Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis

Home , Elena Bennett, Neil Adger, Partha Dasgupta, Sustainability science, Sustainability studies

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters

Citation Clark, William C., and Alicia G. Harley. 2020. "Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis." Accepted Preprint. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 45 (Open Access). [Update of July 23, 2020]

Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42660129

Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis

By William C. Clark and Alicia G. Harley1 Harvard University

Keywords: nature–society interactions, complexity, innovation, power, inclusive wealth, adaptation, transformation, governance, equity, co-production

Abstract: This review synthesizes diverse approaches that researchers have brought to bear on the challenge of sustainable development. We construct an integrated framework highlighting the union set of elements and relationships that those approaches have shown to be useful in explaining nature–society interactions in multiple contexts. Compelling evidence has accumulated that those interactions should be viewed as a globally interconnected, complex adaptive system in which heterogeneity, nonlinearity, and innovation play formative roles. The long-term evolution of that system cannot be predicted but can be understood and partially guided through dynamic interventions. Research has identified six capacities necessary to support such interventions in guiding development pathways toward sustainability. These are capacities to: i) measure sustainable development; ii) promote equity; iii) adapt to shocks and surprises; iv) transform the system into more sustainable development pathways; v) link knowledge with action; vi) devise governance arrangements that allow people to work together in exercising the other capacities.

1 Both authors contributed equally to this work.

Cite as: Clark, William C., and Alicia G. Harley. 2020. Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis. Accepted Preprint. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 45.Version3 [Updated July 23, 2020]. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42660129

Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 45 is October 19, 2020. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Comments may be directed to: William C. Clark Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy and Human Development Director, Sustainability Science Program, Harvard Kennedy School [email protected] ORCID ID 0000-0001-8994-5251; and

Alicia G. Harley Post-doctoral Fellow, Sustainability Science Program, Harvard Kennedy School Lecturer in Environmental Science and Public Policy, Harvard College [email protected] ORCID ID 0000-0002-3532-7754

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Contents 1 Scope of the Review ...... 3 1.1 Sustainable Development ...... 3 1.2 Sustainability Science ...... 4 1.3 Organization of the Review ...... 5 2 An Integrative Framework for Sustainability Science ...... 6 2.1 Findings: Key elements and relationships of the Anthropocene as a Complex Adaptive System 8 2.2 Integration: A Framework for Research in Sustainability Science ...... 13 3 Capacity to Measure Sustainable Development ...... 15 3.1 Findings: Well-being, resources, capital assets, and inclusive wealth ...... 15 3.2 Building Capacity: Resources, capacities, connections, and equity ...... 18 4 Capacity to Promote Equity ...... 18 4.1 Findings: (In)equity, (in)equality, and power ...... 19 4.2 Building Capacity: Empowerment of current and future generations ...... 21 5 Capacity to Promote Adaptation ...... 23 5.1 Findings: Risk, vulnerability, and resilience ...... 24 5.2 Building Capacity: Resources, complexity, and power ...... 25 6 Capacity to Promote Transformations ...... 28 6.1 Findings: Innovation, assessment, and incumbency ...... 28 6.2 Building Capacity: Anticipation, imagination, and integration ...... 30 7 Capacity to Link Knowledge with Action ...... 32 7.1 Findings: Expertise, co-production, and trust ...... 32 7.2 Building Capacity: Social learning, boundary work, and decision support ...... 34 8 Capacity for Governance ...... 36 8.1 Findings: Rescaling, expanding the tool kit, fit ...... 37 8.2 Building Capacity: Nurturing resources, promoting equity, confronting uncertainty ...... 38 9 Conclusions ...... 43 10 Summary Points ...... 46 11 Future Issues ...... 46 12 Appendix: Understanding Power in Sustainability Science ...... 48 13 Disclosure Statement ...... 49 14 Acknowledgments ...... 49 15 Literature Cited ...... 49 16 Supplemental Materials: Research Programs That Have Shaped Sustainability Science ...... 76 17 Terms and Definitions ...... 90

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

1 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

We present here a strategic perspective on the central findings and current challenges of sustainability science. Research on sustainable development has grown explosively since the mid-1980s, with the field of sustainability science emerging as a global collaboration network in the early years of this century (Bettencourt and Kaur 2011). Other reviews, many of which we cite here, have assessed in detail the research on particular parts of the field. Our goal is to complement those focused assessments with a synthesis that highlights the principle insights that have emerged from sustainability science and their practical implications for the pursuit of the goals of sustainable development. We aim to provide a manageable overview of the field for scholars seeking to locate their work within the broad enterprise of sustainability science or to catch up on important findings in parts that are not their own, or to forge new collaborations across distant parts of this rapidly expanding and evolving enterprise.

1.1 Sustainable Development Sustainability science, like agricultural science or health science, is an applied science defined by the practical problems it addresses—specifically, the problem of sustainable development (Kates 2011). That problem was defined a generation ago by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) in a prescient statement that merits careful rereading today:

Environment is where we all live; and development is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable…. Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable: to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, ix, 8).

Subsequent deliberations in all manner of public forums—from community gatherings to the UN General Assembly—have reaffirmed the Commission’s vision but also expanded it. The challenges of sustainable development today are generally seen in terms that go beyond just meeting basic human needs to embrace a broader vision of sustainability as fairness: enhancing human well-beinga to more equitably meet the needs of both current and future generations (Stiglitz, Fitoussi, and Durand 2019). Efforts to promote sustainability also increasingly acknowledge that its pursuit should treat humans, in Amartya Sen’s phrase (Sen 2013, 7), “not as patients whose interests have to be looked after, but as agents who can do effective things”— who have the freedom and capacityb to participate in setting their own sustainability goals and in choosing how to pursue them.

The growing concern for making development sustainable has been a response to tensions implicit in two global trends: rapidly increasing human well-being and rapidly increasing environmental degradation. These two trends, taken together, have come to be the perplexing and alarming characterization of what many are now calling the Anthropocene Systemc. The first global trend, portrayed by Angus Deaton as “the great escape” (Deaton 2013), consists of the unprecedented improvements in human health, knowledge, and material well-being that began in the late 19th century and accelerated especially in the second half of the 20th century. By the

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

dawn of the 21st century, more than 80% of the people on earth had life expectancies higher than those of people in the richest parts of the world as recently as 1950. And the fraction of the world’s population living in absolute poverty was lower than it had ever been. This great escape had certainly left some people and regions behind, resulting in substantial inequalities (UNDP 2019). By almost any metric, however, human well-being on Earth had never been higher, at least before the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (Roser 2019). The second Anthropocene trend, described by John McNeill as “the great acceleration,” consists of the increasing magnitude and global extent of human impacts on nature (McNeill 2016). By the dawn of the 21st century, no corner of the earth’s environment had escaped transformation by human activities. The great acceleration had certainly entailed significant cases of environmental protection and restoration. But its overall thrust showed few signs of abating, as reflected by increasing attention to the planet’s great poisoning by toxic chemicals (UN Environment 2019), the mass extinction of its biota (IPBES et al. 2019), and above all its multifaceted climate crises (IPCC 2018).

The Brundtland Commission warned that what it saw as the present trends of what we now call the Anthropocene System could not be sustained. It also expressed a guarded hope that humanity could still achieve a common future of sustainable development. But how?

