between the

categories (and indicators).

èReadings. One of my former students and I have written an article about “Back to the Roots – Analyzing a Sustainability Problem Constellation of Habitat Deterioration, Waste

Spreading, and Consumption Patterns” (Abrahams and Wiek, 2011). Even if not quite up

to date, this study demonstrates how to apply the tool for problem analysis, and discusses

challenges and coping strategies in applying the tool.

While doing too little of analyzing, doing too much is a risk as well. In most cases, using

the tool for problem analysis and applying it to real-world data will be challenging. Thus,

we need to adhere to the principle of pragmatism in this process. A well-described phenomenon in research is ‘paralysis by analysis’ – getting stuck in the early stages of a

problem-solving process, here, the problem analysis, and therefore not ever getting to

the critical stages of developing solution visions and strategies. While sustainability

professionals ought to avoid inaccurate problem analysis, and need to support the critical

elements of the problem constellation through their analysis, they also need to strike a

balance between accuracy and sufficiency. Often, a good share of information on key

elements and critical relationships suffices for analyzing a sustainability problem, even if

not all of the elements and relationships are fully supported by empirical data.

The analytical categories introduced above help us to analyze sustainability problems with

respect to their basic systemic-causal structure. The causal relations are simple and pragmatic, as they allow us to gain a first structured overview of the problem at hand.

There are more sophisticated concepts and tools available that allow to drill deeper into

systemic-causal structures and dynamics. These include feedback loops and emergent

system properties as well as system dynamics such as delays and discontinuous change.

Yet, these concepts and tools go beyond the introductory level of sustainability problem

solving this book aims at.

èReadings. An example of a more sophisticated social theory of upstream drivers and

actions is Pierre Bourdieu’s (1977) “Outline of a Theory of Practice”. It is a detailed

concept of habits as sets of behavioral dispositions and templates that embody and

combine preferences, assumptions, and capacities. If you are interested in learning more

about sophisticated problem analysis, you might want to review Donella Meadows (2008)

book “Thinking in Systems – A Primer” on the basics of system dynamics, mentioned

above. Or, you might search for studies employing advanced root cause analysis, causal

chain analysis, or cognitive mapping. In all these cases, you can still use the categories

introduced above – and further develop a sound understanding of the nuances in the

systemic-causal structure.

7 Recap and What Happens Next

With the acquisition of the second tool we are now in a good position to reliably identify

and analyze sustainability problems, i.e., to successfully complete the first two steps of

sustainability problem solving (see

picture).

We started from the focus of

public attention on symptoms

rather than on syndromes; con-

tinued with the benefits of using a

reliable tool for sustainability

problem analysis; and then went

through the systemic-causal struc-

ture to be revealed in the problem

analysis. We discussed guidelines

on how to best analyze sustain-

ability problems, starting with the adverse effects, then addressing the immediate causes,

then going back to the benefits produced, and finally revealing the root causes of the

problem constellation. The results of the analysis are important for identifying critical

intervention points to be utilized in the strategy building and implementation steps of the

problem-solving sequence.

After having identified and analyzed the sustainability problem at hand, the next step is

to provide direction for the problem-solving efforts, i.e., to develop a sustainable vision to work towards (see picture). The next chapter introduces a tool that helps sustainability

professionals to create inspirational, plausible, and coherent visions that are based on

sustainability ideas.

Chapter IV

Step 3 –

How to Create a Sustainability Solution Vision

Chapter Content

1 Visions as Versatile Instruments of Change ........................................................... 93 2 More than Wishful Thinking .................................................................................. 97 3 Visions of Sustainability ....................................................................................... 102 4 Why We Benefit from a Tool for Creating Sustainability Solution Visions ........... 104 5 The Features of Sustainability Solution Visions ................................................... 107

1. Make the vision sustainable ............................................................................ 108 2. Make the vision coherent ................................................................................ 112 3. Make the vision tangible .................................................................................. 114 4. Make the vision plausible ................................................................................ 117 5. Make the vision motivational .......................................................................... 119

6 Not too Much to Handle – Aligning Complexity and Capacity ............................. 122 7 Putting the Tool Together .................................................................................... 124 8 Filling the Tool with Life ...................................................................................... 127 9 Recap and What Happens Next ........................................................................... 128

1 Visions as Versatile Instruments of Change

Now that we have a good understanding of the problem’s sustainability features, as well

as its systemic-causal structure – in particular, its immediate and root causes – we can

move forward and take the next critical steps towards solving the problem. As outlined in

the simplified problem-solving framework in the introduction (Fig. 1), we do this by first

generating two related, yet different solution components: a solution vision and a solution strategy. These steps are then followed by implementing the strategy to

successively achieve the vision. (The reader might benefit here from briefly revisiting the introduction chapter and recapping what it means to solve a sustainability problem.)

A vision represents a desirable future state or goal to be achieved. A strategy is a plan of action how to get from the problem to the vision. For example, imagining that healthy children play in a given neighborhood in a given year in the future could be the vision; a

plan for actively reorganizing the food system, retrofitting the urban structure, reforming

physical education in schools, etc. could be the strategy to resolve the problem of

childhood obesity and achieve the vision put forth. Both visions and strategies refer to

processes that generate them – visioning and strategy building, respectively.

It is important in problem-solving efforts to separate (to some extent) the step of creating

a compelling sustainability solution vision from the step of building the strategy to reach

it. In the words of Garry Brewer (2007, p. 160): “thinking clearly about where we wish to

go [visioning] and then creating and devising the means to get there [strategy building]”.

So, first things first. Yet, there is a close link between vision and strategy that can get

productively utilized in problem-solving efforts. A strategy needs to be feasible – but what

appears to be feasible depends on imagination. If the vision is motivational and

inspirational enough, people will go above and beyond to make it happen. Look into any

major solution in sustainability (and other major societal or technological changes, for

that matter), and you will find that there was rarely a strategy readily at hand. But there

was always a compelling vision that drew people together and into action. A motivational

vision shrinks, at least in our perception, the real effort required to make it happen. This is what Antoine de Saint-Exupéry refers to in Citadelle (1948): “If you want to build a ship, don’t start with collecting wood, cutting the plank and assigning work, but awake in

people the longing for the wide and open sea. [Original: Quand tu veux construire un

bateau, ne commence pas par rassembler du bois, couper des planches et distribuer du

travail, mais réveille au sein des hommes le désir de la mer grande et large.]” This

productive interplay between vision and strategy is illustrated by Erika Andersen (2013)

in a Forbes article: “A few months ago, [the CEO and I] worked together to craft a simple vision for [the company], and strategies to achieve it […] Then, last week, he pulled

together the top 50 people in the company to review, respond to and build on the new

vision – and over the course of a couple of days I saw them begin to see the possibility of

it, then consider whether it might be achieved, then hope that it could be – and finally, to

long to accomplish it. And when they got to that point – when the majority of the people

in the room strongly wanted to get to that future state […] – they started figuring out on

their own how to ‘collect wood and assign tasks and work’.”

This chapter deals with how to create sustainability solution visions, as the first ingredient

of a robust solution to any given sustainability problem. The next chapter will then deal

with building sustainability solution strategies.

Envisioning a desirable future state, in short “visioning”, is an activity with long traditions

in cultures around the world. For example, Plato wrote The Republic ca. 380 BC, in which he envisions (in a Socratic Dialogue) a “good” city-state that is governed by philosopher-

kings and embodies a particular concept of justice. Or, Thomas More (1478-1535), who

was Lord Chancellor under Henry VIII in the Kingdom of England, published the book

Utopia in 1516. Referring back to, but also going beyond Plato’s The Republic, More envisioned a social and political system for an imaginary island nation (called “Utopia”).

The envisioned system is based on shared property, minimal law enforcement, and trust.

The title Utopia is linked to the Greek word “eutopia”, meaning “good place”. While not the founder of utopian thought (yet, the name giver), More has influenced and

popularized the societal discourse on visions. Prominent visions he inspired include, for

example, Tommaso Campanella’s The City of the Sun (1623) and Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis (1624). These early visions, apart from describing rich pictures of an ideal world, offer insights on key features of visions and visioning. For example, one insight is that

visions are not automatically shared and supported by everyone in a society just because

they claim to be desirable. A good share of visions is only shared and supported by a

particular group of stakeholders. Or the insight that visions are differently assessed over

time (especially over long periods of time). For example, the philosopher Karl Popper

described Plato's Republic as totalitarian system and thus considered it a dystopia. Another insight is that visions are often not even intended for realization. In those cases,

they are so-called “thought experiments”. This, in return, might not hinder people to try

realizing them anyway.

The most common and important feature of a vision is that it depicts a desirable future state – according to the creator or the creators (as mentioned, we need to be careful

about assuming broad ownership and buy-in). Or, in less technical terms, a vision

imagines a future that fulfills deep-seated dreams, wishes, hopes, and desires. This

feature sets visions apart from other types of futures imaginable, including undesirable

(dystopian) and probable (likely) future states. This means, while being desirable, visions

might not appear being likely (and don’t have to). We will get back to this below.

While most prominent visions are comprehensive depictions of ideal societies, cities,

states, and so forth, visioning is widely used in professional practice. Companies,

government agencies, and non-profit-organizations develop visions for themselves, or

their products, services, or mandated field of activity. Another prominent professional

domain of visioning is urban planning. With the majority of the global population now

living in cities, urban development is a decisive factor in the wellbeing of societies

worldwide. Yet, cities face a number of sustainability challenges. Urban sustainability

problems pertain, for example, to the interplay of social segregation, inadequate housing,

environmental contamination, energy inefficiencies, poverty, and infrastructure

maintenance problems. In light of these and other urban challenges, there are repeated

calls for transformations of how our cities are structured, how they function, and how

they are governed. Sustainability-oriented visioning, i.e., creating descriptions of

desirable and sustainable future states, is a critical aid to guide such transformations, and

has therefore become a prominent tool in urban planning.

Visioning is being used just as much in everyday life. Visions appear in all shapes and

forms, including aspirations, dreams, wishes, desires, longings, and so forth. Basically,

every goal setting process is a visioning process. For example, when a child envisions what

it wants to do when it is a grown-up; or, when a high school graduate envisions where

he/she would enjoy going to college; or, when a student imagines volunteering with a

non-profit organization he/she endorses; or, when an employee envisions to become

his/her own boss and work self-employed. Even if they do not result in fully fleshed out

visions, all of these processes have in common that one envisions what a desirable future

would look like.

èExercise. Find a vision you are excited about – be it related to energy, water, food, education, entrepreneurship, technology, health, community, peace, or any other topic.

Why are you excited about it? Is it a sustainability solution vision? In how far? Has the

vision been realized anywhere? Are you willing to contribute to its realization? Do you

think you could motivate other colleagues, students, friends, or family members to join

the cause? Why do you think they could get excited about the vision, too?

Visioning – in both professional and private activities – is enabled by capacities such as

creativity, imagination, and fantasy. They enable visions to entail elements of aspirational

surprise, utopian thought, and far-sightedness. Creativity, imagination, and fantasy are

critical in all cases of visioning. Yet, they are particularly important for complex visioning

processes that enable stakeholder groups to imagine desirable future states beyond their

personal interests and immediate environments. As with any other skill set, these

capacities can be trained and excel, or get neglected and disappear. So, if we agree that

visioning is critical for sustainability problem solving, then we need to make sure to learn

and use tools and procedures that support this activity.

èReadings. It might be worthwhile to spend some time reading in Plato’s The Republic, in Thomas More’s Utopia, in Tommaso Campanella’s The City of the Sun, in Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, or in other early vision documents. These milestones in the history of utopian thought continue to provide rich material and building blocks for modern

visions, but also indicate how visions are embedded in particular historical and social

contexts. There are a variety of compelling books written on the history of utopian

thought, such as Frank Manuel and Fritzie Manuel’s (1979) study “Utopian Thought in the

Western World”. A fascinating book is Studs Terkel’s (1980) compilation of hands-on,

personal visions entitled “American Dreams – Lost and Found”. It is the result of three

years of interviewing more than 300 people across all social classes, professions, ages,

and regions in the U.S. about their dreams (while often struggling with harsh realities). A

good recent review of visions and visioning in organizations, including companies, can be

found in the article “Organizational Visioning – An Integrative Review” by Dave O'Connell

and colleagues (2011). David Iwaniec and myself (Iwaniec and Wiek, 2014) provide an in-

depth case study on how sustainability-oriented visioning can be used in urban planning.

2 More than Wishful Thinking

Visioning and utopian thought are often used for wishful thinking, daydreaming,

distracting, or even escaping from a boring, inconvenient, harsh, troublesome, or

oppressive reality. While these are important relief functions, they also trap the dreamer

in the status quo. This happens whenever one dreams without doing anything to actually

realize the dream (make it become real). Obviously, we depend on strategy building and implementation (the next steps of problem solving) when it comes to realizing visions.

Yet, visions themselves can carry features, which make them more conducive to getting

realized. For example, a vision that is sustainable (compliant with sustainability

principles), coherent (without internal conflicts), tangible (made specific), plausible

(supported by evidence), and motivational (inspires people to contribute) has better

chances to get successfully realized than one that is unsustainable, incoherent, abstract,

implausible, or controversial.

Critical for the drive to realization is also the degree of change a vision entails. Incremental

or small changes (“low hanging fruits”) might provide more stimuli to pursue them

because they seem more seizable than visions of significant change. For example, it might

be easier to mobilize support for an initiative that (slightly) modifies the food system in a

city district by offering small sections of fresh produce in the existing food outlets (e.g.,

fast food restaurants), instead of opening independent small grocery stores (that offer a

variety of additional benefits). In return, visions of significant, fundamental, or radical

change, so-called “transformational visions”, as opposed to visions of incremental

change, are often disregarded as “unrealistic” in an attempt to defame them (more about

this further below). But let’s be careful to not mistake one for the other. Visions of

incremental change have a deceiving element to them, as they allow making progress

without (ever) reaching the ultimate goal of transformational change.

There is a powerful alternative to both visions of incremental change and “unrealistic” visions of significant change. Such alternative visions are plausible visions of significant change. That they are considered

‘plausible’ means there is some evidence that they can be realized, either in part or

entirely. Such transformational

sustainability visions can be made

plausible by linking them to “real utopias”

(by Erik Olin Wright (2010)) or

“nowtopias” (by Chris Carlsson (2008)).

These are pilot projects of

transformational change towards

sustainability. An example of a real utopia

or nowtopia is the decentralized energy

system of the small municipality of Schönau in southern Germany (see picture). It is based

on 100% renewable energy supplies, which are provided by a co-operatively owned

renewable power company. The citizens also participate in voluntary demand-side

management practices that conserve energy to reduce the need for additional energy

supply.

èExercise. The real utopia of sustainable energy production, distribution, and use in Schönau, Germany has sparked interest around the world. Frédéric Lemaître (2014) has

written an article in The Guardian that provides a short and informative portrait of this real utopia. What are the key features of Schönau’s sustainable energy system? Is this a

comprehensive approach to energy sustainability? How so? Could you find current visions

that have been inspired by Schönau?

Realizing visions of significant change still requires lots of efforts, even if the vision is

plausible. Yet, the willingness to take on these efforts might be higher when we see that

the vision has already been realized elsewhere or previously, even if only in part. The

movement of Nowtopias aims at shortening the (perceived) distance between today and

The co-operatively owned, 100% renewable

power company (EWS) in Schönau, Germany, with

staff and founder Ursula Sladek (2013; Photo

Credit: EWS).

a vision far out in the future (Carlsson, 2008). Nowtopias are collective and co-operative

projects that re-envision and experiment with ways of working and living radically

different from capitalistic and mechanistic ideologies. We will discuss the plausibility

feature of compelling visions in more detail below.

While visions are often used for wishful thinking and diversion, as mentioned above,

taking even “unrealistic” transformational visions very seriously and attempting to realize

them is as old as the visions themselves. Irrespective of their original intent – visions have

inspired people to go after them with all their means. For example, Vasco de Quiroga

(1478-1565), who was the first bishop of Michoacán, Mexico, created communities in

Michoacán – as part of the occupation and colonization of “New Spain” – following More's

societal vision spelled out in Utopia. This happened despite the indication that More may had written Utopia rather for educational purposes (nowadays called a “heuristic utopia”) than for realization.

From the early days of visioning and utopian thought, many visions have focused on

human society in communities and cities. They envision communal living, social practices,

and governance structures significantly different from the mainstream society. And they

are often being put into practice, with differing degrees of success and failure. Some early

examples from the U.S., all founded by immigrants from Europe, include the utopian

communities of the Mennonites and the Amish in the 17 th

century, the Shakers and the

Moravians in the 18 th

century, the Rappites, the Amanites, and the Hutterites in the 19 th

century. All of these early utopian communities were built on a strong religious base.

Secularized, yet equally prominent examples of utopian communities in the early 20 th

century got inspired by the vision To-morrow – A Peaceful Path to Real Reform (later republished as Garden Cities of To-morrow). The book was written by the British urban planner and social reformist Ebenezer Howard in 1898. The book envisions towns that

link urban and rural features, offer a high quality of life for all residents, and balance

collective and individual interests. The vision was (partly) realized in the garden city

movement with exemplary cities including Letchworth Garden City and Welwyn Garden

City in England (both cities still exist today). Eco-villages, transition towns, community

land trusts, and other types of novel communities are more recent initiatives that put

incremental or transformational community and city visions into practice. Most recently,

the vision of a “sustainable desert city” has begun to get implemented as Masdar City

(literally translated as “Source City”), close to Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates.

Similar technocratic eco-city visions are currently emerging all over the world.

100

èExercise. There are several promotional videos on Masdar City available on YouTube. According to this vision, what would people do in the city? How would they get around as

well as in and out of the city? Where and how would they interact? What would you do if

you would live in the city? Would you enjoy living there? Do you find any internal

contradictions in the vision? Which elements of the vision have already been realized in

Masdar City or elsewhere? How plausible is the overall vision? Do you think that this is a

sustainability solution vision? Why or why not? Which elements align with principles of sustainability, which ones don’t? Do you know of other (similar) urban projects currently

undertaken to realize a vision of a sustainable city?

Top-down pursuits of new societal visions often have the means to override resistance. If

new societal visions are pursued in small, independent communities, they meet little

resistance because of voluntary or involuntary isolation. Yet, bottom-up or grassroots

movements in pursuit of new societal visions within a society often encounter resistance from the special interest groups that benefit from the status quo. Prominent examples

are the French Revolution in the late 18 th

century, or the Civil Rights Movement in the

U.S. in the 1950ies and 60ies. The driving actors in pursuit of such transformational visions

are therefore often considered perpetrators, troublemakers, or demolitionists. If the

vision is successfully pursued, they are then often celebrated as heroes, saviors, and

liberators (if they survive). The disruptive power that visions can unfold, if taken seriously

and pushed towards realization, is described by T.E. Lawrence in Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1922): “Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day

to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous […], for they may act

their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”

So, it is fair to say that great things often start with a compelling vision. But so do bad

things, in some cases. The vision might be flawed and deceiving from the get-go. But even

if the vision is flawless and compelling, the resulting reality might not live up to the ideal.

Prominent examples are various visions of socialist or communist societies, often

envisioned with progressive and just elements, yet, often deteriorating or failing at the

realization state. An example is the former socialist system in Eastern Germany. Similarly,

capitalist societies – often envisioned as progressive and just, too – miserably fail in some

cases. For example, the United States – considered the motherland of modern capitalism

– currently (2014) experiences a historical high in income inequality. This is an important

lesson: compelling visions do not automatically translate into equally compelling realities

after implementation attempts. Reversely, it is important to recognize that because

implementation attempts fail, the vision might still be compelling. The reasons behind

such failures are manifold. They might well be linked to flaws in the vision. However,

101

equally often are such failures caused by flaws in the strategy, or the implementation

process itself. We will discuss some of these failures in the subsequent chapters. There

are other flaws associated with visioning, visions, and their implementation that are

important to be recognized and avoided. For example, a good share of visions were or are

being imposed on people, maybe even with good intentions. An early example is the case

of Vasco de Quiroga mentioned above. A critical element of sound visions is that they are

widely shared and bought into by the people who are being affected by the changes

envisioned.

èReadings. Insights into early utopian communities are offered by Mark Holloway’s (1966) “Heavens on Earth – Utopian Communities in America, 1680-1880”. An interesting

study is “Religion and intragroup cooperation – Preliminary results of a comparative

analysis of utopian communities” by Richard Sosis (2000), in which he examines the

‘mechanisms’ that allowed utopian communities to be initiated and thrive. A profound

account of transformational, yet plausible visions is Erik Olin Wright’s (2010) book

“Envisioning Real Utopias”. He investigates “the feasibility of radically different kinds of

institutions and social relations that could potentially advance the democratic egalitarian

goals historically associated with the idea of socialism”. Chris Carlsson’s (2008) book on

“Nowtopia – How Pirate Programmers, Outlaw Bicyclists, and Vacant-Lot Gardeners are

Inventing the Future Today” portraits a suite of initiatives that pursue livelihood

opportunities and good quality of community life beyond the logic of money and markets.

There are countless readings available on the Internet related to modern utopian

(visionary) communities in the 20 th

and 21 st

century. The best way to learn about past or

present visionary communities is, however, to visit them. Fascinating and very different visionary communities can be found, for example, in the eco-village Earthaven near

Asheville, North Carolina; on the Isle of Eigg, off Scotland's northwest coast; or in

Freetown Christiana in Copenhagen, Denmark. Visiting such communities is not limited

to the present. Check out the book “Visiting Utopian Communities – A Guide to the

Shakers, Moravians, and Others” by Gerald Gutek and Patricia Gutek (1998) – and off you

go visiting past utopian communities and learn how they emerged and what happened to

them. A thought-provoking article on technocratic eco-city visions such as Masdar City is

the study “How to build a sandcastle – An analysis of the genesis and development of

Masdar City” by Frederico Cugurullo (2013). A similarly critical perspective is offered by

Gary Graham (2014) in his article in The Guardian: “Too-smart cities? Why these visions of utopia need an urgent reality check”. Together with colleagues of mine (Wiek, Guston,

et al., 2013), we offer a critical perspective on urban visions based on overly optimistic

claims on what nanotechnology can contribute to sustainable urban development.

102

3 Visions of Sustainability

Visions can make a lasting imprint, if carefully designed and taken seriously. This holds

true, even if they are just created for educational purposes. Many visions are intended to

encourage people to think beyond the status quo and become aware that businesses,

schools, neighborhoods, cities, governments, infrastructures, social practices, and so

forth are malleable and transformable. Visions and visioning are particularly important

for sustainability, a concept that is visionary and aims at getting realized. Yet,

sustainability visions and sustainability solution visions are particular types of visions and need particular skills to be crafted.

Let’s imagine a late afternoon in March 2040 – Healthy and happy children cavort on the

playground of the Mountain Park Health Center Clinic in the Gateway district of Phoenix,

while one of their parents is attending a cooking class, and the other one is getting fresh

produce from a small neighborhood grocery story. Older children and teenagers harvest

in the community garden on the clinic campus, climb trees in the orchard at Gateway

Community College, play sports at Crockett Elementary School, and swim in the nearby

canal. Families get home walking along the shaded canal or cycling on the shaded bike

path of Van Buren Street. Streets and public spaces in the district are well shaded by trees

and gardens, well equipped with complete sidewalks, lights, and community facilities, as

well as properly maintained due to joint-use agreements and neighborhood block

watches. Residents are proud of having access to grocery stores, schools, health services,

and recreational facilities, most of which are provided through small businesses and non-

profit organizations that are co-owned by local residents. Looking back, one realizes that

the community has taken advantage of simplified legal frameworks introduced in the

2020ies that allow communities to own and govern their energy and water supplies. The

result is that low-maintenance, efficient, and decentralized irrigation and renewable

energy systems are being used throughout the district, while residents and businesses

have reduced water and energy consumption by 75% over the last 25 years.

èExercise. Continue developing this vision. Could you imagine yourself living in this neighborhood? What would you do on that late afternoon in March 2040? What would

your family and friends do? What would you add to the vision in order to make it more

compelling or more relevant to you? What are some of the common ideas that underlie

this vision? Can you use these ideas and make some additions to the vision? Do you think

this is a sustainability vision? Why or why not? Is this a sustainability solution vision? Why or why not? Do you know an existing example of the elements you added? Which of the

103

elements are you confident that they can get realized? Why? What is different from the

Masdar City vision addressed in the last exercise?

The described vision is a particular type of vision. It was constructed in a deliberate way

– with sustainability, people, and places in mind; and moving away from being overly

focused on technology, infrastructure, and stuff. And it was developed in response to

urban sustainability problems, making it a sustainability solution vision. Finally, it was discussed, and revised in collaboration across various groups of stakeholders. There are

more and more visioning activities underway as part of comprehensive solution efforts.

For example, in Phoenix, the transit-oriented development project “Reinvent Phoenix”,

or the design of the Mountain Park Health Center Clinic in the Gateway district included

structured visioning processes that involved hundreds of residents and professionals.

However, sustainability solution visioning and visions still encounter a great deal of flaws

and obstacles that undermine their potential for positive change. Before we get into the

details of how to create sound sustainability solution visions, let’s discuss some of these

challenges and why we need a tool for crafting them in a compelling and reliable way.