1.2 Sustainability Science Today’s development pathways are tightly bound up with dominant arrangements of states, markets, firms, and other powerful incumbent interests. Too many of these seem so dedicated to their own self-preservation that they appear unwilling to heed the ubiquitous distress signals of today’s Anthropocene. Indeed, many of these interests seek to block the innovations and rearrangements that are needed to address the crisis of unsustainability. Breaking such blockages so as to enable the serious pursuit of sustainability will almost certainly require a radical restructuring of the politics of the Anthropocene (Dryzek and Pickering 2018). The role of science in that restructuring has been captured by Amartya Sen in his call for informed agitationd (Sen 2013). “Agitation” because political mobilization is necessary to tackle the powerful entrenched interests behind a business-as-usual attitude that disproportionately benefits a few people in their here and now at the cost of impoverishing the prospects of the many elsewhere and in the future. “Informed” agitation because in the absence of scientific understanding it is so easy to waste scarce political muscle on actions that end up having little impact or, like some biofuel mandates, to blunder blindly forward pushing development down even more destructive pathways.

“Sustainability science” is one convenient term for the research community’s contributions to the informed agitation required to address the challenges of sustainable development. The pool of potentially relevant scholarship is vast and rapidly expanding. To bound this review, we have reluctantly forgone the temptation to sketch a history of sustainability science. We concentrate instead on the most recent work we know that captures the state and frontiers of sustainability science at the dawn of the third decade of the 21st century, relying on those publications we do cite to credit the foundational studies on which current understanding has been built. We focus on the subset of research on sustainable development that seeks to produce generalizable guidance for use in practical problem solving, i.e., that resides in what historian Donald Stokes has termed “Pasteur’s quadrant” (D. E. Stokes 1997). This means that we give short shrift to the

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

important foundations of sustainability science that were built from curiosity-driven basic research in a variety of disciplines ranging from ecology to economics to history (i.e., work in Stokes’ “Bohr’s quadrant”). An overview of that work is available elsewhere (Steffen et al. 2020). We also stop short of reviewing the application of sustainability science to solve particular problems in particular contexts (i.e., work in his “Edison’s quadrant”). A taste of that vast body of applications work, ranging from the management of irrigation systems in Nepal to the promotion of energy transitions in Europe can be found in (SDSN Association 2019).

Even with our drastic bounding of this review to contemporary sustainability science centered in Pasteur’s quadrant, there are other questions we could have investigated, other interpretations we could have considered, and other publications we could have cited. Moreover, the field as a whole is growing so (gratifyingly) quickly that any review—ours included—will rapidly lose its currency. As one response to these limitations, we have established an open-access web site to complement this review that can be accessed at https://sustainabilityscience.org. The site currently provides an expanded treatment of the argument we present here. We will endeavor to update it as the field and our understanding of it continue to mature. Input and feedback from readers of this review will be vital for making this experiment useful and timely: please check it out and let us hear from you.

1.3 Organization of the Review We begin this review with survey of the interdisciplinary research programs that have most shaped understanding of sustainable development over the last several decades. From these programs, we extract a union set of elements (variables) and relationships (interactions) that have proven particularly powerful in illuminating sustainable development in at least some contexts. These, we argue, are plausible candidates for consideration in future work aimed at crafting generalizable theory and models in sustainability science. We synthesize them in an integrative Framework for Research in Sustainability Science that we hope will help researchers better to communicate and collaborate with one another as the field continues to mature.

We summarize in Section 2 research showing that nature and society in the Anthropocene have become intertwined in a globally interconnected, complex adaptive system. The heterogeneity, nonlinearities, and innovation characterizing that system generate development pathways that cannot, even in principle, be fully predicted in advance. The central implication of this finding, still not as widely appreciated as it should be, is that sustainable development can realistically be pursued only through an iterative strategy that combines thinking through and acting out (Enqvist et al. 2018). That is, effective strategies for the pursuit of sustainability must certainly use science to help identify and create interventions likely to promote sustainability, but must also foster capacities to put those interventions into practice, monitor and evaluate the results, and take corrective action in an iterative and open-ended pursuit of sustainable development. Research has identified six such capacities. We list these in the abstract and table of contents for this review and explore what is now known of their character, strengths, and limitations in Sections 3-8.

We conclude with summaries of some of the most useful generalizable knowledge that sustainability science has produced over the last two decades and some of the central challenges the field faces in the years ahead.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

2 AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE

Sustainability science draws from a great variety of perspectives including tacit (traditional and practical) knowledge, ecology and economics, engineering and medicine, political science and law, and a multitude of others. These multiple perspectives are generally a source of strength, bringing potentially complementary bodies of theory, data, and methods to bear on the challenges of sustainable development. But they also have meant that the field remains somewhat fractured into distinct schools of thought, research programs, and other “island empires,” each characterized by its own idiosyncratic origins, terminologies, publication venues, case studies, and conceptual frameworks. While many individual disciplines have contributed something to sustainability research, interdisciplinary research programs have been the most significant shapers of the part of that research that is our target in this review. We list the programs that we judge to have been most influential in Table 1.2 The good news is that these research programs are increasingly melding, sharing scholars and ideas and generating exciting hybrid research efforts. The bad news is that the integration remains incomplete, with the result that sustainability science today remains substantially less than the sum of its impressive parts. Integrating research across the island empires of the field would almost certainly help to realize its potential for informing agitation in support of sustainable development.

We offer here as one step toward promoting that integration a new Framework for Research in Sustainability Science. Frameworkse are usefully thought of as the most general form of conceptualization in science (Ostrom 2011). They provide checklists or building blocks of elements and relationshipsf for consideration in constructing theories or models that seek to explain particular patterns or phenomena. The framework we present here simply highlights the “union set” of elements and relationships introduced by the research programs listed in Table 1. We emphasize that this framework is not intended as a master plan for some grand theory of the field. Rather, we offer it as our admittedly subjective synthesis of the building blocks that past research has shown to be particularly useful across a wide range of contexts and that should therefore be given serious consideration in ongoing efforts to construct and test middle-range theories about how to promote sustainable development (Meyfroidt et al. 2018). We believe that adoption of a common framework of elements and relationships such as that proposed here would help to integrate the various pieces of sustainability science, to facilitate interaction across the field, and thus to accelerate progress in the pursuit of sustainability. The remainder of this section characterizes the principal elements and relationships that our review suggests should be included in the checklists captured by an integrative framework for sustainability science. Subsequent sections explore how these concepts have been used to inform agitation for sustainable development.

2 The method we used to identify the research programs listed in Table 1 is described in the Supplemental Materials. The Supplemental Materials also include a bibliometric analysis of these research programs we hope interested readers will find useful. (Follow the Supplemental Materials link in the online version of this article or at http://www.annualreviews.org/.)

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Table 1 Research programs that have shaped sustainability science

Name(s) Special contribution(s) Recent reviews(s) Complex adaptive systems Local action by heterogeneous (diverse) agents, constrained by (Levin et al. 2012; (CAS) higher level structures, central role of innovation/novelty Preiser et al. 2018) Coupled human and natural Reciprocal links between human and natural systems; special (Hull and Liu 2018) systems (CHANS) attention to links across space Coupled human- Place-based analysis of linkages, emphasizing physical and biotic (Moran 2010) environment systems environment; actors and agency (CHES) Earth system governance Highlights importance of institutional design, agency, and power for (Burch et al. 2019) (ESG) governing nature–society interactions; emphasis on transitions and inequality Ecosystem services / Goods and services flowing from functioning ecosystems; role of (Peterson et al. 2018; natural capital institutions and technologies in shaping production of and human Bennett 2017) access to those services Environmental justice (EJ) Focus on inequality and environmental harm, highlights vulnerability (Agyeman et al. 2016; of poor and marginalized communities to pollution, maldistributions Menton et al. 2020) of power Industrial ecology/ social Focus on use of energy and biophysical resources; special attention (Haberl et al. 2019; metabolism /circular to flows in and out of manufactured structures; technology design; Loste, Roldán, and economy trade; adequacy of sources and sinks Giner 2019; Zimmerman et al. 2020) IPBES conceptual Focus on biodiversity benefits for people, collaborative processes for (Díaz et al. 2018) framework fair mobilization of multiple value, multiple knowledge systems (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) Livelihoods Local actors’ entitlements and capabilities to secure access to (Scoones 2009) resources and their benefits; role of agency, power, politics, and institutions Pathways to sustainability Normative emphasis on poverty alleviation, local knowledge and (Leach, Scoones, and social justice as defined by and for particular people and contexts; Stirling 2010) analytic emphasis on power, politics, roles of problem framing, and narratives Resilience thinking Intertwined social/ecological systems as CAS displaying multiple (Reyers et al. 2018) regimes; tipping points; fast versus slow variables; coping with risk, adaptive capacity Social-environmental Co-production of useful knowledge by actors and analysts; boundary (Turner et al. 2016) systems work; trust; power; monitoring, feedback for adaptive management Socio-ecological systems Action situation focus on how actors use resources in particular (McGinnis and Ostrom (SES) contexts, role of actors and institutions in governance outcomes, 2014) and multi-level (cross-scale) linkages Socio-technical transitions / Technology change and innovation as multi-level, evolutionary (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, multi-level perspective processes; transitions among sociotechnical regimes as whole- and Avelino 2017; (MLP) / strategic niche system, deep-structure, long-term, path-dependent, incumbent Markard, Geels, and management (SNM) actors and institutions Raven 2020) Sustainable consumption- Beyond control of pollution from production alone or consumption (Geels et al. 2015; production (SCP) lifestyles alone to joint consideration of coupled consumption and Schröder et al. 2019) production activities Welfare, wealth, and capital Well-being across generations linked to wealth defined by access to (Irwin, Gopalakrishnan, assets resource stocks from nature and society; substitutability among and Randall 2016; P. S. stocks Dasgupta 2018)

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

2.1 Findings: Key elements and relationships of the Anthropocene as a Complex Adaptive System In this section, we first describe the elements and relationships that have been found to be important for sustainability science research. We organize our discussion here into four parts: nature–society interactions, governance, complexity, and context dependence. In Section 2.2 we integrate this description in a Framework for Research in Sustainability Science (see Figure 1, in Section 2.2).

Environment and development: The “inseparable” connections between environment and development that were noted by the Brundtland Commission constitutes the foundation of the Framework. Research has highlighted three aspects of those connections that are central to sustainable development. We summarize them here and address them in more detail throughout the review.

Nature–society interactions3: Recent research in sustainability science has shown how thoroughly the elements of nature and society are intertwined in deeply coevolutionary relationships that shape dynamical pathways of developmentg (Reyers et al. 2018). An immediate consequence of these findings is that talk of environmental-sustainability, or social- sustainability or other forms of “hyphenated-sustainability” is fundamentally misleading and at odds with the integrating aspirations of sustainability science. A research-informed use of the term “sustainable” should therefore always—and only—refer to the integrated pathways of development resulting from nature–society interactions in the Anthropocene System.

Goals: Sustainability science is a problem-driven field. The ongoing normative debates on the goals of sustainable development—what they are, have been, and should be—therefore occupies a core position in the Framework. The most important constituents of sustainability goals vary across groups, places, and times. But a widely shared common vision has begun to emerge focused on the fair or equitable advancement of human well-being within and across generations (Stiglitz, Fitoussi, and Durand 2019). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recently articulated under the auspices of the United Nations have reaffirmed this overarching goal (United Nations 2015). They have also, however, somewhat muddied the waters by failing to distinguish between the ends or ultimate goals of sustainable development (promoting well- being) and the multiple means of achieving those goals (P. S. Dasgupta 2018).

Resources have always been a central focus of research on sustainability. Today, the resource concept has broadened from early work on forests and fisheries to include multiple stocks of

3 We prefer this framing of the interactions that shape the Anthropocene over alternative framings that, however broad their intended meaning today, reflect in their terminology various disciplinary path-dependencies that some perceive as narrowing what ought to be an inclusive vocabulary. In particular, we invite readers to join us in seeing “nature–society” interactions in the broadest possible sense, along the lines suggested by common usage of “natural” and “social” sciences. We see this as broader than “human-environmental” interactions (which connote to many a diminution of the importance of how people organize their relationships with one another), “social-ecological” interactions (which connote to many a diminution of the physical aspects of nature such as climate) and “sociotechnical” interactions (which connote to many a diminution of the importance of nature in the Anthropocene System).

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

capital assets from which people draw goods and services in efforts to achieve their goals. Some resource stocks considered in contemporary sustainability science are usefully thought of as “natural” in that they come principally from nature (Barbier 2019), e.g., biodiversity, ecosystems, the physical environment (e.g., climate), and minerals. Others are “anthropogenic,” or made by people (Díaz et al. 2015), e.g., manufactured capital, human capital, social capital, and knowledge capital. Development pathways in the Anthropocene System can conserve, deplete or build all of these foundational resource stocks. But one of the most important findings of sustainability science has been that natural and anthropogenic resources, together with the dynamic relationships among them, should be treated as the joint foundations on which well- being can be built.

Governance: A second part of the Framework brings to bear on the core concepts questions of governanceh: the arrangements by which “any collectivity, from the local to the global, seeks to manage its common affairs” (Ruggie 2014, 5). The importance and variety of governance arrangements bearing on sustainability were given enormous impetus through the work on resource commons by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). The elements and relationships bearing on governance that have received most attention in research on sustainable development include actors, institutions, and, more recently, power. We summarize how these ideas have been used in the scholarly literature immediately below and expand on them later in the review.

Actors i in the Anthropocene System come from both the natural and social subsystems. The former has been construed to include some non-human organisms and their assemblages; the latter to include people, communities, firms and other organizations, states, and comparable entities. What actors have in common is agency: the ability to choose or decide. Actors have not only the ability to directly consume or produce resources but also (for social actors) the ability to articulate goals, construct narratives, and influence which institutional structures are in play (Betsill, Benney, and Gerlak 2020). Characteristics of social actors that have proven salient for sustainability science include their values, beliefs, empathy, interests, capabilities for learning and innovation, and power.

Institutions j are the structural dimension of governance. They constitute the rules, norms, rights, culture, and widely shared beliefs that help to shape the behavior of social actors in their relationships with one another and with nature (Ostrom 2005). Institutions are created, reinforced, and changed by actors. Much of the analytic work in sustainability science seeks to evaluate how specified changes in institutions—say, the imposition of a carbon tax (Stiglitz 2019)—have affected or are likely to affect the prospects for achieving sustainability goals.