èReadings. Over the past 30 years, many authors have offered positions on the importance of visioning and utopian thought for sustainability and sustainable

development. John Harlow and colleagues (2013) trace back main themes of sustainable

development to “18th and 19th century political economic thought, Rousseauian ideals,

the modernism founded on Bacon and Descartes, early Christian utopianism, and classical

utopias such as Republic and New Atlantis”. Twenty-five years ago, Lester Milbrath (1989) wrote a detailed and scientifically supported vision of a sustainable society. Similarly, Paul

Raskin and colleagues (2002) created a bold vision of a sustainable society of the 21 st

century achieving the “great transition” toward “peace, freedom, material wellbeing and

environmental health”. Similarly, Rachael Beddoe and colleagues (2009) explore the

vision of redesigned worldviews, institutions, and technologies for a sustainable quality

of life for humanity. Andres Edwards (2005) describes the numerous small interventions

towards sustainability that are happening around the globe and begin to form a significant

paradigm shift – he even argues, a revolution – in all sectors and domains of society. Gary Brewer (2007) puts emphasis on the role of invention to make progress towards

sustainable futures. Johan Hedrén (2009) asserts the need for utopian thought in planning

and politics related to sustainable development.

104

4 Why We Benefit from a Tool for Creating Sustainability Solution Visions

In the previous section we have reviewed some of the challenges related to creating

sound sustainability solution visions. These challenges can lead to setbacks and failures in

the process of problem solving. There are two challenges that are not even related to

particular features of common visions, but rather to the incapability of generating any

visions at all. First, the mainstream discourse is overly focused on problems (as indicated in the introduction chapter). If you ask people to name the top five most pressing

sustainability problems, most people have a response ready. But if you asked them what

the top five most compelling solutions to these problems are, most people have no idea

(or only ideas that are unsustainable, incoherent, abstract, implausible, or controversial).

Through this obsession with problems, we disenable ourselves to really work on solutions.

While a useful first step, an understanding of the problem does not directly translate into

successfully solving it. In fact, it often traps us in endless discussions and analyses of the

problems, without making any real progress on solving them. We need to further develop

our collective capacity to imagine, create, and craft solution visions. This implies liberating

ourselves from the problem-centric discourse. Second, there is a dominant pattern

confusing visions and strategies. People often think a vision is a strategy or vice versa. For example, you could think a planned community garden is a strategy for achieving public

health in a community. Yet, from a problem-solving perspective it makes more sense to

consider a planned community garden being part of the vision of a healthy community.

The plan how to create such a community garden through a series of actions, including planning, fundraising, planting, and so forth – this is the strategy. This confusion often

leads to miscommunication and, even worse, to getting stalled in the visioning process,

without even getting to the strategy building.

So, let’s assume we are aware of the importance of moving beyond problem analysis, and

also of the difference between visions and strategies. There are still some critical issues

to account for in order to develop sound and impactful solution visions. The following

challenges illustrate the hurdles in place:

Promoting unsustainable solution visions and incremental change. Unsustainable visions, in clear or indirect violation of sustainability principles, are being promoted because of

vested interest or flawed processes of creating them. There are many real-world

examples: communities are being exploited in pursuit of climate change mitigation goals

(coined as the “carbon rush”); scarce resources are being overtaxed in pursuit of

efficiency objectives (rebound effects); new energy sources are being recklessly

developed, while demand-side management is neglected; or, endangered species are

105

threatened with extinction in pursuit of conservation goals. In some cases, these perverse

situations, induced by negative rebound effects, are willfully accepted or even fostered

because the true intentions behind the

initial visions are not scrutinized and re-

vealed. Often, these situations result

from flawed visioning processes that do

not sufficiently account for unintended

consequences and do not

comprehensively assess the sustainability

of the proposals put forth. For instance,

visions about water and urban areas

claiming to be sustainable have become

very popular and are already being

pursued, but their compliance with sustainability principles is questionable. The vision of

Masdar City (see picture), the iceberg-for-desert-town vision by Dassault Systèmes, and

other popular scientocratic and technocratic visions such as “Life in 2050” by Ulrich Ebert

(almost 2 million hits on YouTube) are examples of such questionable urban visions. In addition, there is the problem of promoting incremental changes that keep us staying on

the wrong track while giving the illusion of making progress. For example, car

manufacturers are propagating incremental efficiency improvements of the individual

car, while no significant reductions of the overall fleet emissions are being achieved. A

key challenge is here to leave the path of optimizing flawed systems and instead

envisioning significantly different systems that are simple, smart, and sustainable.

Pursuing contradictory visions. Another challenge is that visions are often inherently inconsistent, that means they include contradicting values. Complex visions, such as for

cities or businesses, are composed of numerous normative elements (values,

preferences). If not supported by procedures that help us to comprehend and design such

complex visions, they can include contradictions between vision elements we are

unaware of. For example, some visions of economic systems that are supposed to be just

and fair rely on the idea of unlimited wealth concentration of individuals that contradicts

basic principles of distributional justice. Such contradictions or conflicts within visions

might eventually lead to ineffective solution efforts, failure, and frustration.

Making meaningless and irrelevant visions. Visions are often described in abstract, without making them tangible and accessible for a broader audience. Examples are

sustainability visions that adopt general principles of sustainability without specifying and

illustrating them. For instance, the principle of intergenerational justice applied to a city

The vision of Masdar City, under development in

Abu Dhabi (The Guardian, March 13, 2014; Photo Credit: Foster & Partners).

106

needs to be translated into tangible vision elements such as financing public

infrastructures with amortization rates of less than a generation, or using collective water

resources for residential, municipal, and industrial uses within replenishment rates.

Otherwise, the vision remains abstract and inaccessible, which is not conducive to

strategy building and implementation.

Wishful thinking without evidence, or visions in full retreat by being “realistic”. Visions often struggle with either being too far from, or too close to the status quo. On the one

hand, many visions are put forth without evidence that they actually “work”. While useful

for particular purposes, as we are committed to solving sustainability problems we cannot

afford the luxury of treating visions like daydreams. We need to provide evidence that

they are realizable, even if the details of “how to get there” are not developed yet. For

example, it is compelling to support a vision of a fully self-governed, municipal energy

system based on 100% renewable sources with examples from around the world where

such systems already exist (e.g., Schönau in southern Germany; other examples can be

found in networks of climate neutral cities). If we miss out on providing such evidence

through plausible visions, the motivation to pursue their implementation might dwindle. On the other hand, visionary or pioneering ideas have been and are often being

confronted or shut down by disbelief and skepticism with reference to “one needs to be

realistic”. Being realistic, however, is often disenabling imagination and inspiration. All

significant change is, to some extent, unrealistic – as in “not (yet) realized”. Think of all

the major accomplishments in sustainable development, including the vision of smoke-

free public spaces in the U.S.; the vision of nuclear-free, renewable energy production in

Germany; the vision of granting basic rights to all citizens in South Africa; or the vision of

a disarmed, peaceful society in Australia. All these visions were once considered

“unrealistic” by most people. With this in mind, visions being realistic is a contradiction in terms. We need to unlearn path-dependent thinking when creating inspirational visions.

Otherwise, progress might be stalled and kept to what already exists. The concept of

plausibility, i.e., providing evidence that a vision “works”, is a powerful response to the

demand of “being realistic” – without overly limiting imagination and inspiration.

Visioning in seclusion. Visions are often produced by a few selected experts or prominent societal actors. Examples are such compelling visions such as “the great transition”, but

also many other past and contemporary visions for our society. Yet, if a visioning process

is not organized in a way that encourages input from relevant stakeholders, the visions

will not be considered shared and co-owned. If this is the case, the willingness and

motivation to contribute to their implementation might be limited. A collaborative

visioning can create both excitement and accountability.

107

èExercise. Pick a feature film, newspaper article, report, or any other source that presents or discusses a sustainability vision of your interest. Determine if and in how far

the vision displays the described patterns of being unsustainable, incoherent, abstract,

implausible, or controversial. If you find any of these patterns, try to revise the vision in a

way that it would better align with the ideal of a sound sustainability solution vision.

In summary, creating sustainability solution visions is a challenging undertaking. In order

to do it in a reliable way and create impactful visions, we are in need of a tool. Such a tool

should make sure that we do not create visions that are unsustainable, incoherent,

abstract, implausible, or controversial. Instead, it should enable us to create visions that

are sustainable, coherent, tangible, plausible, and motivational. A tool is useful because

we might not be able to accomplish this task by simply relying on intuition or previous

experience.

As with the other tools offered in this book, the key feature of the tool presented in the

following is that it is functional. That means it does not simply guide us to create just any kind of vision with the features outlined above. First and foremost, the tool makes sure

that we are creating a sustainability solutions vision. That means, the vision is specific to the problem identified and analyzed in the preceding two steps. Thus, it needs to be described as a systemic-causal vision.

5 The Features of Sustainability Solution Visions

The most important objective of a sustainability solution vision is that it mitigates the adverse effects of the analyzed problem, without creating other adverse effects –

preferably even enhances the benefits of

the system. For example, the city of

Groningen in the northern part of the

Netherlands has pursued a sustainable

mobility vision and made significant

progress in realizing it over the past thirty

years (see picture). The vision pertains to

a mobility system that not only mitigates

negative environmental impacts, pre-

vents severe accidents, and also is affor-

dable and yields health benefits over long

period of times. Priority is given to cycling and walking through a net of infrastructural,

With more than 50% of all trips taken by bicycle,

the city of Groningen in the northern Netherlands

has one of the highest cycling mode shares in the

world (2014; Photo Credit: own source).

108

political, financial, social, educational, and private incentives. Yet, as indicated above

there are several other features that constitute a sound sustainability solution vision,

apart from mitigating the negative effects analyzed. These features include that the vision

would be sustainable (compliant with sustainability principles), coherent (without

internal conflicts), tangible (made specific), plausible (supported by evidence), and moti-

vational (inspires people to contribute).

Each feature corresponds to a step in creating a sustainability solution vision. The features

and steps are described in the following. For each step, specific methods have been

developed. They usually require advanced training. Exemplary approaches are mentioned

in the recommended reading section below.

The steps do not have to be executed in the order they are presented in below. Preferably, they all should be completed, but there are different meaningful sequences to create a

sound sustainability solution vision.

1. Make the vision sustainable

As mentioned above, sustainability solution visions are a specific type of visions. These visions ought to be not only desirable, but to guide us towards sustainability. Thus, when creating sustainability visions, sustainability principles help as design guidelines. Sustainability principles support us in actively creating sustainability solution visions while avoiding visions that violate values of justice, integrity, or viability. Or, more

constructively, such visions are about diverse, healthy, educated, tolerant, peaceful,

empathetic, and resource-efficient communities (with their people, businesses, infra-

structures, etc.). We employ the same set of five sustainability principles used for problem

identification and problem analysis above:

(1) Viability and Integrity of Ecosystems – The vision ensures that sufficient quantity and quality of water, air, climate, and soil ecosystems are maintained not only for their bare

viability, but also for their integrity and full functionality. Ecosystems are a valuable good

in themselves (bio-centric ethical perspective), and they are indispensable for services

ranging from climate regulation, detoxification, and geological stability to services for

recreation and tourism.

(2) Human and Social Wellbeing – The vision ensures that sufficient quantity and quality of health, education, safety, public participation etc. are maintained not only for the

survival of a society, but also for people’s wellbeing and happiness. Human and social

109

wellbeing is considered a basic human right and the backbone of viable and vital societies

(distributional equity).

(3) Equitable Opportunity for Livelihood and Economic Activities – The vision ensures equitable opportunities for all people to pursue livelihood and economic activities. Those

activities are a means to human and social wellbeing, which is considered a basic human

right and the backbone of viable and vital societies (distributional equity).

(4) Justice across Societies (Inter-regional Justice) – The vision ensures viability and integrity of ecosystems (Principle 1), human and social wellbeing (Principle 2), and

equitable opportunity for livelihood and economic activities (Principle 3) for people living

in connected regions that are affected by the society in question.

(5) Justice from one Generation to the Next (Inter-generational Justice) – The vision ensures viability and integrity of ecosystems, human and social wellbeing, and equitable

opportunity for livelihood and economic activities for future generations and over the

long term. The principle of inter-generational justice points to the obligation to avoid

catastrophic and detrimental situations over the long term. At the same time, we ought

to put significant effort into enhancing viability and integrity of ecosystems, human and

social wellbeing, and equitable opportunity for livelihood and economic activities from

one generation to the next.

Applying these principles requires to specify them or to use specifications available for particular problem or vision domains, such as water sustainability. Specifying the five

principles is making them meaningful for the vision domain. Let’s assume, we intend to

create a sustainability vision of an urban water system. We would use specified

sustainability principles, as proposed and applied in the literature (e.g., Wiek & Larson,

2012; Larson et al., 2013). Using the principle of intra-generational justice, we envision

that water is available, accessible, and affordable for all residents in sufficient quantity

and quality, without over-exploitation or contamination, upstream and downstream.

Water infrastructure is in place and water governance rules are in operation that mitigate

water poverty and inequalities. The majority of citizens, government representatives, and

the work force contribute to this governance scheme by following responsible demand-

side management guidelines that conserve water and prevent contamination. This

scheme also secures that downstream communities have the opportunity to thrive as

much as upstream communities, based on a fair distribution of quality water resources

and shared shortage agreements in times of scarcity (see picture, next page). Water

governance is participatory and water supply companies are co-owned by the residents

(co-operative). Many more vision components would be developed based on the principle

110

of intra-generational justice, working through layered specifications of this rich principle.

In addition, the four other principles

would be used. And successively, a

colorful sustainability vision of an urban

water system emerges.

Compilations such as the Millennium

Development Goals or the Sustainable

Development Goals identify quantitative thresholds for environmental quality,

education, equality, health, and other

domains of individual and societal

concern (United Nations, 2005; United

Nations, 2015). They can help specifying

the vision. Some of those thresholds can

be considered minimum levels for

survival, some levels aim higher and are

oriented towards integrity and resilience.

Other compilations like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Reports (MEA, 2005) and

studies on planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009) suggest similar thresholds for

environmental systems such as nitrogen cycle or biodiversity on different spatial levels

(from local to global).

Such targets, thresholds, or “tipping points” can help to identify the degree of viability,

integrity, well-being, and so forth aimed at by the vision. In contrast to common practice,

however, a specific target, threshold, or tipping point of a sustainability vision should

indicate a sustainable state, not simply a reference state. The latter are, for instance, the popular comparative benchmarks such as ‘better than last year’ or ‘better than our competitors’. While popular, such targets do not automatically indicate sustainability. For example, a city vision is not sustainable because it is more ambitious than the neighboring

cities – it might still fall short when measured against sustainability principles. The correct

guiding question is: “What is a sustainable level of X [X being an element in the vision]?”

In short, when specifying the sustainability of a vision through targets, thresholds, or

tipping points, they need to be informed by sustainability principles.

Such bold and uncompromising aspirations uncouple sustainability solution visions from

the path dependencies of the problematic situation. They allow us to fundamentally

reconsider and overthrow status-quo thinking and deep-seated prejudice. The resulting

visions, complying with ideas of sustainability, might look nothing like the problematic

Effects of pulse flow deliveries (before and after),

allowing the Colorado River to reach the Colorado

River Delta in northern Mexico for the first time since

the 1990ies, due to a new restoration agreement

between the U.S. and Mexico (2014; Photo Credits:

D. Turner, TNC (top pics); J. Pitt, EDF (bottom pic)).

111

situation we started from. For example, the U.S. society is so cocooned in a culture of fear

that we feed hundreds of billions of dollars annually into the opaque network of national

defense and security services.

Sustainability principles enable us to have

bold visions for the future of these

services (see pictures): What about

transforming the military into unarmed

social forces, engaged in all civil domains

to create sustainable communities

around the globe?! What about investing

the majority of the so-called “defense and

security” funds into non-violent and

peaceful defense and security operations, such as community building, teaching, learning, farming, solar technology, medical

services, and so forth?! What about recognizing and steering defense efforts towards our

own society, making us more empathetic, knowledgeable, modest, peaceful, in short, more oriented towards sustainability?! Sustainability principles, if taken seriously and

made specific, have the potential to truly reinvent the world out of the problematic

situations we face around the globe.

A pragmatic approach for constructing a sustainability solution vision or for appraising the sustainability of an existing vision is to use a matrix or table (see picture). The first

column of the matrix should entail all key

elements of the vision, the first row should

capture the five sustainability principles and

any additional specifications (one column for

each principle or specification). The cells of

the matrix can then be used to assess each

vision component against each sustainability

principle (and its specifications). The

information inserted into the cells can include

appraisal scores (e.g., 2=strong compliance,

1=weak compliance, 0=no compliance), as

well as qualitative information such as a justification of the appraisal score. The cells that

indicate a lack of compliance should be addressed when revising the vision. Using such a

matrix approach is a systematic way of making sure a vision complies with sustainability

Left: Shabana Basij-Rasikh with her students at the

School of Leadership in Kabul, Afghanistan (2014; Photo Credit: National Geographic). Right: Title page of “A National Strategic Narrative” (Porter &

Mykleby, 2011), adopting sustainability as the

organizing concept for a national security strategy.

Exemplary sustainability appraisal matrix with key elements of the vision (first column)

and the five sustainability principles (first

row). Appraisal scores: 2=strong compliance,

1=weak compliance, 0=no compliance.

112

principles. Doing a sustainability appraisal intuitively and holistically is useful, too, but it

might miss critical gaps, which a systematic appraisal can bridge.

èExercise. First, read the article “Small by Choice, Whether Clients Like It or Not” by Kermit Pattison (2010) as a vision of how restaurants can contribute to solving the

sustainability problem at the business-food-health-community nexus. (If you are

interested in learning more about this type of local, small-scale, distributed, and

embedded businesses and economies, you might want to read Ernst Friedrich

Schumacher’s (1973) book on “Small is Beautiful – Economics as if People Mattered” and

similar books such as “Small is Possible – Life in a Local Economy” by Lyle Estill (2008).)

Perform a pragmatic sustainability appraisal on it, using the five sustainability principles

and the matrix approach described above. If you find a lack of compliance, revise the

vision so that it better aligns with the principles. In addition, reflect on how the vision

rejects most commonly accepted business practices. Second, draft a sustainability

solution vision for a company, a city, or a community (on one page) that complies with

the sustainability principles. When you have drafted the vision, use the matrix approach

to systematically check for compliance with the sustainability principles. If you find a lack

of compliance, revise the vision so that it better aligns with the sustainability principles.

Crafting a solution vision to comply with sustainability principle is not always a straight

forward process. It often requires an iterative process with revisions and adaptations. If a

sustainability appraisal indicates a lack of compliance, the vision needs an additional

round of crafting. The iterative process applies to most of the other criteria (below), too

– so, vision revisions can tackle several of them at once.

2. Make the vision coherent

A sustainability solution vision should be composed of compatible goals and be free of

inconsistencies and conflicts among the values and preferences included. Incompatible

or conflicting goals would provide an ambiguous direction and might lead to conflicting

or, at least, non-synergistic developments in the real world. Incoherence and conflicts

undermine the overall aspirations of the vision and might misguide strategy building and

implementation at later stages of the problem-solving process.

Let’s take as an example the vision of a healthy community that successfully mitigates

childhood and youth obesity. If the vision is constructed coherently, it aligns healthy diets

and physical activities for children and youth with food system structures, incentives,

social norms, and political programs that are favorable for providing and seizing healthy

diet and physical activity opportunities. Organic or integrated agriculture, community-

113

supported agriculture (CSA), market gardening, farmers markets (see picture), school

gardens, farm-to-school programs, public cooking classes, low-impact food processing,

public food events, composting classes and

many more components would well align with

the vision of a community that allows and

encourages children to grow up happy and

healthy. An incoherent vision instead might

include healthy diets and physical activities for

children, but does not or not sufficiently

include goals for food production, incentives,

social norms, and political programs that are

favorable to healthy diets and physical

activities. In this case, the upstream drivers

are not well aligned with the downstream effects. The pursuit of such an incoherent vision

might fail to mitigate childhood obesity.

To strive for internal coherence does not mean visions should have vague targets or

generalize issues such that tradeoffs and conflicting values are not apparent. This might

lead to the appearance of coherence, while eventually resulting in conflicting developments. A prominent inconsistency that should be avoided in visions is the one

described in the previous chapter. This is the misbalance between socio-technical systems

complexity and limited capacity to understand, manage, and govern such systems, which

is a dominant scheme in modern societies (see section above). So, one of the guiding rules

for crafting sustainability solution visions is to balance systems complexity and

governance capacity (see section below).

While coherent visions can be created, explored, and get represented through game-like

tools (“epistemic games”, “serious gaming”), we focus here on the analytical approach

previously used. We apply the same systemic-causal structure we used for the analysis of

the problem to map a coherent systemic-causal structure of the vision. Obviously, there

there should be no significant negative effects (that box should be empty), but there

should be (significant) benefits. It is desirable to have vision elements in multiple

systemic-causal structure categories (activities, infrastructures, motives, rules, etc.). A

solution vision that has a greater diversity of drivers is more likely to be successful. A

helpful technique is to create a systems map of the vision (see Fig. 8, below) and carefully

think through each of the causal relations (arrows). The objective is to create a vision

structure in which all elements “fit” and no contradictions occur.

Les Jardins de la Grelinette booth in Quebec, Canada (2014; Photo Credit: J.-M. Fortier).

114

Systematically thinking through the coherence among all vision components, in particular

the direct causal relations, can be supported by using a matrix or table (similar to the

sustainability appraisal matrix described above). The first column and the first row of the matrix should entail all key elements of the vision. Then the cells that represent direct

causal relations should be highlighted. At least for those cells (or for the entire matrix),

coherence between the respective vision elements should be assessed. The information

inserted into the cells can include appraisal scores (e.g., 2=strong alignment, 1=weak

alignment, 0=no alignment or conflict), as well as qualitative information such as a

justification of the appraisal score. The cells that indicate a lack of alignment or coherence

should be addressed when revising the vision. Using such a matrix approach is a

systematic way of making sure and demonstrating in how far a vision is coherent or not.

Doing a coherence appraisal more intuitively and holistically is useful, too, but it might

miss critical gaps, which can be bridged through such a systematic appraisal.

èExercise. Watch the video “Morgenstadt - City of the Future” and related sources produced by the German Fraunhofer-Society within the Innovation Network

“Morgenstadt: City Insights”. The vision intends to solves a number of urban sustainability

problems. Perform a pragmatic coherence appraisal on the vision, using the matrix

approach described above. If you find a lack of alignment among vision elements, revise

the vision so that it is coherent across all elements. Second, draft a sustainability solution

vision for a city (on 2-3 pages) that is coherent. When you have drafted the vision, use the

matrix approach to systematically check for coherence. If you find a lack of compliance,

revise the vision so that it becomes coherent.

Crafting a solution vision to be internally coherent is not always a straight forward

process. It often requires an iterative process with revisions and adaptations. If a

coherence appraisal indicates a lack of alignment among vision elements, the vision needs

an additional round of crafting. The iterative process applies to most of the other criteria

(above and below), too – so, vision revisions can tackle several of them at once.

3. Make the vision tangible

Sustainability solution visions need to be made tangible in order to become meaningful

and relevant. If they remain abstract, visions do not convey what they entail and imply.

In some cases, it is even hard to appraise whether or not an abstract vision is sustainable

or not (see feature above). If a vision is made tangible, it allows all stakeholders,

irrespective of literacy, competence, and expertise, to comprehend the vision in its

richness and detail. A tangible vision also provides clear guidance for designing,

115

monitoring, and evaluating strategies and implementation processes at later stages of the

problem-solving efforts.

Let’s take as an example the vision of a public health clinic that provides preventative and

curative services to low-income neighborhoods. A tangible version of this vision would

entail a great deal of details on the health

services provided through the main facility,

campus activities, and community partnerships.

They could include, for example, a suite of basic,

complementary and integrated medicine

services; a creative playground for children

patients or children of patients (see picture); a

studio space for yoga and meditation instruction;

a demonstration kitchen for cooking classes; a

community garden, a CSA, and farmers market

facilities; community outreach programs such as

community clean-ups, mural and public arts

happenings, walking-bus to the playground, shopping for healthy meals, and many more.

The vision could further be specified by indicating who would use which service and by

creating “A day in the life of a doctor/patient/community partner” narratives. These

specifications enhance comprehension by different stakeholder groups and support the

design of the services in the strategy and implementation stages. Abstract values and

broad goals might provide an initial orientation, but they cannot substitute for making

the vision tangible.

As mentioned above, a prominent approach to specifying a vision is the provision of quan-

titative targets, thresholds, tipping points, or other normative reference points. In doing

so, however, the feature of sustainability (see above) needs to inform the process of

making the vision tangible, in order to ensure that specifications align with sustainability

principles. Specific targets give substance to the vision. Yet, they need to get

contextualized and embedded through narratives, stories, and visuals to make them

experiential and meaningful.