Power k is the ability of actors to affect the beliefs or actions of other actors (Hicks et al. 2016). can both constrain and enable what people think and do (Gerlak et al. 2019). Power mediates the relationships among actors, institutions, resources, and goals. Actors can either work within inherited power structures or attempt to change those structures. Actors with more power can more easily change or maintain existing structures to further their power.

Complexity: This third part of the Sustainability Science Framework seeks to capture the fundamentally important finding that the Anthropocene System is a complex adaptive system

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

(CAS)l (Preiser et al. 2018). Three fundamental attributes of the Anthropocene make it a complex adaptive system: the persistent heterogeneitym (individuality, diversity) of its elements; relationships (interactions) among those heterogeneous elements that are local or context specific; and autonomous selection processes that enhance some elements (but not others) based on the outcome of the local interactions (Levin 2003). These attributes underlie several emergent properties of the Anthropocene that have turned out to be of fundamental importance for understanding the prospects for sustainable development, among them: hierarchical organization; novelty and innovation; horizontal connections; vertical connections; and far-from-equilibrium dynamics. In what follows we discuss each of these emergent properties and their implications for sustainable development, drawing heavily on the foundational framing of Levin, Arrow, and their coauthors (Arrow, Ehrlich, and Levin 2014).

Hierarchical organization is an emergent property of the fundamental attributes of the Anthropocene System noted above. Many levels may be in play for any particular case. Three, however, are most commonly referred to in sustainability research: a meso- or focal-level defined by the particular phenomenon of interest (e.g., a community); its neighboring macro- level, consisting of relatively persistent patterns of elements and relationships that constrain dynamics at the focal level (e.g., geography, climate zones); and its neighboring micro-level, at which heterogeneous local interactions take place that may ultimately influence focal-level dynamics (e.g., novel traits or inventions).

Novelty and innovation: From the perspective of sustainability science, the most important and most overlooked implication of the complex adaptive character of the Anthropocene is its continuous generation of novelty and innovation. This can take biological, technological, or institutional forms. It usually arises at the micro-level through the fundamental attributes noted above but can bubble up to the meso-level when suitable vertical selection mechanisms are in play. There, especially when macro-level boundary conditions are suitably aligned, novelty and innovation drive development pathways to evolve in fundamentally unpredictable ways (Arthur 2015; Hagstrom and Levin 2017). These important themes have long been explored in the context of evolutionary biology and economics but have only begun to enter sustainability scholarship, largely through the literatures on transformations and transitions (Geels 2020). The implications for sustainability of treating novelty seriously are profound and further explored in Section 6.

Horizontal connections among individual actors and other elements of the Anthropocene System exist at all hierarchical levels. But they are generally incomplete, i.e., the heterogeneity of the system persists rather than becoming homogenized. Research therefore has to take seriously the persistent heterogeneity of different patches of the system and the partial connections among them. Sustainability science has long focused attention on the externality aspect of these connections (P. S. Dasgupta and Ehrlich 2013). Studies of horizontal connections have also addressed the propagation of disturbance and novelty through the Anthropocene System (May, Levin, and Sugihara 2008; Rogge, Kern, and Howlett 2017; Gilarranz et al. 2017). More generally, studies of both teleconnections among people, materials, information, and places (Hull and Liu 2018) and of social connections in actor networks (Sayles et al. 2019) are generating sufficiently useful insights to suggest that horizontal connections should be considered in most new studies for sustainability science.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Vertical connections4 link hierarchical levels of the Anthropocene in a variety of important ways. Sustainability science scholarship has long studied connections reaching down from the macro-level to influence meso-(focal) level dynamics: e.g., work on driving forces (Dietz 2017); path-dependencies (Seto et al. 2016); and other slow variable processes such as climate change and globalization (Biggs et al. 2015; Tu, Suweis, and D’Odorico 2019). The profound implications of upward connections from the micro- to meso-scale have already been noted in the discussion of innovation above. More recently, research has begun to emphasizes the importance of two way flows connecting multiple hierarchical levels (Martín-López et al. 2019). Increasing attention is also being given to the role of polycentricn connections across levels and elements of governance in guiding action for sustainability (Oberlack et al. 2018).

Far-from-equilibrium dynamics are the norm, not the exception in the complex adaptive system of the Anthropocene. These dynamics exhibit multiple regimeso, or characteristic sets of behaviors driven by a particular set of dominant relationships, feedbacks or rules of the game.5 Characteristic of regimes is that within them, small perturbations—whether caused by chance, internal dynamics or outside disturbances—encounter feedbacks that tend to push the system back toward its earlier state or to lock in its development pathway. Separating neighboring regimes are thresholdsp (also called “tipping points”). For a regime operating near such a threshold, especially when internal feedbacks are weak, small disturbances can shift the system into a neighboring regime and thus down a different pathway of development (Biggs, Peterson, and Rocha 2018; Fuenfschilling and Binz 2018; Otto et al. 2020).6 The situation is further complicated by the fact that both the configuration of neighboring regimes and the boundaries separating them may be altered by a variety of factors (Scheffer 2009). Finally, since multiple regimes exist in the Anthropocene System, multiple opportunities exist for interactions or interplay among them (Young 2011) and for cascading regime shifts within and across hierarchical levels (Rocha et al. 2018; Steffen et al. 2018). One of the most exciting additions to sustainability science over the last decade has come from a vibrant community of researchers that originally studied historical regime transitions in socio-technical systems, but that is now contributing directly to understanding transitions toward sustainability (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino 2017). We review this work in Section 6.

Context dependence: The fourth major component of the Framework addresses the ubiquitous finding of research on sustainable development that context matters. The development pathways generated by complex nature–society interactions are almost always dependent on conditions characterizing the case at hand, including the particular configurations of nature and society; of

4 We use the term “vertical” connections to characterize linkages across levels. The more conventional “cross-scale” terminology is ambiguous in that it can be read to refer to both spatial and temporal domains. 5 The concept of regime has been used to characterize natural systems (e.g., river flow regimes, prey-predator regimes), social systems (e.g., the world trade regime, the nuclear nonproliferation regime), and Anthropocene Systems characterized by nature–society interactions (e.g., the climate regime, the world food regime). For sustainability science, this last, more inclusive sense seems most appropriate and is therefore what we mean when using the term throughout this review. 6 We follow Scheffer (Scheffer 2009, 83) in using the term “regime shift” to refer to the general phenomenon of a rapid change from one set of dynamics to another, and reserve the term “critical transition” for the subset of regime shifts that is due not to changes in external conditions but rather due to a change in dominant feedbacks. See Milkoreit et al. (2018) for a review of how these terms are used in the literature.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

actors, institutions, and power; and of the particular historical legacies that are in play (Agrawal 2003; Bebbington et al. 2018). This is why scholars, as noted earlier, have tended to avoid grand unifying theories of sustainability. Instead, they have focused on case studies or, more ambitiously, on constructing and testing middle range theories that transcend individual cases but still confine themselves to particular contexts (Meyfroidt et al. 2018).

Action situations q: Successful integration of research results across cases requires systematic approaches to selecting and characterizing context. Various disciplines have developed multiple research methodologies to help in this important task. In general, these all admonish researchers and analysts to “bound the problem” by explicitly identifying which temporal and spatial scales, elements, and relationships are explicitly treated “inside” a particular study, and which are provisionally set “outside” or otherwise excluded. One of the most fully articulated approaches to contextualization in sustainability studies focuses on the concept of an action situation. This was initially formulated in Ostrom’s Institutional and Analysis (IAD) framework as an approach to characterize contexts of social interactions through which people and organizations make choices about using resources to achieve their goals (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). It has since been extended to contextualize the use of resources not only in terms of interactions within society but also including the interactions between society and nature and among multiple elements of the environmental system (Schlüter et al. 2019). It is in this broader sense that we use the term “action situation” when addressing the importance of contextualizing sustainability science.

Careful attention to specifying action situations (by whatever name) has helped scholars working on problems relevant to sustainability to make progress in crafting middle-range theories that take context seriously but rise above the level of individual case studies. Notable examples include research on resource commons (Boyd et al. 2018), poverty traps (Barbier and Hochard 2019), land use change (Meyfroidt et al. 2018), energy transitions (Chen et al. 2019), and urbanization (Seto et al. 2017). Most such mid-range work about the Anthropocene is potentially relevant to the pursuit of sustainability. But only a subset of it has explicitly addressed the central concerns of sustainability science: advancing goals of inclusive well-being through the stewardship of natural and anthropogenic resources. Most of that subset has in common its use of a consumption-production perspective (see below).

Consumption-production relationships: The subset of middle-range theorizing that has contributed most to the pursuit of sustainability addresses action situations that explicitly link aspects of well-being (e.g., health) to the consumption of the goods and services (e.g., food) that flow from production activities (e.g., farming) and that draw on, and reinvest in, the underlying resource base (e.g., land, labor, etc.). The literature that has focused most consistently on such action situations contextualizes the complex, multilevel character of nature–society interactions in terms of sustainable consumption-production systems (Wang et al. 2019). Sustainable consumption and production have also emerged as the single most widely shared component of the UN’s SDGs (LeBlanc 2015). Much of the relevant research still focusses on parts of the system, with consumption studies emphasizing the role of actors’ values, incentives, and practices (Bengtsson et al. 2018) and production studies emphasizing efficient and even circular use of resources (e.g., Merli, Preziosi, and Acampora 2018). Increasingly and encouragingly,

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley however, scholars are exploring action situations for sustainable development in terms of truly integrated systems of consumption and production (Geels et al. 2015).

We are convinced that adopting a consumption-production perspective for defining action situations in sustainability science research would be useful for three reasons. First, it could serve as a general integrative concept for the exciting work on specific middle-range theories that have usefully contextualized our understanding of important classes of nature–society interactions. Second, it could prod other middle range theories of nature–society interactions to connect better with sustainability science by explicitly linking goals through consumption and production processes to underlying resources. Finally, it could serve as a reminder that the action situations addressed by those various middle-range theories seldom exist in isolation from one another. Rather, multiple consumption-production systems are generally in play, drawing on the same resources for different purposes and thereby affecting the challenges and opportunities facing one another (Schlüter et al. 2019). The resulting nexus of interacting action situations has proven extremely difficult to untangle (Galaitsi, Veysey, and Huber-Lee 2018) and stands as a frontier challenge for efforts to integrate research on sustainability (Jianguo Liu et al. 2018).

2.2 Integration: A Framework for Research in Sustainability Science This section has outlined the union set of elements and relationships identified by existing research programs that have proven sufficiently useful to merit consideration in future research on sustainable development. It’s admittedly a long and potentially confusing check list. We therefore provide in Figure 1 a visual summary. We emphasize that the figure is a framework, not a theory or model. That is, we intend it as a checklist of terms and concepts, each of which has a record of sometimes being helpful in understanding sustainable development depending on the context of interest. Whether particular entries in the framework provide significant explanatory power in particular cases, and whether additional elements and relationships are needed to explain those cases, can only be determined by doing the relevant empirical research for a given action situation. But sustainability science has, perhaps, advanced to the point that future research should not casually ignore any of the elements and relationships highlighted in the Framework summarized in Figure 1.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Figure 1 A Framework for Research in Sustainability Science

Figure 1: A Framework for Research in Sustainability Science - The framework summarizes a checklist of elements (variables) and relationships (processes) that experience suggests are worth considering in sustainability science research. At the core of much research on sustainability are the intertwined nature–society interactions depicted by the blue ovals in the figure. The problem-driven character of sustainability research is reflected in orange ovals: determining how the goals that people set for sustainable development can be met by managing how people use the natural and anthropogenic resources or capital assets of the Anthropocene System. Governance arrangements constitute the next layer of the Framework, portrayed through white rectangles representing actors and institutions. Red arrows signify the importance of power relationships among actors, institutions, resources, and goals. Context dependence is a central finding of sustainability research. Characterizing context in terms of specific consumption-production systems, as suggested by the grey rounded rectangles at the middle of the figure, has emerged as a particularly effective way of focusing sustainability research on the relationships between goals and resources. (The rectangle labeled “S” is meant to capture the importance of savings, or the portion of production that is not consumed but rather used to replenish resource stocks.) Nature–society interactions constitute a complex adaptive system, depicted by the green text in the figure. Foremost among these is emergent hierarchical structure, pictured here in terms of meso-, macro-, and micro-levels of organization. Lower levels in the hierarchy highlight the heterogeneity (diversity) of elements that are often treated as aggregates at higher levels, a structure depicted in the figure by the multiple, diverse units of nature–society interactions shown in blue at the micro- level. The hierarchical, heterogeneous character of the overall system is why connections have become such a focus of sustainability research: horizontal connections within levels (e.g., externalities), and vertical connections across levels (e.g., innovation). The pathways of development (purple) that emerge from the elements and relationships noted here are strongly path-dependent, exhibiting multiple regimes separated by thresholds or tipping points. Adaptation within regimes and transformation of one regime into another have emerged as foci for research on sustainable development.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

3 CAPACITY TO MEASURE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

One of the greatest and longest standing challenges facing sustainability science has been to design and implement methods for measuring sustainable development. As characterized by Partha Dasgupta in his seminal work on the subject (P. Dasgupta 2004), the measurement challenge takes two forms: valuing recent pathways of development and evaluating the likely impact of policies or other interventions on future pathways of development.

A vast array of metrics has been used to value and evaluate development pathways. These range from GNP to carbon emissions to the Human Development Index to the UN’s SDG metrics. Most capture something relevant to sustainability, none capture everything (Laurent 2018). Fortunately, one of the strongest contributions of science to sustainable development over the last two decades has been the beginnings of an integrative, theory-grounded, and useful capacity to measure one central feature of sustainability: the adequacy of the resource base to support human well-being now and in the future. Systematic efforts to assess the resources base, grounded in both theory and empirical work, are now being advanced on a number of fronts under the general banner of “Beyond GDP” (Stiglitz, Fitoussi, and Durand 2019). The variant of these approaches to measurement that has resonated most deeply with the sustainability science community is that on “inclusive wealth,” recently summarized in a series of comprehensive reviews (P. Dasgupta 2014; Polasky et al. 2015; Irwin, Gopalakrishnan, and Randall 2016; Siddiqi and Collins 2017). We sketch the current state of play on inclusive wealth metrics in the remainder of this section, highlighting relevant assumptions, applications, and remaining challenges.