Visuals are widely used to make visions tangible, sometimes in conjunction with “iconic

places”. This practice refers back to the meaning of “vision” – seeing the desirable future state. Nowadays, there are simple and low-cost options available for illustrating and

visualizing sustainability solution visions. The internet offers an abundance of illustrations

and visuals that could be reviewed and, if appropriate, could be used. Visual material,

however, needs to be selected and designed with great care, as visuals are powerful

Playground at Mountain Park Health

Center clinic in Phoenix, Arizona (2014;

Photo Credit: SmithGroup JJR).

116

means not only for representation but also for deceit. It is advisable to consult with

(ethical) guidelines that have been developed for visualizing ideas about future states,

including visions. Photoshop and other software could support visualization efforts, but

simple drawings often suffice. If vision illustration or visualization is done through public

events, such as mural visioning events, the process can create or enhance ownership of

the vision among stakeholders and motivate action. In addition to illustrations and visuals,

visions tangibly benefit from referring to specific locations, a specific time (“In March

2040, …”), and other “markers” that make the vision more comprehensible.

Another technique to make visions tangible and relevant is to spell out what the vision in

question promises to, requests from, and implies for ‘me’ and ‘us’. This way, a vision

begins to matter to the people it imagines a desirable future for. There are numerous visions

of material fluxes, greenhouse gas emissions,

GDPs, energy systems, nanotechnologies,

buildings, cities, and so forth. Yet, most of these

visions have no people in them. Thus, they

remain somewhat detached and irrelevant.

Instead, they would benefit from envisioning:

who is doing what in the envisioned future,

where, why and with what impacts. Depending

on the scope of the vision, we may even more

profoundly envision, who we will be as a society

and human beings. In other words, what our skills, needs, fears, dreams, values will be.

Real people, their actions and activities, their roles and responsibilities, their motives and

rules – all of these aspects make a desirable future state tangible and relevant. A tangible and relevant vision is, for example, a vision of nanotechnology that spells out – besides

the spectrum of nanotechnologies and their functions – who is using them; who benefits

from them; who is involved in innovation and governance; what are the underlying

motives and intentions of the actors; what are envisioned roles and responsibilities; and

so forth (see picture). As mentioned above, good way to make a vision tangible and

relevant to people is to create and craft “A day in the life of …” vision narratives.

èExercise. Pick a written document that describes the vision of a company, a city, or a community that solves a sustainability problem relevant to you. Use the guidelines and

techniques discussed above to make the vision tangible. When you are done, share the

tangible vision with a teammate, co-worker, or colleague. Explain three elements you

have made more tangible than they were before. Ask your teammate, co-worker, or

2050 vision of a nanotechnology-

enhanced collaborative Phoenix, with

complementary details on people’s

embeddedness and a-day-in-the-life-of

narratives (2013; Photo Credit: CNS Studio

by Petrucci, Wiek, Foley).

117

colleague if he/she agrees with this specification and if he/she thinks other vision

elements could benefit from a further specification. Reflect the insights and comments

from this discussion against the guidelines provided above.

Similar to the previous two features, a tangible sustainability solution vision is best crafted

in an iterative process, and in conjunction with the other features, described above and

below.

4. Make the vision plausible

The idea of plausibility has several origins, including strategic planning and future

thinking, but has recently been specifically developed for visions. As mentioned above,

plausible visions are somewhat grounded in reality, without overly constraining their

aspirations. Plausibility is a measure that helps balancing feasibility and ambition. A

plausible sustainability vision utilizes the productive tension between what is feasible and

what is sustainable. As mentioned, what is considered feasible can be modified if the

vision is inspirational enough: “what is pragmatically possible is not fixed independently

of our imaginations, but is itself shaped by our visions” (Wright, 2010, p. 6). While sustain-

ability solution visions often radically differ from the currently problematic situation, they

are not lofty and completely separated from reality. Instead, they can be informed by

“real utopias” (by Erik Olin Wright (2010)) or “nowtopias” (by Chris Carlsson (2008)).

These are real-world pilot projects of transformational change towards sustainability,

which demonstrate what a sustainability vision could look like if implemented. This type

of evidence is what plausible visions adopt.

Plausible sustainability visions offer several advantages over implausible ones. They

provide confidence because stakeholders become aware that transformational change is

feasible if certain conditions are created. Sustainability advocates and professionals are

often smiled at for their idealism. Coupling idealism with plausibility helps in building

reputation for raising ambitious, yet, reasonable expectations in sustainability efforts. Also, plausible sustainability visions are usually the ones on which agreement is much

easier reached than implausible ones. In contrast, sustainability visions that are

implausible might lead to neglect or frustration. And with this, they might bring the entire

sustainability problem-solving effort to a halt.

Plausible visions are grounded in reality, which means that they entail one or more of the

following three types of elements:

118

a) Elements that have been realized in the past under similar circumstances (maybe even at the same location), but do not any longer exist;

b) Elements that have been realized elsewhere in the world and still exist;

c) Elements that have been demonstrated realizable (concept proof), often through a pilot project or an extended peer-review process.

All three types of elements refer to some level of empirical evidence that the vision in

pursuit is feasible and will be able to deliver on its promises. In short, the criterion of

plausibility aims at evidence-supported visions, at least to some extent. For example, a sustainability vision of a public park that

facilitates cross-cultural integration needs to be

based, at least to some extent, on evidence that

this service can be delivered through the

envisioned park. Such a vision could potentially

be made plausible by referring to the Superkilen public park in Copenhagen, Denmark (see

picture). The park was co-created by the Danish

art collective Superflex. It is composed of objects and furniture proposed by people from the

surrounding neighborhoods, representing more

than 50 nationalities. Commissioned by the City of Copenhagen, in collaboration with

architectural firms, the artists proposed and implemented a new process of community-

based public space design. The design process initiated a cross-cultural dialogue, which

was then permanently encouraged through the installations of multi- and cross-cultural

identity the park consists of. While such installations alone are not able to foster cross-

cultural integration, in conjunction with accompanying processes of deliberation and

negotiation they can contribute to it.

There are examples for transformational sustainability solutions projects available for

every type of sustainability problems. Finding them often requires some effort, starting

from internet searches and document review, to interviews and on-site field excursions.

There is more and more documentation available (see recommended readings below).

Erik Olin Wright (2010), for example, provides a series of examples for transformational

sustainability solutions projects, including participatory city budgeting realized in Porto

Alegre, Brazil; corporations of worker cooperatives realized in the Basque region, Spain;

and fair income distribution realized in Otjivero-Omitara, Namibia. All of these real-world

examples provide evidence for visions and thus could be used in creating and crafting

plausible sustainability visions.

The Superkilen public park in Copenhagen, Denmark, composed of installations that

allow for and encourage multi- and cross-

cultural identity building (2013; Photo

Credit: T. Eskerod).

119

When crafting a complex vision, e.g., for a city, it is advisable to use a systematic approach

to constructing a plausible vision. The approach is similar to the sustainability appraisal

or consistency appraisal described above. We use a matrix or table with the first column

of the matrix listing all key elements of the vision, and the first row capturing the three

types of plausibility (indicated above). The cells of the matrix can then be used to indicate

for each vision component what evidence type is used, as well as information on an

appropriate real-world example. The vision elements that indicate a lack of evidence

should be addressed when revising the vision. Using such a matrix approach is a

systematic way of making sure and demonstrating in how far a vision is plausible or not.

èExercise. Read the chapter “Where do we want to go?” in the book “Great Transition – The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead” by Paul Raskin and colleagues (2002). Take

the section “A Distant Vision” (pp. 44-45) and create plausible vision elements for this vision – that means you need to find real-world examples for each component of the

vision, using the three types of plausibility as guidelines. When you are done, use the

matrix approach to systematically check for plausibility. If you find a lack of plausibility,

revise the vision so that it becomes plausible. Also reflect on the type of plausibility you

have used most. Why is that?

Similar to the previous three features, a plausible sustainability solution vision is best be

crafted in an iterative process, and in conjunction with the other features, described

above and below.

5. Make the vision motivational

Unlike general future scenarios, which are primarily designed to inform people about uncertainty, visions are supposed to inspire and motivate people to contribute towards the envisioned change. While stakeholders’ buy-in at the previous two stages of the

problem-solving sequence are important for building problem ownership, getting people

on board with the vision is indispensable for successful sustainability problem solving.

There is no clear incentive for stakeholders to help with crafting a solution strategy and

implementing it, if they don’t feel inspired and motivated to work together towards the

vision. While the desperate situation posed by the problem might be a strong

motivational factor, an inspiring vision to work towards can amplify the motivation.

Motivational visions create buy-in and acceptance of the proposed changes, spark

interest in collectively developing the vision further, and incentivize active participation

in the strategy-building and implementation process.

120

Motivation for change requires vision elements that challenge established assumptions,

open up new perspectives, and are generally thought-provoking. Yet, as discussed above,

even very ambitious sustainability visions need to remain in the domain of plausibility in

order to be more than wishful thinking and daydreams. Plausible visions convey

confidence, which, in return, positively influences motivation. Another important

motivational component is to see one’s own role in the vision. This makes a vision

personally relevant, not only ‘the right thing to do’. The sense for being part of a

pioneering movement that creates positive change is an additional factor that can

motivate people to participate and contribute to the problem-solving process.

While the vision content is important, the vision format has significant influence on making a vision inspirational and motivational.

Narratives, stories, games, videos, animated

presentations, and other engaging forms of

communication are usually more conducive to

spark inspiration than traditional forms of

academic or political communication such as lec-

tures, speeches, articles, reports, or policy

debriefs. Today, there are various aids easily

available to adopt an engaging vision format.

Alternatively, collaboration with artists,

filmmakers, graphic designers, actors and other

creative professionals allows for developing

visions in high-quality formats that can reach,

engage, and excite a broad audience. For

example, a sustainability solution vision of a city

addressing urban problems relevant to millions

of people benefit from expanding the conven-

tional form of a plan (see picture) with visuals,

narratives, and other engaging forms such as live

narration, videos, websites, and social media outlets. With this approach, an urban vision

can become a present and ‘living’ product that engages the public in accessible and

inspiring ways.

As visions are being designed to converge our actions into a desired direction, visions

need to display a sufficient degree of convergence themselves. This does neither imply

unanimous consensus nor immediate emergence of agreement. In fact, diversity in and

of visions – in particular, complex ones for cities, economic, or societal sectors – is an

Title page of the public hearing draft of

the updated Phoenix General Plan from

2010 (City of Phoenix, 2010), including

visuals and narratives, as well as being

linked to live narration, videos, websites,

and social media outlets.

121

important factor for a productive visioning process. Mapping out diversity of positions

and preferences yields important insights, increases mutual understanding, and enables

informed negotiations. Convergence is an important factor as a vision that is shared, allows for collective action, which can be an important motivational factor. First, a shared

vision conveys community, like-mindedness, and belonging. People are social beings. Belonging to a group of like-minded people is therefore a deep-seated desire. Second, a

shared vision is also motivational because it creates accountability. People feel

responsible for promoting, supporting, and defending a vision, if they have committed to

it as a collective.

In summary, people need to feel excited about the sustainability vision and want to work

towards realizing it, while being part of a group that shares the vision providing a sense

of belonging. Thus, the best way to make a vision motivational is to develop it with as

much input as possible from the stakeholders the vision imagines a desirable future for.

The key is to make the vision their vision. If you do not have the means or opportunity to develop the vision collaboratively in the first instance, at least outline why you think that

the key stakeholders could agree upon the vision. As the ultimate objective is to develop

a vision that can be considered shared among the stakeholders, you also need to develop

a plan on how to facilitate input and deliberation on the vision among the stakeholders.

èExercise. First, pick an existing vision of a company, a city, or a community that solves a sustainability problem relevant to you. Does this vision inspire and motivate you? What

would you change in order to make the vision more inspirational? Second, draft a vision

for a company, a city, or a community (on one page) that is inspirational, following the

guidelines above. Share it with a teammate, co-worker, or colleague and explore if it

inspires and motivates them, too. If not, what would they recommend to change so that

it becomes more inspirational to them?

Similar to the previous four features, a motivational sustainability solution vision is best

crafted in an iterative process, and in conjunction with the other features, described

above.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more specific techniques of how to best construct sustainability solution visions, there are several readings that provide reviews

or detailed instructions. The Book “Community Visioning Programs – Processes and

Outcomes” edited by Norman Walzer and Gisele Hamm reviews visioning efforts

undertaken for and with communities across the U.S. Together with my colleague David

Iwaniec (Wiek and Iwaniec, 2014), we have reviewed quality criteria of visions and

122

visioning techniques. The article provides more details and additional readings on the five

key features of visions presented above.

Complementary to learning more about methods, visioning benefits from reading and

getting inspired by novels and science fiction literature, which describe utopian ways of

governing resources, living in society, innovating technology, and so forth. While

dystopian novels are much more widespread, there are non-trivial visions in fiction and

science fiction literature, such as novels by H.G. Wells’, Ernest Callenbach, or Kim Stanley

Robinson.

Articles in popular journals like the YES Magazine, The Optimist, onEarth, Solutions, and others present sustainability solution visions that have already been realized or are in the

process of being realized. There are also many newspaper articles, magazine articles,

podcasts, etc. getting published during Impact Journalism Day or through the network of Solutions Journalism that might become sources of inspiration for developing sustainability solution visions. Artists such as Prince Ea or TED presenters such as Shabana Basij-Rasikh have included sustainability solution visions into their music videos and

presentations that spark inspiration around the world.

6 Not Too Much to Handle – Aligning Complexity and Capacity

This section refers back to the problem analysis chapter, where we explored the mismatch

between systems complexity and limited capacity as a key factor contributing to sustain-

ability problems. The complexity of societal systems including actions, technologies, and

infrastructures might be too complex for us to handle, leading to the sustainability challenges we experience. As detailed, our motives are too short sighted or lack inclusion

(caring); our knowledge is too limited; and our rules are too lenient or conflicting to

manage or govern the systems of actions, technologies, and infrastructures in a way that

avoids significantly harmful effects over the long-term.

In return, this insight can be used as a guideline for sustainability problem solving. Here,

in the first instance, we utilize it for crafting sustainability solution visions. In short,

sustainability solution visions ought to align complexity and capacity. Starting from the

problematic situation, sustainability solution visions could envision systems that are

(much) simpler than the problematic ones currently in place. This pertains to urban

systems, technologies, companies, and many other complex societal systems.

Let’s take the case of conventional economic structures and business operations, which

have in many instances created a world of wastefulness, exploitation, contamination, and

123

inequality. Off the beaten paths of profit-maximizing multi-national corporations and

global trade agreements, over the past decades, numerous business models have

emerged that pursue sustainability objectives. These include, among others, B (as in

“benefit”) corporations (e.g., King Arthur Flour), ‘business-for-charity’ corporations (e.g., Newman’s Own), non-profit businesses (e.g., Living Goods), sustainability-oriented business co-operatives (e.g., Once Again), responsible/impact investment (e.g., Root Capital), ethical banking (e.g., Alternative Bank Switzerland), and local living economies (e.g., in Bellingham, Washington). The majority of these initiatives can be perceived as pursuing sustainability objectives through simplifying production and distribution

processes, technology, as well as management and governance structures. In short, their

business models attempt to better align business structures and (limited) capacities in

order to foster sustainability and avoid unsustainable developments.

For example, as mentioned above, there is a network of farms, food processers,

restaurants, public organizations, and consumers emerging in various regions of the world

that create sustainable food economies significantly different from the status quo. They

undertake (intensive) organic and integrated farming, low-impact food processing, and

regional distribution through CSAs and farmer’s markets. Fresh produce is sourced locally

and offered through healthy dishes in local restaurants, schools, and hospitals. People

participate in community gardens, food education programs, and public food events. The

food economy has a strong regional focus and is dominated by benefit-oriented, non-

profit, co-operative, and other business models that empower employees and give back

to the community the businesses are embedded in. Again, a key element of these sustain-

able food economies is reduced complexity through decentralized decision-making, simplified technologies and procedures, short distances, shared ownership, and

unbureaucratic governance structures.

Such models can extend beyond the regional

scale, if designed and maintained carefully

within limits of capacity, or, in other words, on a

human scale. The Grenada Chocolate Company, founded by Mott Green (who died in 2013), is a

worker co-operative based on the Caribbean

island of Grenada (see pictures). It produces

award-winning artisan organic chocolate from

the tree to the finished product within the

region. Cacao is sourced from small certified

organic farms. Production uses solar-powered,

Impressions from the Grenada Chocolate Company, with founder Mott Green and staff (2013; Photo Credit: Kum-Kum

Bhavnani).

124

small-scale, and low-maintenance equipment. The factory employs up to 50 workers

during peak operations, and the co-operative company structure ensures fair and equal

wages for all employees. Tens of thousands of chocolate bars are being exported to

Europe with the help of solar-powered refrigeration, sailboats, and volunteer cargo

cyclists. This is all in stark contrast to an industry that still largely supports child slavery,

relies on conventional water- and energy-intense agriculture, with outflows of fertilizers

and pesticides, engages in corruption schemes, and utilizes emission-rich means of

distribution. A recent documentary film about the Grenada Chocolate Company, “Nothing Like Chocolate,” directed by Kum-Kum Bhavnani, provides detailed insights into the

underlying sustainability solution vision and its current realization.

èExercise. Pick a sustainability solution vision that focuses on complex technology to solve a sustainability problem. Review the vision against the guideline of balancing

complexity and capacity. If your review indicates that the vision relies on a misbalance

between complexity and capacity, revise it so that it would be better balanced.

A word of caution at the end though – not all of the alternative business models currently

promoted are appropriate models for sustainability solutions visions. The first reason is

that some of them are part of a strategy, not a vision. They are used as means to reach a different state, for example, one of eradicated poverty. We will discuss strategies in the

following chapter (Chapter V). The second reason, related to the first, is that they do not

always stay true to the agenda of sustainability and sustainable development. They

should be critically reviewed before being used as inspirations for sustainability solution

strategies. Milford Bateman (2011) has edited a book entitled “Confronting Microfinance

– Undermining Sustainable Development” that provides evidence that microfinance

organizations, in a good share of cases, have aggravated the poverty trap they allegedly

intend to help the poorest to escape from. Interestingly, this often happens when the

complexity and scale of the organization outmatches critical capacities of collaboration,

control, oversight, and trust. When micro-finance organizations turn into multi-billion dollar corporations (e.g., Compartamos Banco in Mexico, the largest microfinance bank in Latin America), they are likely to lose their path towards sustainability.

7 Putting the Tool Together

The visioning tool for creating and crafting sustainability solution visions is structured into

a series of sub-steps that do not need to be performed in a particular sequence. The tool

ensures that the sustainability solution vision is functionally linked to the identified and

125

analyzed sustainability problem, as well as provides direction to the sustainability solution

strategy to be developed in the next step. The tool helps crafting a quality vision that is sustainable, coherent, tangible, plausible, and motivational. It also supports the effort to

create a vision that balances complexity and limited capacity, as discussed in the previous

section. Figure 8 (next page) visualizes the six sets of guidelines that inform the crafting

of the sustainability solution vision.

For reasons of comparability and comprehension, the sustainability solution vision is

structured through the same categories that were used for the problem description. That

means, we need to describe what benefits are being generated (making sure they are

sustainable), what actions and technologies produce them, and what the underlying

drivers (motives, assumptions, rules, etc.) are. In short, as mentioned above, the vision

needs to be described in its systemic-causal structure.

1 2 6

F ig u r e 8 . T h e b a s ic s y s t e m ic - c a u s a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s u s t a in a b ilit

y s o lu t io n v is io n w it h a s e t o f

c a u s a l c a t e g o r ie s a n d lin

k s ( c e n t e r ) . T h e c r a f t in g o f s u c h a s y s t e m ic - c a u s a l s u s t a in a b ilit

y s o lu t io n

v is io n is in f o r m e d b y s ix s e t s o f g u id e lin e s t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e r e s u lt in g v is io n is s u s t a in a b le ,

c o h e r e n t , t a n g ib le , p

la u s ib le , m

o t iv a t io n a l, a

n d b a la n c e s c o m p le x it y a n d lim

it e d c a p a c it y .

127

In detail, the tool includes the following six guiding questions:

1. Does the sustainability solution vision successfully mitigate or prevent adverse effects and create benefits, while being sustainable in its entirety, as assessed

against the sustainability principles of viability and integrity of ecosystems; human

and social wellbeing; equitable opportunity for livelihood and economic activities;

justice across societies (inter-regional justice); and justice from one generation to

the next (inter-generational justice)? Provide a sustainability appraisal.

2. Is the sustainability solution vision based on a systemic-causal structure that is coherent, i.e., free of internal conflicts and seizes synergies? Sketch (graph) and describe the systemic-causal structure of the vision and provide a coherence

appraisal.

3. Is the sustainability solution vision sufficiently tangible, providing visuals, details, and targets for what people do (activities) and where (iconic places), as well as a vision narrative (e.g., starting with: “In 2040, …”)?

4. Is the sustainability solution vision sufficiently plausible, indicating for its key elements real-world examples that were realized in the past; or are currently

realized elsewhere; or are deemed realizable through a proof of concept? Provide

a plausibility appraisal.

5. Is the sustainability solution vision sufficiently motivational, using narratives, visuals, and other means to make the vision relevant to people and make it likely

to be shared and endorsed?

In addition, the tool entails as final overarching question:

6. Does the sustainability solution vision balance complexity of the chains of actions, technologies, and infrastructures of the envisioned system with the limited

capacity of stakeholders to understand, manage, and govern such a system?

8 Filling the Tool with Life

The previous sections have familiarized the readers with a tool for creating and crafting

sustainability solution visions in a reliable and transparent way. Yet, such a tool needs

applications in the real world to consolidate professional capacity.

This requires skills in data search, collection, assessment, interpretation, and transfer. For

instance, to make a vision plausible, a set of sound empirical data needs to be collected

and processed. In addition, all the recommendations provided in the chapter on problem

128

analysis (i.e., indicator selection, validation of causal relations, creating a system graph

with the systemic-causal structure of the vision) apply here analogously (see Section 6,

Chapter III).

Also, in order to create a motivational vision, partnerships with artists and filmmakers

need to be pursued and participatory events with stakeholders such as walking tours or

workshops need to get organized. While these are exciting opportunities, they require

specific skill sets. We discuss skills for collaborative team work and impactful stakeholder

engagement in Chapter VII.

èReadings. My team has conducted a number of visioning studies in Phoenix and we have written reports on them (e.g., Wiek, Golub et al., 2013; Iwaniec and Wiek, 2014).

These vision studies demonstrate how to apply a tool for crafting sustainability solution

visions. They do not exactly apply the tool presented here, as we used previous versions

of the tool. But most features are covered by and large.

While in most cases, using the tool for vision crafting and applying it in real-world settings

will be challenging, we need to adhere to the principle of pragmatism in this process. There is always more that could be done in developing sophisticated sustainability solu-

tion visions. Yet, the issues addressed are urgent, so time is limited. In addition, the

majority of sustainability projects have limited resources. Thus, the aspiration should be

to create a vision that is sufficient for moving forward towards strategy building and implementation.

9 Recap and What Happens Next

With the acquisition of the third tool we are now in a good position to reliably create and

craft sustainability solution visions to sustainability problems, i.e., to successfully

complete the first three

steps of sustainability

problem solving (see

picture).

We started from the dif-

ferentiation between vi-

sions and strategies; ex-

plored visioning’s histo-

ry and domains of appli-

cation; highlighted the

129

inter-play between creativity and crafting; and discussed the tension between

transformational and realistic visions. We then continued to look more closely into the

nature of sustainability visions and sustainability solution visions; followed by an account why a tool for creating and crafting sustainability solution visions is of benefit. And finally,

we discussed in detail the quality features and processes to craft a solution vision that is

sustainable, coherent, tangible, plausible, motivational, and balances complexity and

limited capacity.

Now, after having identified and analyzed a sustainability problem, as well as created a

sustainability solution vision, the next step is to build a robust sustainability solution

strategy (see picture). With such a strategy in hand we can then move on to the final step

of the problem-solving sequence, the implementation of the strategy. The next chapter

introduces a tool that helps sustainability professionals to build sustainability solution

strategies in a reliable way.

130

Chapter V

Step 4 –

How to Build a Sustainability Solution Strategy

Chapter Content

1 From Visions to Strategies ..................................................................................... 130 2 Sustainability Solution Strategies as a Particular Type of Strategies ..................... 135 3 Using Evidence When Building Sustainability Solution Strategies ........................ 137 4 Why We Benefit from a Tool for Building Sustainability Solution Strategies ........ 140 5 The Features of Sustainability Solution Strategies ................................................ 142

1. Determine the point(s) of intervention ............................................................. 143 2. Describe the solution actions ............................................................................ 145 3. Assign stakeholders and roles for executing solution actions ........................... 148 4. Allocate resources for executing solution actions ............................................. 150 5. Identify available assets .................................................................................... 152 6. Anticipate barriers and prepare coping tactics ................................................. 153 7. Search for and provide evidence that it works .................................................. 155

6 Putting the Tool Together ..................................................................................... 159 7 Filling the Tool with Life ........................................................................................ 161 8 Recap and What Happens Next ............................................................................. 162

1 From Visions to Strategies

Erzsébet Szekeres was a visionary – back in the 1980ies, in Hungary, when so-called

“disabled” people where caged-in like wild animals, she envisioned homes that would

provide vocational training, work opportunities, and assisted living to them. She

envisioned a society in which people would be respected for their types and levels of

abilities, and no one would be (actively) “disabled”. But while others might have had

131

similar visions, Mrs. Szekeres had another quality that distinguished her from others. She

created networks, lobbied policy makers, raised funds, retrained social workers, and so

forth. She did not do all of this by accident. Apart from a vision, she had a plan of action, or, in other words, she had built a strategy for how to transform the status quo towards the vision. Mrs. Szekeres has been one of the fearless activists working

tirelessly on institutional reform to create a new

culture that expands our conventional ideas of

abilities, disabilities, and the value of community. Over

the past several decades – in some cases even much

longer (see picture) – there have been numerous

initiatives inspired by such visions and a good share of

them succeeded in creating new work, living, and

playing environments for people with different skill

sets and needs. A key success factor was in most of

these cases that the leaders of the initiatives co-

developed a robust strategy by asking for advice and help from relevant stakeholder groups.

With the capacity to develop sound sustainability

solution visions, we can now move forward and take

the next step in solving sustainability problems, namely, building sustainability solution

strategies. This step complements the previous one in developing a solution to the identified and analyzed sustainability problem. The final step, i.e., implementing the built solution strategy, is then discussed in the next chapter. (The reader might benefit here

from briefly revisiting the introduction chapter and recapping what it means to solve a sustainability problem.)

Let's step back for a moment and revisit where we are, using a simple example. Imagine

you have picked a destination you want to travel to, but you don’t have any means of

transportation to get there. Or, you own a bicycle, but you don’t know where you want

to go. In both cases, there is a critical piece missing for making a meaningful trip – a

transportation option or a destination. This simple example illustrates the critical link

between vision and strategy in solving sustainability problems. We need both. And in this

order: first the vision, then the strategy. Imagine you figure out a destination you want to go to, but it is inconvenient to get there by bicycle, so, you might need to take a train. In

short, the strategy needs to fit the vision.

The Lobetaler Organic Dairy in

Biesenthal, Germany, pioneers

social-ecological dairy economy as

part of a century-long social

engagement at the Hoffnungstaler

Stiftung Lobetal (2013; Photo

Credit: Lobetaler Bio-Molkerei).

132

However, it is not always easy to clearly differentiate between the vision and the

subsequent strategy. Or, in other words, it’s sometimes quite difficult to determine where

the vision ends and the strategy begins. Let’s say a company’s CEO is being confronted

with the fact that 60% of her employees are overweight. In a leadership seminar at

Arizona State University’s College of Health Solutions she learns about the importance of sufficient physical activity to be healthy, happy, and productive. To enhance the level of

physical activity, she envisions having all her employees commute to work by bicycle in

five years from today – instead of by car, as currently. In order to make that happen, the

company’s management creates a program that provides financial incentives to all

employers who take the bicycle to get to work. The phrase “to make that happen” seems

to indicate that this program is the strategy to reach the vision. Yet, is it really?! One could

argue it is not, because the program is critical for not only reaching, but also for

maintaining the solution vision – the employees might not continue biking to work if the program is discontinued. So, it seems that the program becomes an integral part of, or

even a condition for the vision. This aligns with the previous chapter, where I argued that

a vision needs to be coherent across its systemic-causal structure. That means it needs to

spell out all the critical components, including the upstream drivers, and detail how they are linked and reinforce each other. To simplify matters, we disregard for now that, after several years, the outlined incentive program might become obsolete because commuting by bicycle has been internalized and might not need external incentives any

longer.

But if the incentive program is part of the complex vision for having healthy, happy,

productive employees, what then is the strategy for reaching the vision? Well, it’s quite simple – read carefully what it says above: “[…] the company’s management creates a

program that […]”. Just imagine all the steps necessary to create such a program. The CEO has to convince the board of directors and instruct the management team, which includes

negotiations, financial advising meetings, coordination, etc. At later stages, the

management team needs to inform the employees, hire cycling instructors, plan the

retrofitting of rooms for changing and showers, etc. Construction workers will retrofit the

rooms accordingly, cycling instructors will help employees with building their cycling

skills, etc. All of these actions require certain roles (planning, execution, supervision,

collaboration, etc.) as well as various resources (money, time, contacts, etc.). Barriers-to-

overcome need to be anticipated (e.g., the Board of Directors might be skeptical that this

program would work cost-neutrally) and coping strategies need to be developed (e.g.,

proving evidence that a cost-neutral funding mechanism would work). And so forth, and

133

so forth. Having a detailed plan for the creation of such a program is what we call “having

a strategy”.

Even if there are strong links between visions and strategies, it is important to be quite

strict about separating them. Constructing means (strategies) or ends (visions) follows different rationales. For example, while a vision should stretch our imagination and encourage us envisioning systems significantly different from the current status quo, the

strategy needs to start right where we are now. Often, the first couple of steps to be taken cannot be all that “visionary”, as shifting the trajectory works against powerful forces to

maintain the status quo. Visions and strategies fulfill different functions, and therefore,

they need to be generated based on different quality criteria.

As a general guidance for differentiating between visions and strategies, it helps if you

ask: “Is this about any part of the envisioned state (including upstream drivers and

dynamics) we try to achieve, or is this about how to get there?” Another helpful question is, “And how do we achieve that?”. The “that” refers to the vision, while the “how” refers to the strategy. It is important to recognize that a strategy always entails actions, namely,

what we need to do in order to move from the current state to the vision. The vision, however, entails activities, too. For example, a vision for a city in 2050 needs to capture

mobility, eating, and energy use activities and behavior. Yet, the activities described in

visions are seldom intended to create change – they are everyday activities. Also, the term change is ambiguous and we should clarify what we mean when it is used in a vision vs.

in a strategy context. For any given change, if we describe the outcomes of the change process, we describe the vision. If we describe the change process itself, we describe the strategy.

Building and implementing strategies is happening constantly. In other words, processes

of changing infrastructure, technologies, behavior, values, knowledge, and so forth are constant features of human societies. Examples are large infrastructure projects, like the

creation of the first water infrastructure in the Phoenix area by the Hohokam as early as

300 A.D.; or, the change of social practices, like the transition from a community-based

laundry activity to the almost exclusive use of the private electric washing machine in

central Europe in the 20 th

Century; or, the shift of norms, like the forced adoption of a

religious believe system through Christian colonialists (missionaries) in Africa in the 19 th

century. All these major change processes were informed by strategies. The most

important feature of a strategy is that it instructs how to make change happen. This sets strategies apart from problem models and visions.

134

Similar to visioning, strategy building occurs in all domains of society. Companies, govern-

ment agencies, and non-profit-organizations build strategies to achieve visions for them-

selves, their products, or services. (You might benefit here from briefly revisiting Erika

Andersen’s (2013) short article in Forbes on visioning, mentioned in the previous chapter – she talks about the link between visioning and strategy building, too.) All professional

plans, if crafted carefully, entail both a vision and a strategy.

As much as in professional activities, strategy building is being used in everyday life.

Strategies can appear in all shapes and forms, including game plans, action plans, tactics,

and so forth. Basically, every consideration on how to achieve a goal (or vision) is a strategy building process. For example, when a child ponders how to convince his/her parents to get permission for joining the local swimming club; or, when a high school

graduate strategizes how to obtain a scholarship to go to college; or, when a college graduate develops a plan on how to create a non-profit organization. Even if they do not result in fully fleshed out strategies, all of these processes have in common that one builds

a plan of action, i.e., a strategy, on how to achieve a goal or vision.

Strategy building – in both professional and private activities – is enabled by capacities

such as persuasion, paying attention to details, persistence, and creativity. Critical are also

experiences and case knowledge on how to make change happen. As with any other skill

set, these capacities can be trained and excel, or get neglected and disappear. So, if we

think strategy building is critical for sustainability problem solving, then we need to make

sure to learn and use tools and procedures that support this activity.

èReadings. There are a variety of books on change, in particular change towards public goods such as justice, health, and happiness, and how to facilitate it. Richard Thaler and

Cass Sunstein (2008) use insights from behavioral economics in their book “Nudge –

Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness”. Another prominent book of

a similar nature is entitled “Switch – How to Change Things When Change is Hard” by Chip

Heath and Dan Heath (2010). A book by Doug McKenzie-Mohr (2013) describes in detail

how community-based social marketing is more effective in incentivizing sustainable

behavior, as opposed to information-intensive campaigns. A popular book on the topic of

“How to Change the World” was recently published by John-Paul Flintoff (2013), using

examples of transformational change from history and different cultures around the

world.

135

2 Sustainability Solution Strategies as a Particular Type of Strategies

A sustainability strategy is a particular type of strategy. It pursues a sustainability vision. A sustainability solution strategy is even a more specific type of strategy. It is a plan of action to solve a sustainability problem by means of realizing a sustainability solution vision. So, this type of strategy is functionally tied to a sustainability problem and a

sustainability solution vision. Based on these initial clarifications, let’s offer a definition.

A sustainability solution strategy is a set of evidence-supported instructions on actions that, if executed properly, are expected to solve the sustainability problem addressed. Most sustainability solution strategies foresee, as part of the instructions, that such actions ought to be executed by and coordinated among various stakeholders (with their agreement) over an appropriate period of time.

èExercise. Following the provided definition, select a sustainability solution strategy using a newspaper article, broadcast, essay, book, academic journal article, blog, or

another credible source. What is the sustainability problem addressed? What is the sustainability solution vision pursued? Does the selected strategy comply with all the

features mentioned in the definition above?

Let’s explore the facets of sustainability solution strategies, as indicated in the definition

above.

First, a sustainability solution strategy is tied to a sustainability problem. It’s not just the

pursuit of sustainability in general, but its aspired success is measured against the

problematic status quo it intends to resolve. Let’s get back to the problem of childhood

obesity, mentioned several times in the previous chapters. Imagining that healthy

children play in a given neighborhood in a given year in the future could be part of a

sustainability solution vision to the problem of childhood obesity. The plan for actively

reorganizing the food system, retrofitting the urban structure, reforming physical

education in schools, etc. could be the sustainability solution strategy to resolve the

problem of childhood obesity and achieve the sustainability solution vision put forth. We

focus in this chapter on the process of generating this type of strategy, i.e. building sustainability solution strategies.

Second, similar to all other strategies, a sustainability solution strategy is different from

its implementation, i.e. the actions instructed on. This is why the definition reads: “[…]

actions that, if executed properly, are expected to solve the sustainability problem […].” We have mentioned a similar difference above, namely, between visions and failing

attempts to realize them. Analogously, if a sustainability problem is not successfully

136

solved, this might not necessarily be due to a flawed sustainability solution strategy. It

could also be caused by a flawed implementation process – e.g., the actions were not

executed according to the instructions given.

Third, a sustainability solution strategy and its instructions benefits from being based on

evidence, i.e., what works and what does not. This is why the definition reads: “[…] evidence-supported instructions on actions […].” Evidence enhances the probability of success, and also offers credibility in convincing and motivating stakeholders to

contribute and participate in the implementation. There are different types of evidence

produced for strategies. We will discuss them in the following section as well as in the

next chapter.

Fourth, unlike many other strategies, for sustainability solution strategies, collaboration

and coordination among stakeholders is not optional, it is essential for the success of the problem-solving process. This is why the definition reads: “[…] actions ought to be executed by and coordinated among various stakeholders (with their agreement) […].” Just revisit the system maps from the problem analysis and

recognize all the stakeholders negatively affected by,

benefitting from, causing, or being rightfully

concerned about the problem, who need to actively

contribute to the solution. Major societal

transformations such as the installment or reform of

civil rights, now and in the past, require numerous and

often unusual alliances among activists, advocates,

lawyers, politicians, non-profit organizations, and the

public (see picture). Such collaborative arrangements

that coordinate the numerous actions necessary to

transform the status quo are key components in sophisticated solution strategies. Thus,

strategy building benefits from relying on impactful stakeholder engagement, as

described in Chapter VII.

Fifth, sustainability solution strategies differ from other strategies with respect to the

urgency of the problem they intend to solve. As Lester Brown (2008) aptly put it in his

book “Plan B 3.0 – Mobilizing to Save Civilization”: “The question is how to get from here

to there before time runs out.” (p. 266) This is why the extended definition of

sustainability solution strategies presented above includes that actions need to be

executed “over an appropriate period of time”. The term “appropriate” does less refer to

Staff from the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), including Mary Bonauto (right),

who co-led the defense in the 2015

U.S. Supreme Court decision de-

claring all state bans on same-sex

marriage unconstitutional (2015;

Photo Credit: S. Symonds).

137

our current capacity to change and more to the need to change now in order to avoid passing tipping points (points of no return).

Sixth, the definition leaves open the specifics of the change process. Yet, as mentioned

above, sustainability problems are most likely not being solved through incremental

improvements, step-by-step developments, and smooth transitions. These pathways are expected to be too slow to meet the urgency of the sustainability challenges faced around the world. The harmfulness and urgency of sustainability problems, instead, calls for

significant, disruptive, radical, leaping changes that resemble revolution more than

evolution. Sustainability solution strategies therefore most likely ought to instruct on

transformations, less on transitions.

èReadings. The journalist David Bornstein (2010) wrote an inspiring book on “How to Change the World – Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas”, in which he

portrays more than thirty social entrepreneurs (including Erzsébet Szekeres) and how they realized visions from assisted living for severely disabled people in Hungary to rural

electrification in Brazil. Braden Kay and colleagues (2012) provide a systematic overview

of what sound transition strategies should entail and presents an in-depth case study on

how sustainability-oriented strategy building can be used in urban planning.

3 Using Evidence When Building Sustainability Solution Strategies

Sustainability solution visions offer the promise of a solved sustainability problem.

Sustainability solutions strategies provide a similarly strong promise, if not a stronger one:

the promise to get us there, i.e., to solve the problem (process). The performance of sustainability professionals is being measured against these promises – in how far we

deliver on them. It is important to carefully craft strategies to avoid failure,

disappointment, and resignation. A key component in building a sustainability solution

strategy is to use available evidence on what has worked (and what has not) in the past.

Similar to the criterion of plausibility applied when crafting sustainability solution visions above, strategies benefit from evidence that they can reach the aspired vision (if certain

conditions are fulfilled). As mentioned above, supporting a sustainability solution strategy

with evidence enhances the probability of success, and also offers credibility in convincing

and motivating stakeholders to contribute and participate in the implementation.

This is the reason why we consider three references points beneficial to inform a strategy. Apart from a sufficient understanding of the problem (through problem analysis) and a

sustainability solution vision (through visioning), the third reference point is a theory of

138

change. Figure 9 illustrates the interplay between the strategy and these reference points.

Figure 9. Conceptual model of inputs for strategy building, including a current state problem

model, a sustainability solution vision, and a theory of change (compiled evidence).

While the current state problem model provides insights on potential intervention points

and dynamics, the vision provides direction to the strategy. Both reference points are

important for evaluating the aspired success of the strategy ex-ante (likeliness of solving the problem and reaching the vision). The third component is a theory of change which

compiles and structures the evidence available for solving the given problem. The theory

of change articulates what intervention points and what change actions have been used

in the past to achieve outcomes similar to the ones described in the vision. For example,

when working towards solving the problem of childhood obesity, the solution strategy

should be informed by what solution strategies or interventions have been worked in the

past. For example, Elizabeth Waters and colleagues (2011) have conducted an extensive

review on the effectiveness of interventions intended to prevent obesity in children,

assessed by change in Body Mass Index (until March 2010). This and other reviews, if

compiled properly, constitute a theory of change that could inform future solution

strategies targeting childhood obesity. When compiling and applying evidence it is

important to carefully review the sources and their definition of what a strategy is. As

mentioned above, there is still quite a bit of confusion on the differences between

strategies and visions as well as reasonable overlaps, in some cases.

èExercise. Browse through the web-database of Ashoka Fellows – Innovators for the Public (https://www.ashoka.org/fellows). The database compiles information on leading social entrepreneurs working on innovative solutions to sustainability problems around

the globe. Pick one of the Ashoka Fellows and explore how the developed solution can be

139

used as evidence to inform strategy building for solution efforts elsewhere. Specify the

“elsewhere” by indicating where (location), when, and under which circumstances a given

initiative could use this evidence. Spell out, how the initiative would use the evidence.

Even if the strategy is carefully designed and based on evidence, it is not a guarantee for

success. Failure seems almost inevitable when implementing a solution strategy in pursuit

of an ambitious sustainability solution vision. Thus, another key factor in sustainability

problem solving is flexibility – being flexible in adjusting the strategy, if proven necessary

during the implementation process. We will discuss this feature in the next chapter.

However, it is important to recognize that flexibility is also often used as an excuse for

changes made to a strategy that had not sufficiently been based on available evidence. A great deal of sustainability professionals ignore or do not sufficiently review the evidence

available. This is often due to a lack of capacity, time pressure, or other factors. Yet,

despite some upfront cost, using available evidence for building a solution strategy always

pays off because it avoids frustrating and costly revisions and adaptations at later stages.

While evidence should be a key component in building sustainability solution strategies,

it still needs to be carefully interpreted and transferred to the specific context. This is the

reason why the above definition refers to “evidence-supported instructions” as opposed to “evidence-based” ones. This differentiation points to the importance of accounting for

limitations of knowledge and the need for designing a strategy to fit the specifics of

problem, vision, and any particular circumstances.

èReadings. Evidence is being produced in a number of fields to inform strategies

towards positive societal change. Esther Duflo working in the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty

Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has conducted and participated

in numerous studies to inform international development projects to improve public

health, farming practices, livelihood opportunities, and many other issues. She and her

colleague Kudzai Takavarasha (2010) have written a short and informative article on

“Social Science and Policy Design” which describes approaches and challenges in

identifying what works (and what does not) in public policy. Similarly, the Harvard Business Review has published its Winter 2014 issue on “Leading Change – What Works & What Doesn’t”, with a number of short articles summarizing the evidence on what

strategies most successfully incentivize, initiate, and sustain change in businesses.

Evidence is the key factor in informing the theory of change in strategy building. Yet, some

theories, while seemingly far from empirical grounding, can be of help, too. Systems

theory, for example, can inform the theory of change, as it allows conceptualizing solution

strategies as purposeful disruptions of the current state problem with coordinated,

systemic impacts (if they are successful). General systems theory is based on highly

140

aggregated empirical data on systems behavior and dynamics, and, as shown by Jay

Forrester (1971), can be used to highlight the possibility for counter-intuitive results when

intervening in complex societal systems. Donella Meadows (2010) wrote an article on

“Leverage Points – Places to Intervene in a System”, in which she makes the case for

exploring the triggering of systems change from particular leverage or intervention

points. Others have pointed to the importance of multi-layered, systemic intervention,

i.e., coordinated bundle of actions intervening at different points in the problematic

constellation, to solve complex sustainability problems. Gerald Midgley (2006), for

example, has written a short and informative article on “Systemic Intervention for Public

Health”.

4 Why We Benefit from a Tool for Building Sustainability Solution

Strategies

In the previous section we have reviewed some of the challenges and requirements

related to creating sustainability solution strategies. The discussed challenges can lead to

setbacks and failures in the process of problem solving. Without a reliable tool for building

sustainability solution strategies we might:

Continuing to get stuck in problem-focused activities. Similar to visioning, strategy building works against the general obsession with problems (as indicated in the previous

chapters). A reliable tool for strategy building offers a way to further develop our

collective capacity to craft solution strategies. It also liberates us from problem-centric

perspectives and allows us to make real progress on solving sustainability problems.

Confusing strategy and vision. Professionals often talk about “strategies” – while they are actually describing visions or vision elements. In a recent meeting of the Sustainability

Commission of the City of Tempe (December 2015), a city administration staff member

talked about all the strategy elements necessary for creating an urban forest. The list

included water resources, appropriate irrigation infrastructures, maintenance practices,

and so forth. All of these elements do not belong to the strategy, but to the vision of an urban forest. As explained above, the solution vision is a systemic-causal structure, not

just a simple target. The reason for this persisting confusion is that professionals often do

not work with sound definitions of what a strategy vs. a vision entails. A reliable tool for

strategy building, based on such sound definitions, would overcome this confusion and

enhance effectiveness and efficiency of sustainability problem-solving efforts.

141

èReadings. It is a good exercise to review professional, scholarly, and popular docu-

ments that claim to provide strategies and action plans, and assess to what extent they

actually do. For example, Jeffrey Hollender with a number of respectable colleagues

(2010) published an article on “Creating a Game Plan for the Transition to a Sustainable

U.S. Economy”. One would assume that the article is about a “game plan” – a sequence

of actions to be undertaken to create a sustainable U.S. economy. Indeed, the authors

explicitly promise at the beginning of the article to share “ideas as to how to achieve this

vision”. Far from it. Under the section title “The Game Plan Concepts and Actions”, the

core of the article presents five “actions”: “1. Getting money out of politics; 2. Full-cost

accounting; 3. Getting off fossil fuels; 4. Changing the ownership and purpose of the

corporation; 5. Shifting values”. None of these so-called “actions” is an action. What the

authors describe instead is the vision of a sustainable U.S. economy, with the features of: public (not private) funds for political campaigns, full-cost accounting, renewable

energies, alternative business models, and social values. As any other compelling vision,

this vision describes some processes and dynamics (systemic-causal structure). But this

does not make it a strategy or an action plan. Ironically, the reader does not learn anything about “how to achieve this vision”.

Not reaching the sustainability solution vision. At the end of the day, this is what the strategy will get evaluated against. There are many flaws in the strategy that can lead to

failure in the strategy implementation phase of the problem-solving effort, including:

- Not determined all important intervention points

- Neglected some critical or synergistic solution actions

- Not identified important allies, or how to create buy-in from relevant stakeholder groups, or how to coordinate actions among actors

- Note determined all resources necessary for successful implementation

- Missed out on valuable assets that could have been used - Not outlined how to address and overcome barriers

- Lacked evidence on what works and what does not

A reliable tool for strategy building makes sure all of these flaws can be avoided and a

sound sustainability solution strategy can be developed.

Reaching the vision, but with unjust means. In many change efforts it is argued that ‘the end justifies the means’. It is questionable if this is the right approach to sustainability

problem solving. A reliable tool for building sustainability solution strategies makes sure that the path adheres to principles of justice and other sustainability criteria as much as

142

the vision does. The tool helps not just creating any type of solution strategies, but those

that are sustainable in outcomes and process.

èExercise. Pick a film, newspaper article, report, or any other credible source that presents or discusses a sustainability strategy of your interest. Determine if and in how

far the strategy displays any or all of the described flaws. If you find any of these patterns,

try to revise the strategy in a way that it would better align with the ideal of a sound

sustainability solution strategy.

In conclusion, creating sustainability solution strategies is a challenging undertaking. In

order to do this in a reliable way and create impactful strategies, we are in need of a tool.

Such a tool should make sure that we use both creativity and analytical reasoning in crafting sustainability solution strategies that are complete and likely to succeed. As

mentioned before, the tool helps us to create functional sustainability strategies that are specific to the problem identified and analyzed as well as the sustainability solution vision crafted.

5 The Features of Sustainability Solution Strategies

The most important objective of a sustainability solution strategy is that it allows us to

successfully change from the currently problematic state to the vision, and thereby solve

the problem. For example, the city of Groningen in the Netherlands has successfully

developed, implemented, adjusted, and refined a multi-layered transition strategy in

pursuit of a sustainable mobility system. The strategy instructed on many solution actions

from establishing mobility education to constructing cycling infrastructure.

As eluded to in the previous section, there are several specific features that constitute a

sound solution strategy. It needs to spell out: the points of intervention, the solution

actions and their intermediate outcomes, the roles of contributing partners, the

resources required (and how to secure them), the assets that are available, and the tactics

to overcome barriers. In addition, when designing a strategy, it is beneficial to learn from

others and use the available evidence on what works and what does not.

Each feature corresponds to a step in creating a sustainability solution strategy. The

features and steps are described in the following. For each step specific methods have

been developed, which usually require advanced training. Exemplary methods are listed

in the recommended reading section below for advanced studies.

143

1. Determine the point(s) of intervention

Points of intervention are elements in the problem constellation, for example motives or

technologies, that are deliberately shifted in order to eventually reach the sustainability

solution vision and solve the problem. Developing a sustainability solution strategy starts

with revisiting the conceptual map of the systemic-causal structure of the problem and

the conceptual map of the systemic-causal structure of the solution vision. The next step

is exploring potential pathways based on the theory of change, and the evidence

embedded therein, which needs to be outlined before (see also sub-section 6. below).

This will eventually lead to recognizing what the most promising points in the problem

constellation are that need to get changed in order to trigger the overall transformation

or transition towards the solution vision. The point(s) of intervention can be located in

each segment of the problem constellation, but here are a few basic guidelines to

consider:

- Directly intervening in the adverse effects is only possible through alleviating measures. They do not address the (root) causes of the problem and thus will not lead to the solution vision over the long term. In medical terms, we use remedies

to cope with the symptoms, but we do not cure the syndrome. This is a widely

used approach to “problem solving” though. Remediation of contaminated sites,

medication against intoxication, importing food for the hungry, financial

compensation, and so forth – these are all “solutions” that might offer some relief,

and might be necessary over the short term. Yet, they do not tackle the (root)

causes of the problems (contamination, intoxication, exploitation, climate change,

etc.) and thus are very limited in their long-term effects.