3.1 Findings: Well-being, resources, capital assets, and inclusive wealth Measuring sustainable development in terms of its ends is formally equivalent to measuring it in terms of the means for achieving those ends. In particular, measuring sustainability in terms of its goals of inclusive well-being goals is formally equivalent to measuring it in terms of the inclusive wealth that constitutes the productive capacity on which people draw to achieve those goals. Both theory and experience suggest, however, that for measuring sustainable development over long periods it is generally easier to measure the stocks of resources that function as its determinants (means) than it is to measure the flows of goods and services that are consumed as constituents of its ultimate end, i.e., inclusive well-being (P. S. Dasgupta 2018).

The particular stocks that must be conserved can usefully be seen as the resources highlighted in many of the analytic frameworks discussed in Section 2. The theory behind this view builds on a long tradition of work in welfare economics and the economic theory of capital. It portrays resources as the capital assetsr that constitute the productive bases on which people in the Anthropocene System draw to produce the goods and services that they then consume to advance their well-being. As noted in Section 2, some of these resources (assets) are “natural” in that they are directly derived from nature, whereas others are “anthropogenic” or constructed by people. Subdivisions of these major resource categories that have been particularly useful in sustainability science research are listed and illustrated with an example in Table 2. The key insight for sustainability science is that both natural and anthropogenic resources (assets) are necessary to produce well-being, just as the fishing community of Table 2 requires both fish and boats to prosper.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Table 2: Resource stocks that constitute the productive base for human well-being

a) Resource group b) Specific example c) General list of d) Recent reviews of an ocean fishery representative resource stocks Natural capital (Barbier 2019) • Ecosystems Fish and their food Biota, biomass, communities (IPBES et al. 2019) • Environment Ocean temperature, Climate, quality and quantity of (Ekins, Gupta, and pH land, air, water Boileau 2019) • Minerals Fossil fuel for the Fossil fuels, iron, sand, etc. (OECD 2018) boats Anthropogenic capital (Díaz et al. 2015) • Manufactured capital Boats of the fleet Roads, buildings, infrastructure (Weisz, Suh, and Graedel 2015) • Human capital Skilled fishers Population; its health, education, (Nordin and Rooth distribution 2018) • Social capital Regulations on catch Institutions (including rules, (Hamilton, Helliwell, norms, rights, culture, networks, and Woolcock 2016; etc.) National Research Council et al. 2014) • Knowledge capital Maps of the seabed Indigenous, practical, scientific (Hess and Ostrom 2007; Hess 2012)

The resources that are most important in a given case will always depend on context, as suggested by Column B of Table 2 and the more general examples of Column C. But research suggests that the resources shown in the Table can usefully be thought of as the fundamental determinants or state variables underlying the generation of peoples’ well-being in the Anthropocene System. A significant body of research has now accumulated exploring the character of each of the general resource categories listed in Table 2: what enhances them, what depletes them, how do they benefit society (see Column D, “Reviews”). Sustainability science should build on this progress, moving beyond a preoccupation with single resources and aiming to assess the potential contributions to sustainability from each of the basic resource categories summarized in Table 2, as well as the interactions among them.

Inclusive wealth in theory: Inclusive wealth theory has built upon the foundational research findings noted above to create a rationale for the following proposition:

For a development trajectory to be sustainable, a necessary condition is that it conserve inclusive wealth, defined as the per capita social value, adjusted for distribution, of the full array of resource stocks that constitute the productive base of the Anthropocene System.

The full elaboration of the argument behind this proposition is subtle and merits more attention than we can provide here. The reviews cited at the beginning of this section provide the details.

Important features of inclusive wealth that are addressed in those reviews include the following: • “Well-being” of people is a central goal or end objective of sustainable development. It has multiple constituents, the importance of which will vary across people and generations.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Measuring well-being directly is highly problematical. But under a plausible range of conditions, per capita well-being is tracked by per capita wealth. • “Wealth” is a means to the end of creating social well-being. It consists of resources, both natural and anthropogenic, that together constitute determinants of well-being. Wealth is not the total amount of resource. Nor is it their monetary value. Rather it is the estimated social value of those resources, i.e., what they can contribute as means for the creation of well- being. • The social value of resource stocks to particular social actors depends on context, in particular where and when they live, their goals for sustainability, and how they define what well-being means for them; • “Inclusive” means everyone’s: not just aggregate quantities of resources, but actual access by relevant actors to those resources (or the goods and services they produce); not just resource endowments here and now, but also across relevant places and generations. Aggregation weights for individual actor’s wealth can be designed to reflect society’s commitment to equity in sustainable development (see Section 4); • “Conserving” inclusive wealth means that it not decline with time, i.e., that each generation passes on to the future (at least) as much inclusive wealth as it received from the past. Note that in general many alternative bundles of resources will meet the “conservation” criterion for sustainability; • “Inclusive wealth” is always about forecasts: What value could society expect to produce from a specified endowment of resources given a particular understanding of how (relevant parts of) the Anthropocene System work? Which actors have the power to make it work for them? Good measures of inclusive wealth therefore require deep scientific understanding of the dynamics of the Anthropocene System. • Estimates of inclusive wealth are only about the potential of the relevant system to produce well-being. This potential may not be realized in practice if the assumptions of the forecasting model turn out to be wrong or if people lack the other capacities addressed later in this review.

Inclusive wealth in practice: Practical applications of inclusive wealth concepts have begun to accumulate. These include a growing array of science-grounded assessments of the sustainability of recent development patterns (Tzvetkova and Hepburn 2019). They have been carried out by individual scholars (Arrow et al. 2012; Lintsen et al. 2018), by non-governmental organizations (Managi and Kumar 2018), and by the World Bank (Lange, Wodon, and Carey 2018). The initial focus on national-level measures is now being complemented with an increasing number of local and regional valuations (e.g., Yoshida et al. 2018; Agarwal and Sawhney 2020). Moreover, the theory is beginning to be employed in prospective evaluations of alternative policies for promoting sustainability in cases ranging from alternative scenarios of national development (Ikeda and Managi 2019); to massive desalinization for the production of drinking water (R. D. Collins et al. 2017); to substituting anthropogenic for natural capital (Cohen, Hepburn, and Teytelboym 2019); to mitigating the risk of collapse of the Greenland ice sheet (Nordhaus 2019). Much remains to be done. But the current state of research and application on inclusive wealth represents a significant advance over a past in which sustainability was whatever those claiming to pursue it wanted it to be.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

3.2 Building Capacity: Resources, capacities, connections, and equity The challenges of fully developing and operationalizing research-informed but practically useful measures of sustainable development remain substantial. Three merit particular attention.

Valuing resources: A combination of methods and models are now being employed to provide useful estimates of the social value or inclusive wealth represent by resource stocks. Some are anchored in the social deliberation (Dryzek and Stevenson 2014), others in systems simulation (R. D. Collins et al. 2017), and still others in market prices supplemented by science-informed calculation of the true value to society (also called “shadow” or “accounting” prices) of resource- based goods and services that are not traded in markets (Yamaguchi and Managi 2019). Current value estimates are relatively solid for resources traded in markets (e.g., minerals and houses), improving rapidly for ecosystems, and almost nonexistent for less tangible resources such as social capital (but see Jumbri and Managi 2020). Building a capacity for integrated valuation of all relevant resources in particular contexts should be a central task of future research in sustainability science.