- If direct interventions into the effects are less promising for problem solving efforts, sustainability solution strategies have to look further upstream. Yet,

directly intervening in activities and behavior is tricky, as force and direct

manipulation are unethical approaches. Creating settings that would allow people

to explore sustainable activities and behavior is a potential option, but it often

requires significant resources for creating a realistic environment for explorations.

Changing technologies and infrastructures is similarly challenging as it requires

even more resources and support. While these are important intervention points,

most promising are interventions into upstream drivers that then trigger system-

wide changes to the problem constellation. This is the reason why the scholarly

and public discourse often converge on “educating the public” or “creating a new

tax” as viable “solutions” to sustainability problems. The basic idea of going back

to the (root) causes of the problem constellations, including motives and rules, is

144

a promising approach. Yet, we need to be cognizant of the effectiveness of certain

intervention actions, or the lack thereof. We will discuss this in the next section

and in sub-section 6. below.

- Finally, sustainability problems are complex constellations of manifold causes and dispersed effects with numerous mediating factors and indirect influences. Thus,

it is most promising to intervene in these constellations at multiple points to

trigger systemic change. For example, in order to solve the problem of childhood obesity in a given setting, it would not suffice just to enhance opportunities for

more physical activity by providing a playground or a sports field (intervention

point: infrastructure and technology). Additional points of intervention need to

include, among others, upstream drivers of motives (desire to be active),

knowledge (knowing how to access the playground), and capacity (physical skills).

These are typical intervention points for exercise and training programs.

Determining which points of intervention are most promising, however, does not only

depend on the systems-thinking considerations outlined above. The specific situation and

contexts in which strategy building and problem-

solving is happening need to be considered as well.

Opportunities for impactful interventions are

constantly opening up and closing down (“windows

of opportunity”). And this determines what

intervention points are more or less promising at particular times. For example, infrastructure can become a promising intervention point after

disasters (see picture). Despite all the negative

impacts, such major events create a new ground

level from which communities can “build back

better”. This might appear opportunistic, but this is

exactly what determining points of intervention is all

about – being aware of existing and emerging opportunities that can be leveraged for

transformational change and sustainability problem solving. The resilience of

unsustainable states is quite profound due to vested interests, available resources,

conventions, and inertia. Leveraging disruptive change is a good option to break these

path dependencies.

Title image of the Greensburg [Kansas] Sustainable Comprehensive Plan that leveraged the 2008 tornado destruction of the urban infra-

structure for triggering sustainable

development (2008; Photo Credit:

BNIM).

145

2. Describe the solution actions and their intermediate outcomes

After having clarified where to intervene in the problem constellation, this step is about how to intervene, or in other words, about the specific solution actions. When crafting such an action plan it is advantageous to always keep the pragmatic and fairly simple

perspective of strategy building in mind: a sustainability solution strategy spells out a sequence of actions that is assumed to lead from the problem to the envisioned sustainable future. Figure 10 illustrates this perspective with the example of community

revitalization.

Figure 10. The pragmatic perspective of building a sustainability solution strategy – the strategy

answers the question what needs to be done or how to get from the problematic current state to the solution vision. The example is from the Grand Canal in the Gateway district of Phoenix,

Arizona (2010; Photo Credits: own sources (left); N. Ellin, Canalscape Project(right)).

Solution actions are a set of intentional changes or interventions that are executed in a

particular sequence (defining what comes first, second, third, etc.), or in parallel, over an

appropriate period of time. As time is limited for solving the given problem, as discussed

above, the strategy needs to allocate somewhat specific periods of time to each action

(timeline).

The solution actions are best determined “backwards” – leading with intermediate out-

comes from the sustainability solution vision, i.e., the ultimate expected outcome, back

to the current state problem. We first define such intermediate outcomes, which can be

considered intermediate targets or goals (on the way towards the vision). Such a

sequence of intermediate outcomes between the problem and the vision can be

illustrated so that they become tangible (as part-visions), like the vision. Revisiting the

film “Morgenstadt - City of the Future” provides an illustrative example of such

sequencing. We then link each of these intermediate outcomes to solution actions that

seem sufficient to achieve them.

146

As mentioned earlier, this type of strategic anticipation is not supposed to rigidly

prescribe and predict a course of action and its outcomes, but instead provides an

evidence-supported instructional framework for action. Revisions and adaptations of sustainability solution strategies are inevitable and expected (more about this in the next

chapter below).

Structuring the subsequent problem-solving process into different phases allows

stakeholders to plan for different dynamics over the course of the effort, anticipating

future solution actions, barriers, and coping tactics (see below). Adopting a pragmatic

approach, the strategy can structure this process into three phases: initialization,

acceleration, and stabilization (see Fig. 11 below). Solution actions should be tailored

specifically to the phase they are assigned to.

1. Initialization. Relevant solution actions to plan for in the initialization phase would be, if still needed, continuing raising awareness of the identified problem and

building out the stakeholder networks that support the vision and the plan of

action. Additional actions to plan for in this phase include initiating and

coordinating solution pilot projects and experiments that allow for small-scale

implementation of the key components of the vision to generate additional ex- ante evidence of success (see next chapter).

2. Acceleration. Relevant solution actions to plan for in the acceleration phase include transferring, multiplying, and scaling-up the key elements of the vision.

These actions are expected to be informed by the insights from the pilot projects

and experiments. In addition, we need to prepare for formative evaluation

capacity to continuously monitor, assess, and adapt the solution actions. We also

need to plan for actions that pursue additional stakeholder support and buy-in in

parallel to secure the necessary political and societal backing as well as financial

support to fully succeed.

3. Stabilization. Relevant solution actions to plan for in the stabilization phase include “normalizing” the achieved vision as a new set of “normal” operations

within the system. Stabilizing solution actions to include into the strategy make

sure that the transformed system builds up resilience as well as adaptive capacity

to ideally prevent future sustainability problems and be able to respond if they

occur anyway.

Many city administrations, businesses, organizations, and even professionals and scholars

dealing with change still struggle with spelling out sequenced strategies with coordinated

actions. The main reason is the persisting confusion between strategies and visions (as

147

mentioned above). Many of the so-called “strategies” outlined in general plans, action

plans, strategic plans, game plans, etc. are not strategies, but visions – detailing what they try to achieve, not how they try to achieve it (see Section 4. above). The items compiled in such documents are not solution actions, but their aspired outcomes. In our approach, we change the perspective and emphasis. While the ultimate outcomes have been

outlined in the sustainability solution vision, to which we refer back when indicating

intermediate outcomes (targets, goals), here it is all about the actions – what we need to

do. A few pioneering organizations, nevertheless, have made some good strides in developing sustainability solution strategies with coordinated solution actions, using

phase models like the one introduced above (see picture).

When planning solution actions for individual phases as well as across phases of the

strategy, a variety of options for sequencing and

coordinating actions in parallel need to be

considered. The question is when, for example, solution actions to demonstrate viability of vision

elements or solution actions overcoming structural

barriers, including norms and regulations, are best

be executed (with the highest impact). Here, as in

the process of determining points of intervention,

“windows of opportunities” can provide important

input for prioritization.

There are several useful typologies of solution actions (as change actions) to draw from. For example, one typology classifies actions to change

behavior from voluntary to involuntary: from

informing, persuading, coaching, training, and

incentivizing, to conditioning, manipulating, and

forcing. As mentioned above sustainability problem

solving accounts for ethical concerns and abstains

from adopting solution actions on the involuntary

end of the spectrum. Another typology compiles solution actions from the perspective of

social interactions and includes, among others: building partnerships, creating

organizations, forging strategic alliances, fundraising with foundations, lobbying

government agencies, and recruiting volunteers. In addition, there are numerous

typologies specific to physical or hands-on changes such as designing, constructing,

retrofitting, and so forth.

Title page of Edmonton’s Community Energy Transition Strategy (City of Edmonton, 2015) that outlines, in

part, a sequenced strategy with ac-

tions for raising awareness, building

capacity, creating non-permanent

incentives, and regulating the new

market.

148

While on a tight schedule that accounts for the urgency of the problem addressed, the

back end of the problem-solving process will often last for several years or even decades

(see next chapter). It makes sense to plan out specific solution actions and time frames

for them in detail over the first and part of the second phase. Yet, the father the strategy

reaches out into the future, general instructions and loosely defined timelines seem to be

more appropriate to account for uncertainty and unforeseen opportunities. As the

implementation of the strategy advances, actions and timelines need to get further

specified.

Solution actions are the focal point of the other strategy components described below –

actors & roles, required resources, available assets, and barriers to overcome would

ideally be articulated for each action. For each of the planned solution actions and its

expected intermediate outcomes (targets, goals), we should also refer back to the set of

goals summarized in the vision to ensure that all actions are guided by the ultimate aim

of reaching the vision.

3. Assign stakeholders and roles for executing solution actions

As mentioned above, sustainability problem solving, from the micro to the macro scale,

requires cooperation and alliances across various stakeholder groups. Such arrangements

call for clarifying and coordinating roles and responsibilities. A strategy, therefore, spells

out the specific roles of different stakeholders in the solution actions – in other words,

this is about who is doing what and when. Clear assignment of different roles avoids duplicating efforts, ensures that all critical solution actions are being executed, and makes

sure the available assets and fundraised resources are optimally allocated.

Obviously, roles are not being assigned in a simplistic top-down approach. Throughout

the problem-solving endeavor, participation, deliberation, negotiation, and agreement

among all stakeholders are important success factors. They are particularly important

when building a sustainability solution strategy. While there needs to be a voluntary

commitment from stakeholders to execute specific solution actions, it is always good to

create or rely on transparent accountability mechanisms. An agreement or memorandum

of understanding and formal contracts as well as agreed-upon reporting, monitoring, and

evaluation procedures are beneficial aids in securing accountability among all parties

involved. At times, the strategy might be able to leverage existing mandates and

organizational missions, including related accountability mechanisms. For example, a

good share of governmental agencies and non-profit organizations are obliged to create

149

or maintain public goods and work in support of sustainability. It is beneficial for

sustainability solution strategies to take advantage of such potential synergies.

Over the course of implementing a solution strategy and executing solution actions, the

roles and responsibilities of stakeholders might change. Nevertheless, there are some

useful typologies of stakeholder roles that can inform strategy building. One typology

differentiates the following roles in and across sustainability solution actions:

• Pioneers are critical for the initializing phase of the solution efforts. They are innovators who seize the initiative and try out solution actions. Pioneers are

willing to execute pilot projects and work with researchers to generate additional

evidence on what works and what does not. With this, they help catalyze buy-in

for solution actions.

• Researchers are involved in various solution actions throughout the problem- solving process, making existing knowledge available and generating new

knowledge, if needed. For example, they help pioneers to design, monitor, and

evaluate their pilot project. In other words, they utilize pilot projects as

experiments.

• Fundraisers are critical for the acceleration phase when transfer, multiplication, and scaling-up of the solution actions require resources and investments.

Fundraisers are willing to support pilot projects, too, but become more important

in the later stages of the problem-solving efforts.

• Multipliers continue where the pioneers left off. They are important for the acceleration phase when transfer, multiplication, and scaling-up of the solution

actions require (social) entrepreneurial activities. Multipliers use the insights from

the pilot projects and experiments to help the solution effort to succeed on the

scale of the problem (not just a pilot project site).

• Networkers provide support for solution actions by strengthening relationships in formal and informal networks. Networks are important contributors throughout

the process, but need to change their actions over the course of the problem-

solving process. In the initialization phase they might focus on connecting

pioneers, while greater networking efforts are required in the acceleration phase,

when fundraisers, multipliers, and the public need to get connected.

150

• Mediators build agreement and resolve conflicts that might emerge when executing solution actions during the implementation process. A focal point of

mediators’ tasks is coordinating solution actions among different stakeholder

groups and across the problem-solving process.

Mediators play a major role in problem-solving

processes that resolve large-scale or long-lasting

conflicts and strive to create peace (see picture).

It might also be advantageous for the problem-solving

efforts, if stakeholders agree upon a general setting for

exchange, coordination, deliberation, negotiation, and

other processes that support the problem-solving effort.

Such a setting could be considered a “Problem-Solving Arena”. It is mainly a forum for collaboration that is governed by a set of agreed-upon rules and regulations,

and might even have some physical extension (facility,

office, meeting room, etc.). The problem-solving arena

provides a (virtual or real) space in which interactions are

coordinated across the different phases of the problem-solving process. The problem-

solving arena is particularly useful when it comes to the implementation of the solution

strategy, as this is the stage when resources are being invested and real change is

expected to happen.

4. Allocate resources for executing solution actions

Most of the solution actions planned for in the strategy require a certain type and amount

of resources to be able to execute them. Resources include money (funds), material, and

other physical goods, but also time, capacities, knowledge, authority, emotional energy,

and social support networks.

Determining the resources most supportive for each action to be executed can help

accelerating strategy implementation and avoiding misallocation of resources. Solution

actions can require several different resources, even within the same type. For example,

different types of financial resources might be necessary both by direct expenditure and

through hidden costs such as taxes, insurances, and transactional costs. It is also very

important to recognize, build into the strategy, and leverage financial and other gains

created by solution actions. For example, cost savings in comparison to the current state problem could be reinvested and thereby accelerate the problem-solving process.

1998 peace negotiations in

Northern Ireland, led by

mediator George Mitchell, that

resulted in “The Good Friday

Agreement”, ending decades of

violent conflict (2011; Photo

Credit: Global Peacebuilding

Center).

151

The strategy also needs to spell out fundraising activities and potential funding sources.

The latter vary widely depending on the type of problem-solving effort, partnerships, and

location. In many cases, governmental agencies as well as private foundations provide

monetary funds for sustainability solution efforts. It is also important to plan for

unforeseen resource needs and build some flexibility into the financing and funding

schemes of the strategy – resource needs vary for solution actions as scaling effects and

market forces play into the problem-solving process.

The problem-solving arena should include agreements and rules on how resources are

comprehensively being estimated, allocated, and spending is monitored and adjusted, if

needed.

As mentioned above, resources do not only include money, material, and other physical

goods spent on solution actions, but also less tangible resources such as time, knowledge,

capacity, emotional energy, or social support networks. Additional resources might be

required to cover social costs induced by solution actions, including social tension,

physical harm (insurance), and time loss.

For all the roles described in the previous sub-section, as well as other roles needed for

executing solution actions, particular capacities, skill sets, and experiences are required.

Having them identified, planned for, and secured creates a solid base, while gaps or the

lack thereof can jeopardize the success of the problem-solving process.

Smart fundraising is a key activity of sustainability problem solving and should be

supported in the strategy building stage by indicating existing funding programs and other

support opportunities. A good example of securing

capacities and knowledge for sustainability problem-

solving in a cost-efficient way is to take advantage of

expert volunteering offers. There are numerous of these programs such as Engineers without Borders (see picture), non-profit organizations such as the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, or international orga- nizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme. All of them offer, under certain circum- stances, their support through expert consultation and

collaboration.

As collaborators are recruited, and roles are ne-

gotiated, it is important to ensure that all necessary capacities are secured. Yet, it might not always be possible or desirable to secure all

Engineers without Borders from the University of Nebraska work

with community members on

installing solar panels for schools

in Kianjavato, Madagascar (2012;

Photo Credit: EWB-USA University

of Nebraska Student Chapter).

152

capacities at the very beginning. Additional and continuous training and capacity building can help to further build out the skills needed. Also, less formal processes of social

learning allow for broader capacity building in the general public as part of the

acceleration and stabilization phase of the strategy implementation. None of this happens

by accident – whatever capacity-building is considered essential for problem-solving

success needs to be carefully planned for and effective programs need to get developed.

Such programs need to be integrated and spelled out in the strategy, too.

5. Identify available assets

No sustainability problem-solving endeavor ever starts with literally nothing in hand. Just

remember that sustainability problem solving is only triggered when there is a critical

number of stakeholders aware of the problem and who have come together to do

something about it (see Chapters I and II). There are always certain resources available

and opportunities open to take advantage of. The key is to identify them and use them

strategically. Again, a sustainability solution strategy can help to recognize and plan for

utilizing existing resources, skill sets, and opportunities. In fact, a solution strategy that

equally accounts for resource needs and available assets holds advantages over purely needs-based strategies. Assets do not only directly support the strategy implementation

– they often create additional buy-in for the problem-solving process, as they activate

stakeholders as contributors.

Assets are preexisting resources that solution actions can make use of. They include,

among others land, infrastructure, organizations,

regulations, financial resources, volunteers, capacity,

knowledge, emotional energy, and social support

networks. Even more important assets are preexisting

initiatives that pursue similar goals like the problem-

solving effort in question and allow for creating

synergies and reinforcing effects.

There are numerous examples for asset-based

strategy building and utilizing available assets for

sustainability problem-solving initiatives. A great deal

of urban and rural communities have made major

strides in taking fate in their own hands and solving

sustainability problems, largely by leveraging local

assets (see picture). Such initiatives create and rely on

The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative has provided affordable housing, open space, and urban

agriculture opportunities to local

residents and nonprofits in

Roxbury, Massachusetts by lea-

sing land and buildings, while

establishing a trust to preserve

access and affordability (2012;

Photo Credit: DSNI).

153

local economies, land trusts, shared equipment, community spaces, training programs,

and many more self-supporting and re-enforcing assets.

Planning for assets in the solution strategies serves four purposes: first, it helps getting

the implementation on its way; second, demonstrating to other stakeholders, partners,

and funders, that this is a serious effort that utilizes available resources (not only relying

on external support); third, as a reminder to look out for additional assets that could be

leveraged over the course of the problem-solving process (strategy implementation); and

fourth, it stimulates stakeholders to be creative in their thinking as they are forced to use

what they have.

6. Anticipate barriers and prepare coping tactics

Sustainability problem-solving efforts, as all major change undertakings, inevitably

encounter barriers. They might come in many shapes and sizes, ranging from moderate

reluctance to outright resistance. A sustainability problem-solving initiative often faces

several barriers, such as institutional inertia, unfavorable rules, protest, and counter-

initiatives. They might not come all at once (sometimes they do), but they will eventually

emerge, if the envisioned and pursued change is significant. As discussed, this is the type

of change sustainability problem-solving initiatives should aim at. Thus, the occurrence of barriers can be considered “a given” – it could even be used as one of the indicators

(certainly not the only one) that the initiative is on the right path.

As barriers are “a given”, it is beneficial to plan for

them in the solution strategy. There are two parts to

it: first, anticipating the potential barriers; and

second, how to overcome these barriers.

Identification of barriers and how to overcome them

is an important, yet often neglected component of

sustainability solution strategies. The reason is that

initiators and supports of sustainability problem-

solving efforts often assume that their work towards

“the common good” is just the right thing to do – and everybody just knows that and agrees with it. As

mentioned and demonstrated above (see Chapter II,

Section 5, Sub-section 5), this is unfortunately not

true, as sustainability problems know many and

powerful beneficiaries who are strongly interested in

Protest at the National Rifle Asso-

ciation (NRA) headquarter in Fair-

fax, Virginia (2015; Photo Credit: J.

Ernst). Initiators and supporters of

action against gun violence in the

U.S. need to anticipate and develop

tactics to overcome many barriers,

including those erected and upheld

by powerful special interest groups.

154

maintaining the status quo. Sustainability problems often persist because of barriers

erected and upheld by such beneficiaries (see picture, previous page). Identifying barriers

and creating tactics to overcome them are critical tasks for avoiding failures and enhance

efficiency in sustainability problem solving.

Anticipating barriers is a strategy-building activity that can benefit from typologies of

barriers. The typology proposed here follows the categories used in the problem analysis

(Chapter III, Section 5). Accordingly, we differentiate barriers that are associated with

activities and behavior, technology and infrastructure, motives, assumptions, rules,

capacities, and resources. The described elements do not pose barriers themselves, but

in many cases they are upheld, reproduced, enforced, or supported – which creates

barriers to changing them. In the rules category, for example, driven by special interest

groups, the state of Arizona is infamous for introducing and passing bills to prevent legal

support for sustainability initiatives. In 2014, for instance, former Senator Chester

Crandell introduced AZ Senate Bill 1227, which proposes that “a city or town may not

adopt as mandatory any, or part of any, building code, ordinance, stipulation or other

legal requirement that is related to energy efficiency, energy conservation or green

construction in new construction”. (No further action has occurred since its Third Reading

in the Arizona Senate on March 4, 2014.) Such a bill would significantly hamper progress

towards energy efficiency and conservation. That means, the resilience of the status quo

is actively enhanced and positive change efforts are actively undermined. Another

example, this time in the assumptions (knowledge) category, is that the National Rifle

Association (NRA) in the U.S. used flawed interpretations of statistical data to falsely

assert that gun laws introduced in Australia in the late 1990ies have actually increased

gun violence. Such a tactic – that even triggered an official objection from Australia`s

Attorney General Daryl Williams in 2000 – attempts to immunize the status quo of

unreasonably lenient gun control in the U.S. It thereby poses a significant barrier to action

against gun violence. There are many more barriers, most of them less obvious than the

two examples described above. Institutional inertia of large bureaucracies, organizational

culture of risk aversion, established links between government agencies and special

interest groups are among such barriers that erect and uphold barriers against attempts

to change the status quo.

Tactics to overcome such barriers need to be tailored to the specifics of the respective

barrier. In most cases, targeted and extensive actions are needed, only in a few cases, a

minor response or ignorance suffices. For example, initiatives to mitigate climate change

have faced head wind in the U.S. until 2014 when the U.S. government launched several

climate action initiatives and joined the international community in promising to ratify

155

the Paris Agreement negotiated at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference.

Decades of intensive strategy building and adjustment, including identification of barriers

and development of coping tactics, were necessary to succeed in continuously building

momentum towards climate action. While coping tactics need to be tailored, they do not

differ much from the solution actions described above. It might be useful to review the

action types discussed above and become familiar with how to utilize them in overcoming

barriers to change.

7. Search for and provide evidence that it works

As mentioned above, a key factor for building sound sustainability solution strategies is

providing evidence what works and what does not, in other words, what actions are most

likely to reach the envisioned intermediate and ultimate targets and goals. Analogous to

plausibility in support of solution visions (see Chapter IV, Section 5, Sub-Section 4), we

look for ex-ante support in crafting impactful solution actions. This does not preclude us from generating empirical evidence that our solution strategy works, as opposed to only relying on others’ experiences – but this happens at a later stage (see next chapter). Here,

we focus on gathering the evidence available from similar problem-solving efforts that

have happened in the past or are concurrently ongoing somewhere else. For this step, it

is important to recognize that cases of failed strategies are as beneficial to learn from as

are cases of succeeded strategies.

Gathering evidence on what strategy works and which one does not is not a trivial

undertaking. It requires some scholarly or professional skills and experience to perform

sound reviews of available evidence in support of a given strategy. For example, there is

some contestation on the effectiveness of gun control laws on preventing gun violence

(see, for instance, the case of Australia’s gun control laws passed in the late 1990ies:

Chapman et al. (2006) vs. Baker and McPhedran (2007)). Yet, contestation does not mean

that all arguments are similarly accurate or well supported. As we have seen in several

cases, as discussed above, there are often vested special interests that willfully distort

facts (this is the case in some of the contestations about the effectiveness of the gun

control laws implemented in Australia). So, it is important to carefully review the different

claims made. We have already developed several tools that can help us with reviewing

claims and the evidence available. For example, in the case of effectiveness of gun control

laws on preventing gun violence, there are several aspects that we can draw out using

the tools developed. For one, as there is a difference between strategy and strategy

implementation, there is a difference between a law and its enforcement. Gun control

laws are only as effective as their enforcement. If there is a lack of enforcement, the

156

effectiveness of the law is limited. Even more importantly, however, assuming that gun

control laws can solve the problem of gun violence indicates a lack of sustainability

problem-solving training. Using our tool for revealing the systemic-causal structure in the

analysis of the gun violence problem can help us here. Guns themselves are but one

element (namely: “technology”) in the complex constellation of factors contributing to

gun violence. Taking this element out of the equation might be a step in the right

direction. Yet, this intervention alone is very unlikely to mitigate a problem as complex as gun violence. We have already learned that only a concerted suite of interventions, at various points of the problem constellation, can help in mitigating such a complex

problem. Similar to the naiveté in thinking about sustainability problems as being caused

by one or very few causal factors (see Chapters II and III), it is similarly naïve to think that there is a silver bullet that can solve a sustainability problem by intervening at one point of the problem constellation.

The theory of change, i.e., the compiled evidence available, which was mentioned above,

should ideally inform each element of the solution strategy. Yet, the knowledge base is

not in all domains of sustainability problem solving as built-out that we could refer to a

coherent and sufficiently detailed theory of change. In many cases, we need to draw from

various sources and accept gaps in the evidence base.