Valuing operational capacities: This review argues that in addition to the conservation of inclusive wealth, a variety of operational capacities are necessary for the pursuit of sustainability. We discuss these capacities at some length in subsequent sections of the review. As is the case for resources, social actions can either deplete or strengthen each of these capacities. For none of them, however, are good measures of their social value yet available. Informed choices regarding the relative merits of investments in the respective capacities are thus impossible. Research to rectify this situation by creating good measures of the operational capacities discussed in the following sections is urgently needed (Irwin, Gopalakrishnan, and Randall 2016).

Accounting for connections: Connections among heterogeneous units of the Anthropocene System are now generally accepted to be important determinants of system behavior and sustainability (see Section 2, Figure 1). This importance clearly ought to extend to inclusive wealth accounts. To date, however, virtually all of the theory and empirical work on inclusive wealth ignores connections that move wealth within and across levels of system organization. This shortfall seems more one of neglect than of inherent conceptual difficulty. It should thus be a ripe area for future research in efforts to develop a mature capacity to measure sustainable development.

We further explore the governance challenges of measuring sustainable development to nurture shared resources in section 8.2.

4 CAPACITY TO PROMOTE EQUITY

We argue in this Section that a greater capacity to promote equity is necessary for the effective pursuit of sustainable development. (In)equityt is a normative concept dealing with fairness and justice that has been central to social deliberations on sustainability. In that context it addresses how fairly people judge the fruits of the earth’s resources are being distributed within and between generations. (In)equalityu is a positive concept used for describing those distributions.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

(In)equality in access to resources is an emergent property of the Anthropocene System that can be modified through policy in order to meet the equity component of sustainability goals. Power differentials among actors turn out to be both a cause and a consequence of inequality. Empowerment of those actors who are losing out under current pathways of development is thus a vital component of the capacity to promote equity in sustainable development.

4.1 Findings: (In)equity, (in)equality, and power The Brundtland Commission put (in)equity and (in)equality at the core of its case for sustainability, arguing that inequality is both the “planet’s main ‘environmental’ problem” as well as its “main ‘development’ problem” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, 6). Subsequent international deliberations have reaffirmed this perspective with specific emphasis on sustainability as fairness, its goals including both the alleviation of poverty in today’s world of plenty and the assurance that efforts to improve well-being today do not unfairly undermine the prospects of those seeking it tomorrow (United Nations 2015). These normative commitments to equity have also been used to argue that all people deserve the freedom and capacity to pursue their own visions of the good life (Sen 2013).

(In)equity: Given the centrality of concerns over (in)equity to the political deliberations about the goals of sustainable development, we were surprised to discover how relatively little those concerns have figured in sustainability research or practice during most of the period covered by this review. There have always, thankfully, been a few welcome exceptions, (e.g., Weiss 1988). But it is only recently that equity concerns have begun to appear consistently in sustainability scholarship (e.g., Lintsen et al. 2018; Tessum et al. 2019; Williams et al. 2020). And even when research has addressed equity issues, as is true for the inclusive wealth scholarship discussed in Section 3, applications have lagged behind. For example, none of the UN or World Bank reports on historical patterns of inclusive wealth we cited there (Lange, Wodon, and Carey 2018; Managi and Kumar 2018) give more than passing attention to the questions of intragenerational equity latent in their data. Even more surprisingly, none of the 17 UN SDGs explicitly address the concerns of intergenerational equity that have been so central to sustainability discourse (Lim, Søgaard Jørgensen, and Wyborn 2018; Ribas, Lucena, and Schaeffer 2017).

Society cannot achieve the goals of sustainable development that it has repeatedly endorsed without giving more attention in both research and practice to the challenges of achieving fair and just distributions of well-being both within and between generations. We therefore conclude that that a second necessary (but not sufficient) condition for sustainable development is a greater capacity to promote equity within and between generations. In the remainder of this section we summarize the research that we have found most relevant to advancing the equity dimension of sustainability. The following reviews provide deeper treatments of key topics than we can cover here: (Hamann et al. 2018; Caney 2018; Zucman 2019; Kashwan, MacLean, and García-López 2019). We have drawn heavily on them in shaping our argument.

(In)equality: Both theory (Scheffer et al. 2017) and empirical evidence (Zucman 2019) suggest that substantial inequality is an emergent property of the Anthropocene that should be looked upon as the rule, not the exception, for pathways of development. Multiple inequalities relevant to sustainability exist with opportunities and outcomes divided by income, race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality, and other factors. Moreover, these inequalities frequently intersect with

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

and reinforce one another (P. H. Collins 2015). Scholars have documented the ways in which quantifiable metrics of inequality are distributed over time and among actors within and between different action situations (Piketty 2020; Milanovic 2018; Pierson and Lamont 2019; Banzhaf, Ma, and Timmins 2019).

Inequality has a tendency to snowball such that without intervention unequal wealth distributions become even more unequal over time (Hamann et al. 2018). Understanding inequality therefore requires a multi-generational historical perspective (Scheve and Stasavage 2017). This historical record shows that patterns of inequality change over time and can be both strengthened and mitigated by anthropogenic and natural influences (Piketty 2020). Mitigating influences include micro-processes of accumulation and distribution (Benhabib and Bisin 2018) and macro-forces including wars and natural calamities (Scheidel 2017). Perhaps most relevant for action to promote sustainable development are findings on the efficacy of meso-level institutional structures (Mazzucato 2018; Piketty 2020). Some of these can reduce inequalities, including inheritance taxes and strong unions (Ahlquist 2017). Others have been shown to accentuate them: tax systems that target wages over investment income, as well as ownership of intellectual property and stocks of scarce natural resources (Stiglitz 2012). That said, many mechanisms that reduced inequality through much of the 20th century in the affluent West—e.g., increasing access to education, rural-urban migration, and progressive tax systems—seem to be no longer functioning as mechanisms of redistribution (Pierson and Lamont 2019).

Power: Some inequalities would result from the heterogeneous distribution of resources in the Anthropocene System even if all actors preferred an equitable allocation. But all actors don’t. Indeed, initial inequalities are reinforced by a variety of mechanisms, ranging from what psychologists call social dominance theory (a preference to prefer inequity over equity (Milfont et al. 2018) to the norms of capitalism to realist strategies of states. What these mechanisms have in common is power, a fundamental relationship in the Anthropocene System that we defined in Section 2.2 as the ability of some actors to affect the actions and beliefs of others.

Access to resources (including each of the resources discussed in Section 3) is at the heart of individual power (Kabeer 1999; Pedde et al. 2019). Inequality in the access to resources leads to inequalities of power that in turn reduce the abilities of all but the most powerful actors to define and pursue their own goals. For example, the ability of colonial governments to extract vast quantities of resources (including slave labor) from their colonies, promoting their own well- being at the expense of others, was predicated on unequal distributions of military and economic resources and therefore power (Mann 2012; Milanovic 2018).