Searching for and providing evidence starts with compiling credible sources on the

problem-solving effort in question. For example, when working on a strategy for creating

a sustainable local food system, relevant sources are describing all those initiatives and

processes from locations around the world in which stakeholder alliances have solved the

problem of unsustainable food systems (or are on a good way to do so). Apart from

sources that simply describe such initiatives, even more valuable are sources that have

evaluated failure or success of such initiatives. Appropriate sources include academic

publications such as journal articles and books, as well as professional reports, websites,

databases, and quality media outlets. There are a number of academic fields that focus

on assessing failure or success of programs, projects, politics, and other change actions.

These fields include, among others, intervention research, evaluation studies, program

design and evaluation, and implementation research. However, these sources vary

considerably in the degree in which they report on both the solution vision and the

strategy.

For the majority of relevant initiatives there might be no evaluative studies available or

they might not address all the issues relevant here. When there is a lack of informative

studies, a few guiding questions can help to tease out the evidence of success or failure:

157

1. What was accomplish in this problem-solving initiative, in other words, what outputs, outcomes, and impacts were generated? Was the problem solved?

(Alternatively: what did they fail to accomplish?)

2. How did they do it (what were the intervention points, solution actions (with timeline), roles, resources, assets, coping tactics) and what were critical success

factors? (Alternatively: why/how did they fail and what were critical factors of

failure?)

3. How can we reproduce the success of this problem-solving initiative? (Alternatively: how can we avoid to make the same mistakes as the initiatives that

failed?)

Apart from gathering evidence through review of credible sources, it might be advanta-

geous to conduct an expert review of the strategy, as soon as a complete draft is available. This is particularly relevant in cases where the

strategy is novel and similar initiatives are difficult to

identify. Such an expert review can include scholars,

professionals, and stakeholders. The strategy is pre-

sented step-by-step and each component of the stra-

tegy is justified. A sound model of strategy review is

called “fast-forward review”, in which the strategy is

presented to the review panel as if it would be

implemented in real time. The panel reviews the

strategy imagining as it would happen – and

scrutinizing if it is likely that it could happen as imagined. Guiding questions that highlight

areas of less available evidence can support the panel members in the review process.

èExercise. There are three exercises that can further develop capacity in building

sustainability solution strategies, using the tool developed in this section.

The first exercise for strategy building is to reconstruct a successful sustainability problem- solving process (problem solved or on a good way to get solved). Find a realized

sustainability solution you are excited about. Use the first two guiding questions from the

previous sub-section on evidence. In addition, try to answer the following questions: Do

you find any indications that the main actors had developed a strategy for the problem-

solving process you reconstructed? Did they use any or all of the discussed three inputs

(problem model, vision, evidence/theory of change) for informing their strategy?

The second exercise for strategy building is evaluating a sustainability solution strategy.

For example, you could review the strategy developed by Paul Raskin and colleagues

Review panel for transit-oriented

urban development strategies in

Phoenix, Arizona (2013; Photo

credit: City of Phoenix).

158

(2002, pp. 47-70) for the “Great Transition”, which was built by using a similar problem-

solving framework like the one presented in this book. When reviewing the strategy for

“how do we transition from where we are now to where we want to be in the future” use

the seven key features of sustainability solution strategies and evaluate the strategy

against these features. If the strategy does not fully comply with them, try to modify the

strategy that it would comply.

The third exercise is constructing a strategy yourself. Pick one of the sustainability pro-

blems and related solution visions from one of the previous exercises, or use new ones.

Follow the instructions on the seven key features of sustainability solution strategies and

make sure to build a sustainability solution strategy that aligns with these aspirations.

èReadings. If you are interested in learning more specific techniques of how to best

build sustainability solution strategies, there are several readings that provide reviews or

detailed instructions. Together with my colleague Braden Kay, I have reviewed a number

of approaches to building sustainability strategies, including transition governance, back-

casting, intervention research, change management, integrated planning, and adaptive

management (Wiek and Kay, 2012). For example, intervention research, as compactly

outlined in the book by Mark Fraser and colleagues (2009), offers detailed procedures on

how to develop initiatives and programs for positive change. Intervention strategies are

usually articulated in so-called “intervention manuals” that explicate actions, roles, and

resources needed. Mainly relevant for the broader business context is the book “Leading

Change toward Sustainability – A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government

and Civil Society” by Bob Doppelt (2010). Derk Loorbach (2007) and many other

colleagues, primarily in Europe, have developed the approach of transition management

or governance to facilitate change towards sustainability. I have used this approach in

many of the strategy features described above. Other literature on specific features of

sustainability solution strategies presented above includes, among others: The systems-

thinking articles by Donella Meadows (2010) and by Gerald Midgley (2006), mentioned

above, are good sources to inform the selection of powerful points of intervention

(Section 5, Sub-Section 1). David Laws and colleagues (2001) in their book “Public

Entrepreneurship Networks” developed a set of roles in innovation processes towards

sustainability that I built upon (Section 5, Sub-Section 3). Sarah Burch (2010) developed

an empirically-informed typology of barriers to change towards sustainability that widely

aligns with the typology presented above (Section 5, Sub-Section 6). My colleague Nigel

Forrest and I (Forrest and Wiek, 2015) have analyzed successful transition processes

towards sustainability in small communities. This is one type of evaluative study that

159

could be of use when looking for evidence on the effectiveness of sustainability solution

strategies (Section 5, Sub-Section 7).

Articles in popular journals like the YES Magazine, The Optimist, onEarth, Solutions, and others present sustainability solution strategies that have already been implemented or

are in the process of being implemented. There are also many newspaper articles,

magazine articles, podcasts, etc. getting published during Impact Journalism Day or through the network of Solutions Journalism that might become sources of inspiration for building sustainability solution strategies.

There are also many online resources for solutions relevant to sustainability problem

solving that describe to varying extents solution visions and strategies and provide varying

degrees of evidence for their effectiveness. For example, the Danish Architecture Centre

website includes a searchable compendium of solutions for sustainable cities

(www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/). The CiViTAS project website, funded bu

the European Union, provides hundreds of sustainable mobility solutions with technical

reports (www.civitas.eu). ELTIS is another database of mobility solutions (www.eltis.org).

6 Putting the Tool Together

All steps described in the previous section are closely linked – and only the interplay

among the strategy elements will yield a sound sustainability solution strategy. Figure 11

below illustrates this interplay and can be used as a visual aid when building a sustain-

ability solution strategy.

160

Figure 11. Conceptual model of a sustainability solution strategy, composed of sequenced solution

action packages, each including point(s) of intervention (POI), solution actions, assigned actors,

necessary resources, available assets, and coping tactics to overcome barriers (that become less

challenging as the process progresses). The solution strategy is informed by a current state problem

model (1), a sustainability solution vision (2), and a theory of change based on compiled evidence (3).

The following guiding questions help to build a sound sustainability solution strategy:

1. Point(s) of Intervention: Where in the systemic-causal structure of the problem should the solution actions intervene?

2. Solution Actions: What needs to be done when, i.e., in what phase of the problem- solving effort (implementation phase)?

3. Stakeholders and Roles: Who needs to play what role (linked to each solution actions)?

4. Required Resources: What are the resources needed (linked to each solution actions)?

5. Available Assets: What are the assets available (linked to each solution actions)?

6. Barriers and Coping Tactics: What are the obstacles for the problem-solving effort to succeed and how can they be overcome?

161

One question refers back to the six elements of the sustainability solution strategy:

7. Evidence: What is the evidence that the proposed sustainability solution strategy works, i.e., that it reaches the sustainability solution vision?

èExercise. Find an example of a sustainability problem-solving effort (book, article, etc.)

that can be generally considered to have solved the problem. Summarize the elements of

the sustainability strategy that were employed using a chart based on the model provided

above (Fig. 11). Where did they intervene? Were distinct stages recognizable? Were

intermediate goals and targets set? What solution actions were taken to achieve targets?

Who did what? What resources were used? Were any existing assets used? What barriers

were encountered and how were they overcome?

7 Filling the Tool with Life

The previous sections have familiarized the readers with a tool for building sustainability

solution strategies in a reliable and transparent way. Yet, as with all the previous tools

presented, the tool for strategy building needs applications in the real world to

consolidate professional capacity.

As discussed in the previous section, this requires skills in identifying relevant sources,

reviewing the evidence, and exploring possibilities (and limitations) of utilizing the in-

sights for informing the sustainability solution strategy in question.

Also, in order to create a strategy that is backed by a critical number of stakeholders,

participatory events such as a review panel (described above) need to get organized.

While these are exciting opportunities, they require specific skill sets. We discuss skills for

collaborative team work and impactful stakeholder engagement in Chapter VII.

èReadings. My team has conducted a number of strategy studies in Phoenix and we have written reports on them (e.g., Xiong et al., 2012; Bernstein et al., 2015). These stra-

tegy studies demonstrate how to apply a tool for building sound sustainability solution

strategies. They do not exactly apply the tool presented here, as we used previous

versions of the tool. But most features are covered by and large.

While in most cases, using the tool for strategy building and applying it in real-world

settings will be challenging, we need to adhere to the principle of pragmatism in this process. There is always more that could be done in developing sophisticated sustain-

ability solution strategies. Yet, the issues addressed are urgent, so time is limited. In

addition, the majority of sustainability projects have limited resources. Thus, the

162

aspiration should be to create a strategy that is sufficient for moving forward with implementation.

8 Recap and What Happens Next

With the acquisition of the fourth tool we are now in a good position to reliably build

sustainability solution strategies to sustainability problems, i.e., to successfully complete

the first four steps of sustainability problem solving (see picture).

We revisited and further specified the differentiation between strategies and visions;

explored sustainability solution strategies as particular types of strategies; and high-

lighted the importance of evidence for building sustainability solution strategies. We then

reflected on why a tool for building sustainability solution strategies is of benefit. And

finally, we discussed in detail the quality features and processes to build a sustainability

solution strategy. These include namely compiling information on intervention points,

sequenced solution actions, necessary resources, available assets, how to overcome

barriers, and the evidence that the strategy actually works (i.e., can solve the problem).

Now, after having identified and analyzed a sustainability problem, created a

sustainability solution vision, and built a sustainability solution strategy, the next and final

step of the problem-solving sequence is to implement the solution strategy (see picture).

The next chapter introduces a tool that helps sustainability professionals to implement

sustainability solution strategies in a reliable way.

163

Chapter VI

Step 5 –

How to Implement a Sustainability Solution Strategy

Chapter Content

1 The Real Deal – Finally! ........................................................................................... 163 2 Flexibility in Implementing Sustainability Solution Strategies ................................ 165 3 Procedure for Implementing a Sustainability Solution Strategy ............................. 167

1. Test and adjust the strategy ............................................................................... 167 2. Implement the adjusted strategy ....................................................................... 170 3. Evaluate the implementation ............................................................................. 171 4. Adjust the implementation ................................................................................ 174

4 Putting the Tool Together ....................................................................................... 174 5 Recap and What Happens Next .............................................................................. 175

1 The Real Deal – Finally!

That is what we have been waiting for! After a long and careful preparatory journey, we

are now ready to put things into practice, or in other words, implement the strategy built.

There are many things to do – as spelled out in

the strategy, i.e., the plan of action (see picture).

Fundraising and communicating being among the

first actions, often building on already existing

relationships forged during the previous steps of

the problem-solving effort. As the actions are

getting implemented, the initiators and suppor-

ters of the problem-solving effort will experience

surprises, successes, and failures. Ideally, the “natural” fluctuations between ups and

downs would remain in a manageable space, so that the overall endeavor is not

hampered or even jeopardized.

The implementation follows the plan of

action (strategy) with details on actions,

resources, assets, etc.

164

Yet, some caution is a good guide here, in particular when exercised at the very beginning

of the implementation process. Admittedly, all implementations of sustainability solution

strategies require significant funds and tremendous efforts over the course of several

years. Imagine what it takes to transform the mobility system of a city from unsustainable

activities, behavior, technologies, infrastructures as well as the underlying drivers

towards sustainable ones. So, we want to make sure that the built solution strategy

actually works.

A good share of implementations have failed to solve the sustainability problem they

were intended to solve. As mentioned above, examples include, most prominently, in-

crease of energy use after the introduction of energy-efficient measures; the depletion of

water resources after the introduction of technologies allegedly saving water; or the

degradation of natural habitats after the introduction of alleged conservation policies.

Many other strategies have failed to be fully implemented due to a lack of funding, buy-

in from critical stakeholders, or resistance from opposing parties.

Yes, we have used evidence during the strategy building phase (Chapter V). Yet, it is still

advantageous to do a real-world pilot project and accompanying experiment. It tests whether or not, or to what extent, the strategy, when implemented, actually accom-

plishes the objective and reaches the vision. Again, trusting the experiences from other

places and times is a good fundament, but an additional layer of evidence enhances the

confidence that the investments and efforts will pay off as aspired.

However, at one point, all preparation and testing comes to an end and the strategy needs

to prove its “load capacity”. This is when the implementation rolls out to the fullest

extent, taking advantage of the insights gained from the pilot project and experiment.

This does not mean that observation, reflection, and learning gets completely abandoned

now. On the contrary, the implementation phase benefits from continuous monitoring,

review, and evaluation. And from making adjustments, if they are likely to enhance the

chances of successfully solving the sustainability problem in question. Often, there is not

enough opportunity provided for these supporting efforts. Time pressure, limited

capacity, or a lack of funding might be the reason for this. Yet, alliances with researchers

from public universities and colleges could help filling this void. In any case, it is very

important to keep a good relationship between those executing solution actions and

those monitoring and evaluating them. If these relationships are good and nurtured, the

results of evaluations are beneficial to the overall endeavor, if not, they might become

additional points of pressure and tension.

165

Implementing a sustainability solution strategy is a long-term commitment often lasting

for at least 5-10 years, depending on the scale and scope of the problem-solving endea-

vor. As mentioned above, it makes sense to plan out specific solution actions and time

frames for the initialization and maybe part of the acceleration phase of the problem-

solving effort. Yet, as discussed, the strategy is intentionally left somewhat vague for the

later stages of the process. Those general instructions and loosely defined timelines, while

appropriate in the strategy building phase, need to get specified during the implementa-

tion stage. This is a continuous activity accompanying the strategy implementation.

Over the fairly long period of strategy implementation (i.e., the actual problem solving),

initiators, supporters, and other stakeholder form new constellations, networks, and

alliances. Participants find themselves in new roles at various points of this process. For

many of the people involved the effort is rewarding. Yet, it can get very taxing, at times,

too. It is therefore important to maintain a good personal health and well-being. We

discuss a solid support structure for this issue in Chapter VII under the professional skill

of Caring Self-Management.

While a solid and tested solution strategy helps anticipate and plan for the expected and,

to some extent, for the unexpected, too, there comes inevitably the point in time where

the strategy needs further adjustment. Iterations, which might even include revisiting all

four previous modules, help readjust the strategy always with the aim to enhance the

chances of solving the sustainability problem in question.

2 Flexibility in Implementing Sustainability Solution Strategies

A strategy is not a mechanical thing that we use for steering the course of action. It is best handled flexibly. Several adjustments need to be made over the course of the imple-

mentation process to accelerate or broaden, but also, at times, to keep the sustainability

problem-solving process alive. Let’s illustrate this point with some real-world examples.

It took Erzsébet Szekeres more than 15 years to implement the strategy and get closer to

the vision of providing vocational training, work opportunities, and assisted living to

people with special needs and different abilities in Hungary. During the intervening years,

she revisited and adapted her strategy, whenever necessary. Most importantly, she did

not give up, even when the obstacles seemed insurmountable. For example, fairly small

tasks such as creating a working group with other parents and moderately disabled

people turned out to become major undertakings with several failed attempts. Or, when

establishing the Childline India Foundation that operates a telephone helpline for children

166

in distress, Jeroo Billimoria went through various strategy adaptations, making mistakes

and correcting them. Among those were added or revised actions including providing ad-

ditional training, establishing standard procedures, and

forging new alliances. Or, when Muhammad Yunus was

building and establishing the micro-financing Garmeen Bank in Bangladesh in the 1980ies, it took years of adjustments to get the organization off the ground.

From these and many other examples, there is growing

evidence that the one constant in implementing sustain-

ability solution strategies is that it requires flexibility, i.e.,

the willingness to change the strategy. Change can come in various forms from minor adjustments to complete

overhauls. This is not always an easy task. Recognizing

stagnation and even failure takes reflection skills and

courage. It requires thinking on your feet, identifying and

seizing opportunities, and always keeping the eyes on

the prize. Using the built strategy with flexibility also

means to abandon favorite ideas or evidence drawn from other cases, at times.

In some cases, it might happen that a strategy is not built in the beginning but is largely

developed along the implementation process. While it is preferable to develop a strategy

before embarking on implementation, many of the greatest sustainability transfor-

mations were driven rather by courage, commitment, and leaps of faith. Sustainability

transformations are not fully deterministic. They benefit from strategies, but they do not

fully depend on them.

èReadings. In David Bornstein’s (2010) book on “How to Change the World – Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas”, he provides several detailed accounts of

how social entrepreneurs were willing and able to change their strategies in pursuit of a

sustainability vision (including the ones mentioned above). These accounts also tease out

key features and traits conducive to successfully weathering storms and overcoming see-

mingly unsurmountable obstacles over the course of the strategy implementation phase.

While being flexible in implementing the built strategy, we still need a tool or a guiding

framework to not lose the way when adjusting the strategy. These adjustments should be

made on justifiable grounds and should be informed by evidence. Simply changing the

strategy randomly because obstacles persist might work for short improvisation

strategies. Yet, it does not suffice if the multiple moving parts of the strategy are not

Many social entrepreneurs were

successful only because they

adjusted their strategy during

the implementation process –

like Jeroo Billimoria, who esta-

blished the first telephone help-

line for children in India (2003,

Photo Credit: Ashoka).

167

adequately re-orchestrated. The following section outlines a framework for strategy

implementation and adjustments.

3 Procedure for Implementing a Sustainability Solution Strategy

Obviously, the details for how to solve the sustainability problem in question are provided

in the sustainability solution strategy. Yet, the first step before fully implementing the

strategy is to design and execute a test of the strategy. In the previous chapter, we have discussed the advantages of using an evidence-supported approach to strategy building.

The second layer of evidence is being obtained through testing, which conducts a pilot project as an experiment. After adjustment (if necessary), the implementation can roll

out. Over the course of the years-long implementation it is advantageous to support

problem-solving with a third layer of evidence. This one is gathered through monitoring

and evaluating the actual implementation process. These are formative evaluations, conducted concurrently to the implementation, as opposed to ex-post evaluations that are conducted at the conclusion or after the completion of the strategy implementation.

Obviously, there need to be reasonable procedures and timelines in place for formative

as well as ex-post evaluations. Formative evaluations are only useful if recommended

adjustments to the strategy are being made afterwards. Let’s now outline the key aspects

for each of the four steps that make a compelling implementation of a sustainability

solution strategy.

1. Test and adjust the strategy

In most cases of sustainability problem-solving, initiators and supporters, but in particular

donors and funders, seek out evidence for strategy effectiveness and efficiency through

so-called “pilot projects”. Effectiveness is concerned with reaching the intended

objective, while efficiency is a relational measure for the resources needed to achieve the intended objective. A pilot project is defined as a small-scale implementation of the strategy to demonstrate its effectiveness and efficiency. For example, the strategy for solving the problem of an unsustainable food system in a city could be tested by

conducting a pilot project in one neighborhood of the city. Obviously, this is not a simple

undertaking – the results of a pilot project might or might not directly translate onto the

larger scale. In our example, the innovative food system on the neighborhood scale might

or might not work exactly the same way (or at all) on the city level. Innovative food

production, consumption, distribution, and other patterns might encounter barriers or be

able to take advantage of synergies that are specific to either scale, for instance. Because

168

a great deal of care in designing, executing, documenting, and interpreting the results of

pilot projects is necessary to really utilize them, they are best conducted as an experiment. There is quite a bit of confusion about what a strategy experiment actually is, in part due

to the ambivalent meaning of the terms “experiment” and “experimenting”.

An experiment is not just “trying something out” as in “let’s experiment a bit with this”.

Running a pilot project can easily turn into “trying out things” and this might meet certain

expectations. Yet, it does not qualify for an experiment and often does not yield reliable information.

Instead, an experiment as defined here is a structured test to yield reliable information – through definition, observation, and documentation – on whether or not, and if so, to what extent, the built strategy works and at what cost (in a wide sense). “Works” means here that the strategy, if implemented properly, is capable of reaching the solution vision.

This definition of “experiment” implies, in return, that not every pilot project is

automatically an experiment. If it does not comply with the aforementioned definition and does not meet the criteria explained below, respectively, it might be a pilot project,

but it would not be an experiment.

A pilot project becomes an experiment if it is accompanied by the following activities and

meets the following criteria:

1. Identify boundaries and traits of the pilot project (location, duration, etc.)

2. Identify baseline and goal(s)

3. Adopt pilot project action plan (based on the strategy)

4. Carry out the pilot project action plan 5. Monitor and evaluate outcomes against baseline and goal(s)

6. Additional measures might include efficiency (outcomes per resources invested)

7. Extrapolate insights for the strategy implementation

8. Propose adjustments of the strategy, if beneficial

The objective of conducting a pilot project as an experiment is to provide evidence that

the built strategy works. While the first six steps focus on the pilot, the seventh one is

critical for the overall strategy implementation – can the implementation work beyond the specific and narrow circumstances of the pilot? If successful, the results of the

experiment are intended to be replicated, transferred, or scaled up in the strategy

implementation. Replicability, transferability, and scalability all refer to lessons

generalized from the experiment that can be applied in different contexts or on different

system levels. Key is here to consider in how far the boundaries and traits of the pilot

169

project (see item 1) are similar (and to what extent) to the areas, organizations, or situations that the strategy is intended to be implemented on. For example, the successful

model of a community-supported agriculture (CSA) service might work well in neighbor-

hoods with a similar socio-economic and demographic structure, as well as with similar

access routes and sustainable technology options for delivery.

In some cases, pilot projects might generate both positive and negative outcomes. It is important to carefully considering the potential amplification of such negative effects

through rebound and other mechanisms that might lead to co-optation and offsetting of

sustainability gains during the strategy implementation. This type of reasoning is another

dimension of interpreting the experiment results (item 6) and drawing conclusions form

it (item 7).

Failure is a possible result of a pilot project conducted as experiment. The conclusion from

the test might be that the strategy does not work. If taken seriously, this would trigger a

restart of the strategy building process, or even

reach back further to the previous steps of the

problem-solving process (visioning, problem

analysis, problem identification). Despite the

obvious disappointment, this is exactly the

purpose of a test – that it enables us to prevent

failure on a much larger scale and (hopefully) to

succeed with a better solution strategy. The test

and the formative evaluations described below

are primarily about learning and improving the

strategy and the implementation process, as well

as building capacity and empowering stake-

holders in their problem-solving efforts.

For complex integrated sustainability solution strategies that address a number of

sustainability problems simultaneously, it might be advantageous to conduct a series or a cluster of pilot projects and experiments (see picture). While it might be challenging to stimulate buy-in and secure funding for such ambitious endeavors, they are more likely

to tackle the much broader systemic nature of sustainability problems and to create

synergies across projects and initiatives.

èReadings. There is a book in preparation, edited by James Evans and colleagues on “The Experimental City”, in which the role of pilot projects and experiments for urban

sustainability is explored. Together with colleagues (Wiek et al., 2015), I have written a

Section of the master plan Innovation City Ruhr, Bottrop, Germany. The initi- ative coordinates a cluster of pilot pro-

jects and experiments in the domains of

living, working, energy, mobility, vitali-

zation. (2012, Photo Credit: AS&P).

170

book chapter on urban sustainability experiments conducted over the past years in

Phoenix, AZ, which provides an illustrative account of the promises and challenges of

these undertakings. If you are interested in learning more about real-world

experimentation, specific frameworks, procedures, and studies are presented and

discussed in the fields of intervention research, evaluation studies, and implementation

research. These fields provide more nuanced approaches and methodologies, for

instance, the differentiation of outcomes into outputs, outcomes, impacts, and effects. For the purpose of this introduction, however, we do not need to account for these

differences and therefore simply refer to “outcomes”, as presented above. There are also

a number of alternative experimental designs, including case control studies or randomly

controlled trials, that display different advantages and downsides.

At the conclusion of an experiment, the collective of stakeholders needs to decide

whether or not to move forward with the strategy implementation, and if so, what

modifications should be made, if any.

2. Implement the adjusted strategy

Now the time has finally come that the strategy, maybe adjusted based on the experiment

results, is fully being implemented. This is about executing the solution actions as

described and envisioned. All stakeholders, in their assigned

roles and with their resumed responsibilities, are getting to

work. The various parts of the strategy are being translated

into real-world change. Advanced mastery of several

professional skills can here be of advantage, for example

project management skills, as spelled out in Chapter VII,

below.

When implementing a sustainability solution strategy, there

might be additional roles for sustainability professionals

other than guiding and auditing the implementation process

(see next sub-sections below). Many sustainability solution

visions draw on a new wave of “hands-on approaches”,

where people become actively involved in producing and

governing food, energy, mobility, and other essential

systems (see picture). As these systems become decentralized and small-scale (“as if

people matter”), they invite people from all strands of society to contribute to the

transformation. This aligns with two emerging ideas. First, that professionals are not any

Professionals and volunteers

collaborate in building an

alternative energy system in

El Guaylo, Esteli, Nicaragua

(2015; Photo credit: GRID

Alternatives).

171

longer limited to one particular area of expertise, but that developing and using multiple and various skill sets is not only allowed, but actually encouraged. And second, that

sustainability expertise should ideally include a set of practical skills, too. Thus, it might well be that sustainability professionals with hands-on experience and expertise make

strong contributions in the implementation stage, too. Depending on their interests and

skills, they could actively help in design, construction, retraining, and so forth, as part of

the implementation effort.

èReadings. The shift from evaluating to actually implementing in the implementation process reflects a societal shift towards “hands-on approaches”. This shift indicates a

renaissance of manufacturing and aligns with sustainability efforts to develop or recover

manual technologies and processes that are simple and efficient. Tom Brady (2011) wrote

a short article in The New York Times on “A Hands-On Approach to America”. Several books and articles provide more details on this transformation and offer opportunities to

become part of it.

During the strategy implementation, specifications or even modifications of the solution

strategy or the solution vision might become necessary (see picture). For instance, the

strategy or the vision might not provide sufficient detail on certain aspects. Such details

could be provided through additional, more comprehensive or specific plans, maps,

visuals, etc. In these cases, the modifications should be carefully reviewed before

implementing them, as they might not fully align with the original strategy or vision. We

will discuss this issue in the next section.

èExercise. Pick an ongoing sustainability solution effort that is of interest to you and explore volunteering opportunities. If they don’t offer any (yet), inquire options of how

to get involved. Such involvement will allow you to contribute to the core phase of a

problem-solving process (implementation phase). At the same time, you will be able to

further build out a set of practical skills, too.

3. Evaluate the implementation

Monitoring and evaluating the strategy implementation are processes that ensure

continuous learning and allow to make adjustments during the implementation phase

(see next sub-section). As mentioned before, these formative evaluations create a third layer of evidence if and in how far a strategy works (or not) – in addition to the evidence

that was used to build the strategy (Step 4) and the evidence that was produced through

the pilot project as experiment (Step 5, Sub-Step 1).

172

Different stakeholders may have different evaluation interests and require different types

of evaluation (formative, summative, or other). Evaluation can become a source of

contention between different stakeholders. For example, findings may encourage some

through providing new insight but simultaneously discourage others. Evaluation can

therefore become political with potentially serious implications for the continuation of

the problem-solving efforts. Thus, evaluations need to be carefully prepared and

designed, considering what will be evaluated, when, and who for. For a sound and

constructive evaluation practice effective and compassionate communication skills play

an important role (see next chapter).

Formative evaluations, accompanying the implementation process, are best preformed

in constructive exchange with the initiators and supporters of the problem-solving effort.

A clear orientation towards the needs of the initiative and tailoring the results of the

evaluation to the initiators and supporters increases the chances that the evaluation

results actually get used. Formative evaluations therefore require a good share of

familiarity with the overarching endeavor to yield fair and useful results. At the same

time, the evaluators need to keep some distance to remain unbiased and offer an external

perspective on the problem-solving endeavor.

The evaluations address both the implementation as well as any proposed changes. The

latter is often overlooked. As mentioned before, during a years-long implementation it is

inevitable to specify, adjust, and modify the strategy (see

picture). However, these specifications, adjustments, and

modifications, while probably well-intentioned, might not

fully align with the vision or the strategy. This is exactly what

the evaluation has to determine, before those changes go

into effect. As there are numerous efforts of implementation

and revision ongoing in parallel, it is important to develop a

sound structure for overseeing, monitoring, and evaluating

the implementation phase. Responsive project management

skills, as spelled out in Chapter VII, below, can help with this

challenging task.

As for any other evaluation, clear assessment criteria and a

transparent assessment procedure are success factors for

being able to take full advantage of formative evaluations. Formative evaluations are

being conducted continuously, or more precisely, at several times over the course of the years-long implementation process. A very important design aspect is to determine when the evaluations are best performed. The timeline of solution actions, availability of

Specifications made to the

transit-oriented sustain-

ability vision and strategy

for the light rail corridor in

Phoenix, Arizona (2013;

Photo credit: own source).

173

stakeholders, and evaluation costs are some of the determining factors. The general

procedure for evaluating the implementation process, at several points, is composed of

the following steps:

1. Review boundaries and traits of the strategy implementation (spatial extent, timeline, resources, etc.)

2. Identify baseline(s) and goal(s) (based on problem model and vision) 3. Review solution action plan (based on strategy) and monitor actions

4. Measure and evaluate outcomes against baseline(s) and goal(s)

5. Additional measures might include efficiency (outcomes per resources invested)

6. Propose adjustments of the implementation, if beneficial

As for the testing step, described above (1.), shortcomings or even failure are possible

results of the formative evaluations. The conclusion from the evaluations might be that

the strategy does not work at all, or does not work to a satisfactory extent, or could

perform better. If taken seriously, this would trigger adjustments, or even reach back

further to the previous steps of the problem-solving process (strategy building, visioning,

problem analysis, problem identification). Despite the obvious disappointment, this is

exactly the purpose of the evaluations – that they enable us to prevent failure and

(hopefully) to succeed with an adjusted implementation process.

èReadings. A number of comprehensive books have been published on evaluation. A classic is Peter Rossi’s and colleagues’ (2004) broad overview of program evaluation:

“Evaluation – A Systematic Approach”. They go through all critical steps of evaluation,

from assessing the need for a program to assessing program outcomes, impact, effects,

and efficiency. Another comprehensive book is Michael Quinn Patton’s (2012) “Essentials

of Utilization-Focused Evaluation”. He puts emphasis on the use of evaluation results and how to design evaluations to enhance the chances that their results actually get used. An

article by Michael Quinn Patton (1996) provides a concise description of broader

perspectives on types of evaluation and uses. An article by Carol Weiss (1993) explores

the pitfalls and political sensitivities of evaluation. Okechukwu Ukaga and Chris Maser

(2003) provide a short and readable practical guide for participatory evaluation, in which

community members evaluate their own sustainable development efforts in a way that

allows for capacity building and empowering.

174

4. Adjust the implementation

The final step in the implementation process is to make adjustments, at appropriate

times, based on the recommendations from the formative evaluation(s). An evaluation is

only worth to be undertaken if recommended adjustments are being initiated and

followed through.

As indicated before, it most likely requires several

adjustments over the course of the implementation

process (see picture). After these adjustments, the

implementation continues on its new path. It will then,

at an appropriate time, be evaluated again and might get

adjusted once more. And so forth. In most cases,

however, the implementation does not come to a halt

during and after a formative evaluation. In most cases,

the implementation process needs to get adjusted while it is being executed. Bringing the entire process to a halt

would require additional resources that could be saved

through smooth adjustments that fade into the

implementation process. This approach also minimizes

reluctance and resistance to adjustments.

Adjustments should be reflected in the strategy and any

other related action plan documents. Keeping these documents up to date allows for

structured (not only intuitive) learning and for reconstructing the adjustments, which

often offers a good opportunity for learning beyond the given initiative.

èReadings. The field of implementation research or science has developed a variety of advanced procedures and tools to evaluate and adjust implementation processes, in

particular in the domain of public health. Studies and reviews from this field provide

valuable insights on how to best adjust implementation processes, based on research and

evidence, in order to enhance their effectiveness and efficiency.

4 Putting the Tool Together

All steps described in the previous section are intended to successfully implement a

sustainability solution strategy. Figure 12 below illustrates the link between the four steps

outlined in the previous section and can be used as a visual aid for implementing a sustain-

ability solution strategy.

Implementation often requires

adjustments, in particular when

addressing behavioral change.

The program Making Choices (Fraser et al., 2009, pp. 19-22),

which helped children to

develop non-violent problem-

solving skills, went through

multiple adjustments (2007;

Photo credit: M. Fraser).

175

Figure 12. Conceptual model of implementing a sustainability solution strategy, combining testing,

implementation, and evaluation in an iterative process that leads to several adjustments of the

strategy over the course of the strategy implementation.

5 Recap and What Happens Next

With the acquisition of the fifth and last tool we are now in a good position to reliably

implement sustainability solution strategies to sustainability problems, i.e., to success-

fully complete all steps of sustainability problem solving (see picture).

176

We have first explored the transition from building to implementing a sustainability solution strategy; have discussed the need for additional evidence of effectiveness due to

the risk of failure; and have then argued for the importance of handling strategies flexibly

during the implementation. Finally, the four steps of implementing a sustainability solu-

tion strategy were presented, including testing the built strategy and adjusting it

accordingly, implementing the adjusted strategy, evaluating the implementation, and

implementing the adjusted strategy.

The next and final chapter will provide a brief introduction into general professional skills

that can be applied to all five steps of sustainability problem solving described above.

These skills are not just nice-to-haves of sustainability problem solving. They become

ideally an integral part, as they significantly enhance the chances of successful solving

sustainability problems.

177

Chapter VII

Across All Steps –

Using Professional Skills for Sustainability Problem

Solving

Chapter Content

1 Professional Skills as Critical Success Factors .......................................................... 177 2 What do you mean?! Effective and Compassionate Communication ..................... 179 3 Help! Collaborative Teamwork ................................................................................. 181 4 What's next? Responsive Project Management ....................................................... 183 5 Everybody on board? Impactful Stakeholder Engagement ...................................... 184 6 How can I cope with stress? Caring Self-Management ............................................ 186 7 What's the new tool on the block? Advanced Continuous Learning ........................ 187

1 Professional Skills as Critical Success Factors

Sustainability professionals working in their first job often experience that sustainability

problem solving requires more than specialist knowledge and competence in technical

procedures. But even the additional problem-solving skills conveyed in the previous

chapters might not suffice. There is a suite of untapped general professional skills

including communication, teamwork, project management, stakeholder engagement,

and others. They are beneficial for all of the described steps in sustainability problem

solving. And beyond this primary purpose, these skills offer additional benefits for

professional practice and well-being.

General professional skills can enhance professional sustainability problem solving in any segment of the job market. Sustainability professionals becoming skillful in these activities do not compete with experts in sustainability communication, project management, or

stakeholder engagement. Instead, a basic level of proficiency in these skills is expected

from every sustainability professional, irrespective of his/her expertise in climate change

178

mitigation, renewable energy engineering, or resource conflict resolutions. Associations,

employers, and educators echo the call for building these capacities in all sustainability

professionals.

èReadings. There are a number of seminal books on professional skills. For each of the skill sets presented here, there is at least one compendium on the market, often detailing

the specific skill set on several hundreds of pages (e.g., The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, edited by Mark Knapp and John Daly, is more than 800 pages long). There are very valuable resources. However, if you are interested in learning the basics of professional skills for sustainability problem solving, you might find our book on

“Professional Skills for Sustainability – An Introduction to Communication, Teamwork,

Project Management, Stakeholder Engagement, Self-Management, and Continuous

Learning” useful (Brundiers et al., 2015). We have distilled key information from those

seminal books and also used professional experiences from our project partners and

alumni to offer an introduction to general professional skills relevant to sustainability

professionals.

In the following, I provide an overview of these skills by focusing on what sustainability

professionals actually do when they activate these skills. That means, I present these professional skills by means of activities. Six activities and corresponding skills are considered particularly relevant for professional sustainability problem solving. The skills

pertain to communication, teamwork, project management, stakeholder engagement,

self-management, and continuous learning.

While all of these skill sets support successful sustainability problem solving, as illustrated

in Figure 13 (next page), some are more obviously beneficial than others. For example,

throughout the previous chapters, we have highlighted the importance of effective and

compassionate communication as well as impactful stakeholder engagement as success

factors for sustainability problem solving. Being capable of responsively managing a

problem-solving project is a similarly essential and uncontested skill across all phases.

Some skill sets, however, such as caring self-management, have only recently emerged as

powerful aids for professional practice. It might require overcoming some prejudice and

counterproductive routines to fully utilize the benefits from these supporting activities.

179

Figure 13. General professional skills supporting all phases of sustainability problem solving

Each of these activities and skill sets can be mastered on different levels, from novice to

full proficiency. We indicate a solid level of mastery by using a positive attribute. For

example, the first activity and skill is communication – yet, not any kind of

communication, but effective and compassionate communication is what matters in professional sustainability problem solving.

2 What do you mean?! Effective and Compassionate Communication

Effective and compassionate communication are verbal or written interactions between

two or more people that reach an agreement (e.g., on the use of a public good), or share

information (e.g., on renewable energy innovations), or secure support (e.g., for a climate

change campaign). Effective and compassionate communication does not only deliver a

message or whatever the primary objective seems to be (effectiveness). It also streng-

thens the relationship between sender and receiver by being attentive, interested, empa-

thetic, and caring (compassion). This is often as important or even more important than

being effective in the communication process. Compassion strengthens relationships and

builds trust, which are success factors for sustainability problem solving.

Throughout the sustainability problem-solving phases described in the previous chapters,

effective and compassionate communication is critical for generating agreement on the

180

problem to be addressed, the solution vision to be pursued, and the strategy to be built

and implemented. Effective and compassionate communication helps in overcoming re-

sistance to evaluation and allowing for continuous improvements. It also facilitates open

dialogue to reach compromises in case of diverting positions.

Communication is an integral part of several of the other professional skills, introduced

below. The more important it is to train and become skilled in effective and compas-

sionate communication (see picture). For example, facilitating an open, productive, and

mutually engaging discussion among stakeholders; or

presenting in succinct and inspiring ways on a project

to a diverse public audience; or leading a team mee-

ting effectively; or providing constructive feedback to

a team member in an internal review process of pro-

ject deliverables.

For all of the processes and elements pertaining to

effective and compassionate communication, there

are good-practice guidelines that are detailed in the

readings indicated above. Here, I briefly summarize a

sequence of three sets of good practices for effective

and compassionate communication:

1 – Clarify communication objective and select appropriate communication strategy. Taking a moment to become aware of one’s own communication objective(s) helps

directing the communication. Articulating the specific communication objective(s) de-

monstrates openness and avoids suspicion of a hidden agenda. Key to effective and com-

passionate communication is the selection of communication media and technologies

appropriate to the objectives and circumstances. When speaking over the phone, the

communication partners cannot see each other; when emailing or in writing, the

communication partners cannot see or hear each other. And so forth. For example, in

cases of conflict resolution, face-to-face communication is a more suitable commu-

nication medium than e-mail. Choosing the appropriate communication medium and

technology becomes particularly relevant in international sustainability problem-solving

efforts, where intercultural communication challenges often arise.

2 – Communicate Effectively and compassionately. Effective and compassionate commu- nication entails in its core phase a distinct set of speaking and writing activities, namely,

inquiring, presenting, negotiating, providing feedback, or resolving conflicts; as well as

associated non-verbal expressions. Some general rules for effective and compassionate

Effective and compassionate

communication is important for

sustainability problem solving and

needs training as provided, for

instance, by the Center for Civic

Reflection (2012, Photo Credit:

Center for Civic Reflection).

181

communication include: playing by the rules; being respectful, kind, and empathetic;

being concise, yet complete; staying accurate and coherent; giving examples (sharing

stories); and flexibly adjusting to the flow of the conversation. Similar to speaking and

writing, the receiving communication partner is not just listening or reading, but also

observing (if possible), reflecting, and relating to the message. This is what is meant by

the active process of ‘interpreting a message’. Like the non-verbal expression of the per-

son speaking, facial expression, body posture, and gestures are important components of

receiving a spoken message, too.

3 – Reflect on communication activities and its outcomes. Such reflections help continuously improving one’s own communication skills. Reflections can happen

individually by thinking through past interactions, or collectively by hosting a debriefing

session after a workshop, evaluating each other’s communication, or asking for feedback.

3 Help! Collaborative Teamwork

Collaborative teamwork is the process in which one and more groups of people optimally

utilize different types of expertise and professional skills in order to solve a sustainability

problem. A team is here broadly defined as a (large) group of stakeholders, including

sustainability professionals, collaborating in a sustainability problem-solving effort.

Teamwork in sustainability problem-solving endeavors is particularly challenging because

of the diversity of stakeholders necessary to successfully solve the problem in question.

While pursuing and achieving high-quality task delivery (task effectiveness), collaborative teamwork facilitates teamwork in a viable, stimulating, friendly, and healthy environment

and atmosphere. It also allows for the pursuit of additional professional objectives, other

than just task delivery, including satisfaction, stimulation, professional network, pro-

fessional skill development, personal development, friendly work environment, appre-

ciation, and loyalty.

Collaboration holds multiple benefits such as accomplishing the ambitious goals of

sustainability problem solving, improving communication skills, increasing creativity, and

building a professional network. However, working in teams also poses challenges. These

challenges include coordination, compromise, and conflicts that emerge from differing

personalities, cultural perspectives, professional experiences, expertise, and work ethics.

Often, in sustainability problem-solving efforts, team members include a mix of pro-

fessionals and volunteers with quite different availability and capacities for work. In

collaborative teamwork the team is able to weather these challenges and be successful

in their problem-solving efforts.

182

For all of the processes and elements pertaining to collaborative teamwork, there are

good-practice guidelines that are detailed in the readings indicated above. Here, I briefly

summarize a sequence of three sets of good practices for collaborative teamwork:

1 – Build a strong team and assign tasks. First, recruitment of all critical capacities and roles is key. Second, social activities, such as engaging in a recreational activity together,

create opportunities for team bonding. Third, team members learn about each other’s

professional capacities and goals. In a Code of Collaboration the team defines rules for working together productively and supportively. The Scope of Work defines what tasks need to be done, how, and by when over the course of each phase. The team assigns

these tasks and roles to team members so that each team member can perform at their

best or are ready to master the challenge.

2 – Collaborate. There are a number of general good-practice guidelines for the core phase of collaborative teamwork, including: balance task orientation and social process

needs; show and encourage a team-oriented attitude; appreciate and reward individual

team members or sub-teams; choose the appropriate mode of operation for any given

task; set clear goals, priorities, and expectations; follow through on commitments;

identify and use appropriate teamwork tools; allow for

sufficient face-to-face contact with team members;

allocate sufficient resources and time for teamwork;

seek teamwork training opportunities (see picture). All

of these practices apply to the following three types of

activities where team members work actively together:

in project management meetings the team discusses and agrees on schedules, logistics, and administrative issues.

In work meetings the team or sub-groups collaborate on: preparing for team meetings (e.g. reviewing the agenda,

preparing discussion points, reviewing documents), following up on assignments,

producing deliverables, helping each other. In process meetings the team evaluates progress (against Code of Collaboration and Scope of Work), resolves conflicts, or

celebrates success. Essentials for all team meetings are: to have a clear agenda, which is

shared ahead of time; to appoint meeting facilitator and note taker; and that each team

member comes on time, prepared, and willing to contribute.

3 – Evaluate team performance. Similar to team building, it is advantageous to invest time for a good closure to the team process. While the process meetings and the project management meetings allow for formative evaluations, closing the collaboration entails

a summative evaluation and drawing lessons learned on individual and collective levels.

Collaborative teamwork in an

urban sustainability project in

Phoenix, AZ (2009, Photo Credit:

own source).

183

4 What’s next? Responsive Project Management

Responsive project management is the structured process of achieving aspired outcomes

– namely, solving the sustainability problem in question – within a given timeframe,

budget, and other constraints. A key success factor for responsive project management

is that the main constituency, i.e., the stakeholders, contributes to, accepts, and uses the

outcomes of each phase of the problem-solving effort. Responsive project management

emphasizes the skill to anticipate necessary changes to the scope and process in order to

secure success. Even structural changes might be necessary for this, such as changing the

culture and policies of organizations and related workflows.

Responsive project management is not a straightjacket, forcing dynamic and often

unpredictable project processes into a streamlined approach. On the contrary, responsive

management is a reflective process, based on thoughtful actions that consider how the

project is embedded in a wider context. It anticipates possible short-term and long-term

outcomes, which result from the interactions between the project and its context.

Responsive project management serves as a backbone and anchor point that allows the

project to be open to change and respond flexibly.

For all of the processes and elements pertaining to responsive project management, there

are good-practice guidelines that are detailed in the readings indicated above. Here, I

briefly summarize a sequence of three sets of good practices for responsive project

management:

1 – Make the problem-solving effort operational. Project management adopts the overall perspective of the problem-solving effort and supports each phase logistically in its

specific endeavor. This includes, among others, translating the overall strategy into workplans, organizational charts, timeline, budget, and communication plan. The workplan identifies who does what, when, how, with whom, etc. The organizational chart shows stakeholders, roles, responsibilities and relations. The timeline shows key milestones and due dates of all actions. The budget shows the available resources and how they are allocated. The communication plan ensures regular and relevant communication with internal and external participants and stakeholders.

2 – Manage the programs and projects responsively. Responsive project management contains in its core phase a distinct set of interactions: organizing, monitoring, controlling

(budget), time management, logistics, and reflecting on the processes. Organizing involves setting up a clear and clean work environment, including selecting the supporting

184

software and creating well-structured physical and electronic folders that provide easy

access to key documents and management tools. Controlling involves assessing performance at specific times against objectives,

due dates, and quality criteria. Monitoring entails to check in with participants how things are,

providing participants with updates, determining

what adjustments are necessary and how to

implement them in order to keep quality high and

mitigate/reduce risks. Managing time relates to scheduling and prioritizing tasks, reducing

distractions, address procrastination, and

improving self-care. Logistics include identifying and securing meeting rooms, equipment, materials, transport means, and child-care services, at the appropriate times. Reflecting is key to prevent shortsighted reactions and allow for learning from past mistakes and

anticipating risks and opportunities.

3 – Close the project. A close-out includes securing deliverables (archiving documents and material), completing the accounting, and organizing a comprehensive ex-post

collaboration with all stakeholder groups involved in the project. A well conducted close-

out process often sparks new sustainability problem-solving endeavors.

5 Everybody on board? Impactful Stakeholder Engagement

Impactful Stakeholder Engagement is the successful interaction between sustainability

professional(s) and people who have a stake in the problem-solving endeavor, for

example, they sponsor it, they benefit from it, or they might be negatively affected by it.

Impactful stakeholder engagement yields task outcomes such as quality deliverables and

problem-solving success; as well as social outcomes, including good working relation-

ships, a professional network, professional skill development, and personal development.

There are various forms of impactful stakeholder engagement, including: to organize

listening sessions that allow stakeholders to air their concerns, impressions, ideas; to

facilitate open and productive discussions among diverse or homogeneous stakeholder

groups; to collaborate with stakeholders on project deliverables; to elicit feedback from

stakeholders on deliverables; and so forth. There are specific settings for all of the

activities, namely interview, survey, focus group, walking audit, and workshop. Each

stakeholder setting displays a particular level, mode, and engagement mechanism.

Responsive project management in a

global sustainable business solutions

project (2012, Photo Credit: K. Dooley).

185

For all of the processes and elements pertaining to impactful stakeholder engagement,

there are good-practice guidelines that are detailed in the readings indicated above. Here,

I summarize a sequence of three sets of good practices for impactful stakeholder

engagement:

1 – Set goals, recruit for, and prepare stakeholder engagement. Goals for stakeholder engagement should include task specific as well as social goals. Preferably, they would

also include capacity-building goals and would be defined collaboratively with some

representative stakeholders. Good recruitment efforts ensure sufficient participation and

representation of all stakeholder groups. Offering different options for engagement,

including satellite events, face-to-face, online, etc., allows for wide participation. Learning

about the various stakeholder groups through stakeholder analysis, walking audits, and

case encounters allows for tailoring events towards their capacities, situations, and

interests. Preparing stakeholder engagement events includes collaboratively developing

and testing the agenda, the activities, the material, visiting the location, recruiting

volunteers, etc. All events should meet the needs and capacities of expected participants

and comply with ethical standards. Dry-runs with facilitators and volunteers allow for

adjustments and additional training.

2 – Carry out impactful stakeholder engagement events. Carrying out an inspiring and effective engagement event starts with arriving early at the location to set up the event

and welcome arriving participants. In its core it entails broad and inspirational discussions,

supported by effective facilitation of activities as well

as interactions (see picture). Good documentation

(video, audio, note taking, drawings, etc.) ensures

that all contributions are being captured. The event

ends with words of appreciation, next steps and

contact information of the organizers.

3 – Process information, report back, keep stake- holders involved. Processing the event includes analyzing the information and reviewing the event

(including stakeholder feedback). It later includes

processing the information into easy-to-read and visualized form. This information needs

to be shared with participants in appropriate, accessible, and timely ways.

Impactful stakeholder engagement

in an urban sustainability project in

Phoenix, AZ (2013, Photo Credit:

own source).

186

6 How can I cope with stress? Caring Self-Management

Caring self-management is the process of successfully aligning professional performance

with personal wellbeing. Professional tasks call for successfully preventing or coping with

negative experiences, like distress, frustration, fatigue, or burnout.

Key activities of caring self-management are:

1. Successfully managing one’s own professional activities (e.g., goals, tasks, time)

2. Managing one’s work-related well-being (e.g., knowing personal vulnerability and resilience levels and energy curve; stress reduction exercises at work (see picture))

3. Managing oneself in professional interactions (e.g., keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in check)

4. Sensing others’ feelings and perspectives, as well as taking an active interest in their concerns; and

5. Managing one’s work environment (e.g., desk, light, plants).

Self-motivation, self-regulation, and self-organization are important for these activities.

Self-motivation within the professional world means pro-actively seeking ways to advance the project, the team, or the company, for instance. Self-

motivation can be expressed by responding to an issue

your team is grappling with by crafting a constructive

proposal and seeking feedback on implementation

steps. Self-regulation refers to the ability to be aware of one’s emotions and to control them. For example, you

might need to keep a calm and constructive demeanor

even when a colleague displays a passive-aggressive

attitude in a discussion. Self-regulation also pertains to

developing a healthy work-life balance. Taking the

appropriate time for rest and recreation is essential in

fostering lasting motivation, commitment, and overall well-being. Lastly, self- organization refers to the ability to stay on task, have access to project material when needed, and keep an overview of project deliverables. For all of these processes and

elements, there are good-practice guidelines and tools available (see readings

recommended above).

Caring self-management by

means of a corporate yoga class

in an office in Cambridge,

Massachusetts (2015, Photo

Credit: J. Rathe, The Boston Globe).

187

7 What’s the new tool on the block? Advanced Continuous Learning

Advanced continuous learning is mindfully and in a self-directed way expanding one’s

technical expertise (knowledge and procedures), professional skills (the ones introduced

above), and attitudes by using appropriate procedures. The goal of advanced continuous

learning is to effectively enhance or maintain professional performance and successfully

deal with short- to long-term emerging challenges and new requirements over the

lifespan of one’s professional career. Advanced continuous learning emphasizes pro-

active, generative, and transformative learning over reactive and adaptive learning. For

all of these processes and elements, there are good-practice guidelines and tools

available (see readings recommended above).

Professional skills are not best learned and advanced by just doing them. Learning only happens when structured inputs, reflection, and adjustment are added to the doing part.

It all starts with knowing what your current skill level is and which level you aspire to

reach. Skill acquisition and further development as an active and conscious process uses

both of these pieces of information. There are a

variety of advantageous settings for advanced

learning. For example, observing, shadowing, and

talking to sustainability professionals (ideally also

working with them), are conducive for initially

building professional skills. Studying good-practice

guidelines, as compiled in the literature, and

attending professional workshops or conferences

(see picture) allow for complementing and critically

reflecting on the observed practices. Experimenting,

adjusting, and further practicing completes the

learning process. Yet, it never really stops. A critical

ingredient of professional sustainability problem-solving practice is the motivation to

continuously advance your skill set, as new requirements, challenges, and opportunities

emerge. Below is a sequence of steps outlined that can help you with this continuous

effort:

1. Do a baseline assessment and set goals for professional skill development 2. Observe, shadow, and talk to sustainability professionals 3. Review available resources and visit professional workshops or conferences 4. Practice and experiment with the skills 5. Reflect on your practice experiences as well as on your professional practice

Advanced continuous learning at

the Money for our Movements Conference offering training in fundraising for social justice

initiatives (2012, Photo Credit:

GIFT and QWOCMAP).

188

Concluding Remarks

There is a lot of destruction and suffering in this world, alongside a lot of kindness and

good. To alleviate the former and foster the latter, the idea of sustainability continues to

inspire professionals in all domains around the world. This book provides present and

future sustainability professionals with a set of tools that can support your efforts to

mitigate or resolve sustainability problems. But much more is needed to succeed.

Sustainability problem solving is a bold undertaking, which requires passion, competence,

and collaboration. It also benefits from patience, optimism, empathy, and trust. Some of

these skills and traits are easier than others to be taught and learned. All of them can be

practiced though.

The tools presented in this book, I believe, offer some value in supporting effective

problem-solving efforts. Yet, they cannot replace honest and open interaction among

people of different color, cultural background, belief systems, socio-economic classes,

and other factors often used to divide people. While a great deal of the sustainability

discourse centers on changing technologies, infrastructures, materials, and regulations –

it all comes down to changing people, starting with ourselves. We need to unlearn old habits and adopt new ways of thinking, interacting, communicating, collaborating,

participating, governing, appreciating, respecting, and enjoying. Leading or supporting

these changes is always best informed by being close to the people we want to inspire

change in.

First and foremost, this book intends to liberate junior and senior professionals from the

burden of problem-centric pessimism and cynical worldviews. Be skillful, be creative, and

be positive in approaching sustainability problems. There are always people out there

trying the impossible. Partner with them and look out for windows of opportunity, which

might open up in the most unlikely places. And trust your own strengths in doing so.

You can use a book to reach a new level of insight, competence, or inspiration – but you

have to put it aside, if you actually want to use it. So, go out and get your hands dirty. The

future needs you. Be considerate, but don’t hesitate.

189

List of References

Abrahams, R., Wiek, A. (2011). Back to the Roots – Analyzing a Sustainability Problem

Constellation of Habitat Deterioration, Waste Spreading, and Consumption Patterns.

Transformation Lab Publication Series. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University.

Tempe, AZ.

Andersen, E. (2013). "The Vision Thing" – And Why It Matters To You. Forbes, August 13, 2013.

AtKisson, A. (2011). The Sustainability Transformation: How to Accelerate Positive Change in

Challenging Times. New York: Routledge.

Baker, J., McPhedran, S. (2007). Gun laws and sudden death – did the Australian firearms

legislation of 1996 make a difference? British Journal of Criminology 47(3), 455-469.

Bateman, M. (Ed.) (2011). Confronting Microfinance – Undermining Sustainable Development.

Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.

Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., et al. (2009). Overcoming systemic

roadblocks to sustainability – The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and

technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106(8), pp. 2483-2489.

Bellamy, A.J. (2015). Can New Sustainable Development Goals Add Firepower to the War on War?

The Global Observatory, August 10, 2015.

Bernstein, M.J., Wiek, A., Brundiers, K., Pearson, K., Minowitz, A., Kay, B., & Golub, B. (2015, in

press). Mitigating urban sprawl effects – a collaborative tree and shade intervention in

Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Local Environment.

Bornstein, D. (2010). How to Change the World – Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New

Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brady, T. (2011). A Hands-On Approach to America. The New York Times, May 29, 2011.

Brewer, G.D. (2007). Inventing the future: scenarios, imagination, mastery and control.

Sustainability Science 2, 159–177.

Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., Kay, B., & Foucrier, T. (2015). Professional Skills for Sustainability – An

Introduction to Communication, Teamwork, Project Management, Stakeholder Engagement,

Self-Management, and Continuous Learning. School of Sustainability, Arizona State

University, Tempe, AZ.

Bumiller, E. (2010). We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint. The New York Times, April 26, 2010.

Burch, S. (2010). In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities – An examination of barriers to

action in three Canadian cities. Energy Policy 38(12), 7575-7585.

Carlsson, C. (2008). Nowtopia – How Pirate Programmers, Outlaw Bicyclists, and Vacant-Lot

Gardeners are Inventing the Future Today. Oakland, CA: AK Press.

190

Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for

sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14), 8086- 8091.

CBS News (2011). Climate change pushing coffee to extinction? October 17, 2011.

Chapman, S., Alpers, P., Agho, K., Jones, M. (2015). Australia's 1996 gun law reforms – faster falls

in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Injury Prevention 21(5), 355-362.

City of Edmonton (2015). Edmonton’s Community Energy Transition Strategy – A Framework for

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Increasing Energy Efficiency and Promoting Resilient

Energy Systems in Edmonton. Edmonton, Canada: City of Edmonton.

City of Phoenix (2010). General Plan Update – Transitioning towards a Sustainable Future. Public

Hearing Draft, December 2010. Phoenix, AZ: City of Phoenix, Planning Department.

Coffman, M., Umemoto, K. (2010). The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability

planning practice. Environment, Development and Sustainability 12, 597-610.

Crow, M.M. (2007). None dare call it hubris: The limits of knowledge. Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2007, 1-4.

Cugurullo, F. (2013). How to build a sandcastle – an analysis of the genesis and development of

Masdar City. Journal of Urban Technology 20, 23-37.

Cutts, B.B., Darby, K.J., Boone, C.G., Brewis, A. (2009). City structure, obesity, and environmental

justice: an integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park

access. Social Science & Medicine 69(9), 1314–1322.

Davenport, C. (2013). Large companies prepared to pay price on carbon. The New York Times,

December 5, 2013.

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. New York: Penguin.

Doerner, D. (1996). The Logic of Failure. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Doppelt, B. (2010). Leading Change toward Sustainability – A Change-Management Guide for

Business, Government and Civil Society. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.

Dorfman, L., Wallack, L., Woodruff, K. (2005). More than a message: Framing public health

advocacy to change corporate practices. Health Education & Behavior 32 (3), 320-336.

Dovers, S. (1996). Sustainability: demands on policy. Journal of Public Policy 16, 303-318.

Duflo, E., Takavarasha, K. (2010). Social science and policy design. In: UNESCO and the

International Social Science Council (ISSC) (Eds.). Knowledge Divides: World Social Science

Report 2010. Paris. pp. 330-332.

Echeverria, J.D. (2013) A legal blow to sustainable development. The New York Times, June 26,

2013.

Edwards, A. (2005). The Sustainability Revolution – Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. Gabriola Island,

BC: New Society Publishers.

191

Estill, L. (2008). Small is Possible – Life in a Local Economy. Vancouver, BC: New Society Publishers.

Evans, J., Karvonen, A., Raven, R. (Eds.) (2016, in prep). The Experimental City. London: Routledge

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1976). Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon

Press. [Original: 1937]

Ferguson, N. (2012). Rich America, poor America. Newsweek, January 23, 2012, 32-37.

Flintoff, J.-P. (2013). How to Change the World. New York: Picador.

Ford Motor Company (2012). Sustainability Report 2011/2012 – Summary. Dearborn, MI.

Forrest, N., Wiek, A. (2014). Learning from success – Towards evidence-based sustainability

transitions in communities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 12, 66-88

Forrest, N., Wiek, A. (2015, in press). Success factors and strategies for sustainability transitions

of small-scale communities – evidence from a cross-case analysis. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.

Forrester, J.W. (1971). Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Theory and Decision 2(2), 109- 140.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon.

Fraser, M.W., Richman, J.M., Galinsky, M.J., & Day, S.H. (2009). Intervention Research –

Developing Social Programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25, 739-755.

Furedi, F. (2006). Culture of Fear Revisited: Risk-Taking and the Morality of Low Expectation (4th

Edition). London, UK: Continuum.

Geels F. (2005). Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and

personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850–1930) – a case study in multi-level perspective.

Technology in Society 27(3), 363–397.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Gibson, R.B. (2006). Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24, 170–182.

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002). Heuristics and Biases – The Psychology of

Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graham, G. (2014). Too-smart cities? Why these visions of utopia need an urgent reality check.

The Guardian, March 13, 2014.

Grober, U. (2012). Sustainability – A Cultural History. Green Books.

Gutek, G., Gutek, P. (1998). Visiting Utopian Communities – A Guide to the Shakers, Moravians,

and Others. University of South Carolina Press.

Guttal, S. (2012). The urgent need for a paradigm shift. Forum for Development Studies 39, 125- 130.

192

Harlow, J., Golub, A., Allenby, B. (2013). A review of utopian themes in sustainable development

discourse. Sustainable Development 21, 270–280.

Hart, R.P. (1999). Seducing America: How Television Charms the Modern Voter. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Heath, C., Heath, D. (2010). Switch – how to change things when change is hard. New York:

Broadway Books.

Hedrén, J. (2009). Shaping sustainability: Is there an unreleased potential in utopian thought?

Futures 41, 220-225.

Herring, H., & Sorrell, S. (Eds.) (2009). Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption – The

Rebound Effect. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hollender, J., Costanza, R., Alperovitz, G., Asquith, C., Becker, B., et al. (2010). Creating a game

plan for the transition to a sustainable US economy. Solutions: For a Sustainable and Desirable Future 1(3), 36-41.

Holloway, M. (1966). Heavens on Earth – Utopian Communities in America, 1680-1880. New York:

Dover Publications.

Iwaniec, D., Wiek, A. (2014). Advancing sustainability visioning practice in planning – The General

Plan revision in Phoenix, Arizona. Planning Practice and Research 29(5), 543-568.

Jerneck, A., Olsson, L. (2011). Breaking out of sustainability impasses: How to apply frame analysis,

reframing and transition theory to global health challenges. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1, 255– 271.

Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., Stone. A.A. (2006). Would you be happier

if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science 312, 1908-1910.

Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., Stone. A.A. (2004). A survey method for

characterizing daily life experience – The day reconstruction method. Science 306, 1776- 1780.

Kane, G. (2014). Accelerating Sustainability Using the 80/20 Rule. Oxford: Do Sustainability.

Kates, R.W., Parris, T.M. (2003). Long-term trends and a sustainability transition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 8062-8067.

Kay, B., Wiek, A., Loorbach, D. (2012). Transition Strategies towards Sustainability – Concept and

Application. Working Paper. Transformation Lab Publication Series. School of Sustainability,

Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ.

Khokha, S. (2010). 'Pesticide Drift' Eluding Efforts To Combat It. New Public Radio, February 28, 2010. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123817702&ft=1&f=1003

Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap – why do people act environmentally and what

are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3), 239-260.

193

Langley, A. (1995). Between ‘paralysis by analysis’ and ‘extinction by instinct’. Sloan Management Review 36, 63-63.

Larson, K.L., Wiek, A., Withycombe Keeler, L. (2013). A comprehensive sustainability appraisal of

water governance in Phoenix, AZ. Journal of Environmental Management 116, 58-71.

Laws, D., Suskind, S., Abrams, J., Anderson, J., Chapman, G., et al. (2001). Public Entrepreneurship

Network. Cambridge, MA: Environmental Technology and Public Policy Program,

Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Leiserowitz, A.A., Kates, R.W., Parris, T.M. (2006). Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors

– a review of multinational and global trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31, 413–444.

Lemaître, F. (2014). Green crusader turned her horror at Chernobyl into a successful enterprise –

Ursula Sladek, the head of a German energy co-op, has made her principles pay in standing

up for the environment. The Guardian, February 18, 2014.

Levine, S., Stein, R. (2008). Obesity Threatens a Generation. The Washington Post, May 17, 2008.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human

and natural systems. Science 317, 1513-1516.

Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition Management – New Mode of Governance for Sustainable

Development. Utrecht: International Books.

Lüdeke, M.K.B., Petschel-Held, G., Schellnhuber, H.-J. (2004). Syndromes of global change: The

first panoramic view. Gaia – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 13, 42–49.

Madhavan, G., Oakley, B., Green, D., Koon, D., Low, P. (Eds.) (2012). Practicing Sustainability. New

York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Manuel, F.E., Manuel, F.P. (1979). Utopian Thought in the Western World. Cambridge, MA:

Belknap Press.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2013). Fostering Sustainable Behavior – An Introduction to Community-

Based Social Marketing. Vancouver, BC: New Society Publishers.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems – A Primer. Chelsea: Green Publishing.

Meadows, D. (2010). Leverage points – Places to intervene in a system. Solutions 1(1), 41-49.

Midgley, G. (2006). Systemic intervention for public health. American Journal of Public Health 96, 33-39.

Milbrath, L. (1989). Envisioning a Sustainable Society – Learning our Way out. State University of

New York Press.

Milburn, M.A., McGrail, A. B. (1992). The dramatic presentation of news and its effects on

cognitive complexity. Political Psychology 13, 613-632.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority – An Experimental View. New York : Harper & Row.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Synthesis

Report. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

194

O'Connell, D., Hickerson, K., & Pillutla, A. (2011). Organizational visioning – An integrative review.

Group & Organization Management 36(1), 103-125.

O'Connor, T., Sandis, C. (Eds.) (2010). A Companion to the Philosophy of Action. Chichester, West

Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Oreskes, N., Conway, E.M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt – How a Handful of Scientists Obscured

the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pattison, K. (2010). Small by Choice, Whether Clients Like It or Not. The New York Times, January 13, 2010.

Patton, M.Q. (2012). Essentials of Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Patton, M.Q. (1996). A world larger than formative and summative. American Journal of Evaluation, 17(2), 131-144.

Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents – Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Porter, W., & Mykleby, M. (2011). A National Strategic Narrative. With Preface by Anne-Marie

Slaughter, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. Washington,

DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R., Swart, R. (2002). Great

Transition – The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Boston: Stockholm Environment

Institute.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., et al. (2009). A safe

operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263), 472-475.

Rittell, H.W.J., Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

Reese, S., Kook Lee, J. (2012). Understanding the Content of News Media. In: Semetko, H.A.,

Scammell, M. (Eds.) (2012). The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications. pp. 253-266.

Reich, R.B. (2010). Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.

Ritzer, G. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of Social Problems – A Comparative International Perspective.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., et al. (2009). A safe operating space

for humanity. Nature 461, 472-475.

Rorty, R. (2002). Solidarity or Objectivity? In: Wray, K.B. (2002). Knowledge and Inquiry – Readings

in Epistemology. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. pp. 422-437.

195

Ross, A. (2011). Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World's Least Sustainable City. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., Freeman, H. E. (2003). Evaluation – A Systematic Approach. 7 th

Edition.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sarlo, C. (2007). Measuring poverty – what happened to Copenhagen? Economic Affairs 27(3), 6- 14.

Schmuck, P., Schultz, W.P. (2002). Psychology of Sustainable Development. Norwell, MA: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Schumacher, E.F. (1973). Small is Beautiful – Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond &

Briggs.

Sen, A. (2001). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shahid, L. (2002). The Sabra and Shatila massacres: Eye-witness reports. Journal of Palestine Studies 32, 36–58.

Shove, E. (2003). Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Journal of Consumer Policy 26, 395–418.

Sidle, R.C., Benson, W.H., Carriger, J.F., Kamai, T. (2013). Broader perspective on ecosystem

sustainability: Consequences for decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110, 9201–9208.

Slade, G. (2006). Made to Break – Technology and Obsolescence in America. Boston: Harvard

University Press.

Sosis, R. (2000). Religion and intragroup cooperation: Preliminary results of a comparative analysis

of utopian communities. Cross-Cultural Research 34(1), 70-87.

Spangenberg, J., Lorek, S. (2002). Environmentally sustainable household consumption: From

aggregate environmental pressures to priority fields of action. Ecological Economics 43, 127- 140.

Stirling, A. (2014). Emancipating Transformations – From Controlling ‘the Transition’ to Culturing

Plural Radical Progress. STEPS Working Paper 64. Brighton: STEPS Centre.

Strasser, S. (1999). Waste and Want – A Social History of Trash. New York, NY: Henry Holt and

Company, LLC.

Terkel, S. (1980). American Dreams – Lost and Found. New York: Pantheon Books.

The Economist (2015). The Politics of Panic. The Economist (Lexington Column), December 12, 2015. p. 34. [All writers at The Economist are anonymous. See details in: “Why are The Economist’s writers anonymous?”, The Economist, September 4, 2013.]

Thelen, E. (1996). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action.

Boston: MIT Press.

Ukaga, O., Maser, C. (2003). Evaluating Sustainable Development – Giving People a Voice in Their

Destiny. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

196

UN (United Nations) (1993). Agenda 21 – Programme of Action for Sustainable Development.

Agreements Negotiated by Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment

and Development (UNCED), 3-14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. New York.

UN (United Nations) (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. A/RES/55/2, Section II. New

York.

UN (United Nations) Millennium Project (2005). Investing in development: a practical plan to

achieve the Millennium Development Goals. New York: January, 2005.

UN (United Nations) Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)

(2014). World Survey on the Role of Women in Development 2014 – Gender Equality and

Sustainable Development. New York.

UN (United Nations) (2015). Transforming Our World – The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. A/RES/70/1. New York.

Vanden Brook, T., Michaels, J., Eisler, P. (2008). Off Africa's coast, pirates 'out of control'. USA Today, November 19, 2008.

Vester, F. (2008). The Art of Interconnected Thinking – Ideas and Tools for Dealing with

Complexity. Munich: MCB-Verlag.

Warren, A., Archambault, L., Foley, R.W. (2014). Sustainability education framework for teachers

– Developing sustainability literacy through futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking.

Journal of Sustainability Education 6 (May 2014).

Waters, E., de Silva Sanigorski, a., Hall, B.J., Brown, T., Campbell, K.J., et al. (2011). Interventions

for preventing obesity in children (Review). Cochrane Collaboration 12, 1-212.

Weiss, C.H. (1993). Where politics and evaluation research meet. American Journal of Evaluation, 14(1), 93–106.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C.L. (2011a). Key competencies in sustainability – A

reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science 6, 203-218.

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C.L., & Banas Mills, S. (2011b). Moving forward on

competence in sustainability research and problem solving. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 53, 3-12.

Wiek, A., Foley, R.W., Guston, D.H. (2012). Nanotechnology for sustainability – What does

nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems? Journal of Nanoparticle Research 14, 1093.

Wiek, A., Kay, B. (2012). Strategies for Intentional Change towards Sustainability – A Review of

Key Paradigms. Transformation Lab Publication Series. School of Sustainability, Arizona State

University. Tempe, AZ.

197

Wiek, A., Larson, K.L. (2012). Water, people, and sustainability – A systems framework for

analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resources Management 26(11), 3153-3171.

Wiek, A., Guston, D.H., van der Leeuw, S., Selin, C., Shapira, P. (2013). Nanotechnology in the city:

Sustainability challenges and anticipatory governance. Journal of Urban Technology 20, 45- 62.

Wiek, A. (2013). Identifying the challenges at Lake Victoria as a sustainability problem. Working

Paper. Transformation Lab Publication Series. School of Sustainability, Arizona State

University. Tempe, AZ.

Wiek, A., Golub, A., Kay, B., & Harlow, J. (Eds.) (2013). Vision Report for the Eastlake Garfield

District, Phoenix. Project Report. “Reinvent Phoenix – Cultivating Equity, Engagement,

Economic Development and Design Excellence with Transit-Oriented Development”. City of

Phoenix, Planning Department: Phoenix, AZ.

Wiek, A., Iwaniec, D. (2014). Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science.

Sustainability Science 9(4), 497-512.

Wiek, A., Kay, B. (2015). Learning while transforming – solution-oriented learning for urban

sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 16, 29-36.

Wiek, A., Kay, B., Forrest, N. (2015, in press). Worth the trouble?! An evaluative scheme for urban

sustainability transition labs (USTL) and an application to the USTL in Phoenix, Arizona. In:

Frantzeskaki, N., Coenen, L., Broto, C., & Loorbach, D. (2015). Urban Sustainability

Transitions. Routledge Series on Sustainability Transitions. London: Routledge.

Wiek, A., Golub, A., Kay, B., Harlow, J. (2016). Reinventing Phoenix towards Sustainability – From

No-budget Explorations to Large-scale Impacts. Transformation Lab Publication Series.

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ.

Williams, A. (2015). The Politics of Panic. Handelsblatt (Global Edition), December 22, 2015.

Worth, R.F. (2010). Earth is Parched Where Syrian Farms Thrived. The New York Times, October 14, 2010.

Wright, E.O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. London: Verso.

Xiong, A., Talbot, K., Wiek, A., Kay, B. (2012). Integrated Health Care for Communities –

Participatory Visioning and Strategy Building for a New Mountain Park Health Center Clinic

in Phoenix. Project Report. Transformation Lab Publication Series. School of Sustainability,

Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ.

198

Biographical Note

I am an Associate Professor in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University,

working with my colleagues and students in projects on sustainable urban development,

water governance, public health, and climate change

mitigation. We have conducted studies in several

cities in the metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona; in

Sonoma County, northern California; in southern

British Columbia, Canada; in the Guanacaste Province

of Costa Rica; as well as in Lüneburg, Germany, and in

some other regions of Europe.

Since I came to North America almost ten years ago,

quite often, we have done tedious academic work that has been of little relevance to the

world. But similarly often, we left the ivory towers, engaged with our partners in city

administrations, businesses, non-profit organizations, schools, clinics, and supported

change towards sustainability. In those cases, we still resumed the role of researchers – supporting problem analysis, visioning, and strategy building with available evidence,

sometimes even evaluating the implementation of solution strategies. The reason why I

point out this role is that I believe researchers can really help practical sustainability

problem-solving efforts by providing evidence for what works and what does not. But only

if they are willing to leave the problem-centric paradigm of conventional science, and also

do not simply “go native” and become practitioners. At times, it’s a fine line on both sides.

My passion, however, has always been and continues to be teaching. I love seeing young

and old students grow their capacities, knowledge, enthusiasm, and professional skills.

And learning about how they do amazingly impactful work after graduation. I focus most

of my teaching on building competence in sustainability problem solving.

My own studies started in philosophy and musicology, which I completed with a Master’s

degree from the Free University Berlin. I continued with environmental sciences, got a

degree at the University of Jena, Germany, and later obtained my PhD from ETH Zurich. I

worked for a while at ETH and moved then to Vancouver, before I got my position at ASU.

I enjoy hearing back from my readers. Recently, two students caught me while I was

leaving a somewhat draggy academic conference. They shared how they use some of my

work in their studies and projects. That was really motivational. If you’d like to share your

thoughts, please contact me via e-mail indicated at the beginning of this book.

199

200