The literature on power, however, shows that it can take many forms that go well beyond coercive power derived from superior military or economic might. In response to the increasing awareness that maldistributions of power reinforce unsustainable development pathways, more and more sustainability science research is seriously grappling with the mechanism and impacts of power on development pathways (e.g., Boonstra 2016; Kashwan, MacLean, and García-López 2019; Brisbois, Morris, and de Loë 2019; Avelino 2017). Yet this literature remains disjointed— failing either to build on itself or to converge around a common theoretical language with which to discuss the mechanisms of power (Gerlak et al. 2019). Our review of the core political and sociological approaches to the study of power as well as more recent work on power and

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

sustainable development leads us to conclude that future work in sustainability science would be well served to build on an adaptation of a three-dimensional view of power first articulated by Steven Lukes (1974). We advocate Lukes’ approach both because it is frequently used to conceptualize the mechanisms of power in empirical work, and because by articulating power’s relationship between actors, resources, institutions, and goals, it fits well within the Framework for Sustainability Science we described in Section 2 and Figure 1.7

Lukes proposes three dimensions of power, each of which provides an entry point for advancing the equity dimensions of sustainable development: 1) Compulsion: This dimension of power is derived from actors’ ownership of or access to natural and anthropogenic resource and/or flows of goods and services produced from those resources. It gives powerful actors the ability to compel relatively powerless actors. 2) Exclusion: This dimension of power is derived from actors’ ability to shape institutional structures including rules and norms to serve their own interest often at the expense of other actors. It gives powerful actors the ability to exclude relatively powerless actors. 3) Influence: This dimension of power is derived from the ability of actors to influence the goals, aspirations, values, and even knowledge systems that privilege the well-being of some actors over others. It gives powerful actors the ability to influence relatively powerless actors.

We describe Lukes’ three dimensions of power in greater detail in the appendix. We explore the implications of this perspective for understanding prospects for empowerment in Section 4.2.

4.2 Building Capacity: Empowerment of current and future generations Inequality and resultant maldistributions of power hamper the prospects for sustainable development along multiple dimensions. Within the current generation, research demonstrates important if complex relationships between poverty and maldistributions of power in over- exploitation of natural resources and worrisome patterns of resource use (Bebbington et al. 2018; Barbier and Hochard 2019). And unchecked corporate power has enabled private interests to discredit science and delay action on issues from toxic chemicals to global warming, thus harming both present and future generations (Michaels 2020). Indeed, the persistence of many seemingly intractable global problems from the climate crisis, to ecological destruction, to persistent poverty in a time of plenty can in many ways be attributed to incumbencyv: the relationships among actors and institutions through which power differentials shape, stabilize, and reinforce existing regimes and their associated development pathways (Stirling 2019).

The pursuit of sustainable development is thus a political agenda that requires redistribution of access to resources, and to the flows of benefits from those resources, both within and between generations. To do this, those agitating for sustainable development will have to overcome the resistance of incumbent actors keen on stabilizing current regimes and their associated development pathways. Doing so will almost certainly require conventional “top down” efforts by reformers in government and industry. But top down strategies alone are unlikely to be

7 Another useful perspective on power emphasizes relational power and the dynamics of synergy, antagonism and neutrality that emerge when different actors possess different kinds of power in relation to one another (Avelino 2017).

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley sufficient for two reasons. First, top-down efforts risk violating Sen’s admonition, quoted earlier, to see people not as patients but as agents with the potential to set goals and agendas of their own. Second, elite capture of top-down governance approaches is well-documented (Sheely 2015; Torpey-Saboe et al. 2015; Casey 2018). For these reasons, realizing a vision of sustainability as fairness will require work to empower the individuals and groups that are most harmed by current development pathways: today’s vulnerable communities and future generations. Building a capacity to promote equity is thus a second necessary condition for the effective pursuit of sustainability.

Collective social movements are likely to play a fundamental role in efforts to promote intra and intergenerational equity (Villamayor-Tomas and García-López 2018). Scholarship on empowerment is beginning to sort out which strategies POWER AND for overcoming maldistributions of power are most EMPOWERMENT IN likely to be effective in particular action situations APPALACHIA (McGee and Pettit 2019). Much of this scholarship has found Lukes’ three-dimensional perspective on power John Gaventa’s classic study of useful because it provides a language with which to power in a central Appalachian analyze path-dependent regimes, the cross-level linkages valley demonstrates how that often serve to reinforce incumbent interests, and the compulsion, exclusion, and spaces and leverage points available to shift influence serve to reinforce one development pathways toward more equitable outcomes another (Gaventa 1980). Through (Gaventa 2020). his analysis, he shows that when the powerful owners of the local mine The explanatory value of the three-dimensions of power began to lose their grip on one in analyzing strategies of empowerment was perhaps dimension of power, they were able most famously articulated by John Gaventa in his 1980 to mobilize their control over the study of Appalachian coal country (See the sidebar titled other two dimensions in order to Power and Empowerment in Appalachia). More recent protect their interests until they efforts to mobilize against all three dimensions of power could reestablish control over all can be seen in struggles to promote sustainable three dimensions. Successful development. Activists often initially turn to the third resistance was possible only when dimension of power in efforts to alter path-dependent agitators strategically mobilized regimes reinforced by the interests of powerful actors. against all three dimensions of For example, in Latin America, maldistributions of power. They did this through power were reinforced by norms that legitimized collective issue framing to identify inequities. Activists disrupted these norms by mobilizing inequities (3rd dimension of power); marginalized groups around new concepts of justice and formulation of specific demands for fairness. Over multiple decades, new norms of fairness changes in rules and norms and contributed to the restructuring of institutions that identification or creation of venues reduced inequality in Latin America in the early years of for protest and participation (2nd the 21st century (A. Evans 2018). Strategic use of the dimension of power); and open second dimension of power has also been made by protest and conflict over the activists and agitators. They mobilize local governance resources from which the coal mechanisms, the court system, and legislative pressure company drew its power (1st to change laws and regulations to reinforce gains made dimension of power).

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

through struggles over the third dimension of power (Boston 2017; Wittmayer et al. 2017).

Efforts to mobilize the first dimension of power by regaining access to resources are often the most challenging for disempowered actors. Indeed, empirical evidence from real-estate markets in the United States shows that the same asset, when it belongs to a member of a marginalized group, can be devalued in the market simply by virtue of the fact that it is owned by a member of a marginalized group (Perry, Rothwell, and Harshbarger 2018). Nevertheless, examples of efforts by indigenous communities around the world to secure land redistribution and formal land tenure show that occasionally activists can successfully regain the first dimension of power, but these efforts are almost always predicated on strategic use of the second and third dimensions of power (Ganz 2009; Rudel and Hernandez 2017). Current efforts by activists to influence the banking and insurance industries to stop supporting fossil fuel companies are also designed to deprive incumbent actors of the first dimension of power by limiting their ability to finance extraction of fossil fuels (McKibben 2019).

How to empower future generations in current decision-making remains a topic of continued theoretical and practical discussion. Theoretically, as illustrated by debates over appropriate discount rates to use in climate policy, scholars continue to argue about how best to compare present and future well-being and whether it is warranted to assume that future generations will be wealthier and have better technologies (Gollier and Hammitt 2014). Practically, suitable legal and regulatory mechanisms are still being developed and tested to ensure whatever rights we grant to future generations are in fact honored by today’s decision-makers (Boston 2017). More empirical research on strategies for empowerment of current and future generations, together with legal, regulatory, and behavioral approaches to promoting intra- and intergenerational equity, will almost certainly prove necessary in the pursuit of sustainability. In Section 8.2 on building governance capacity, we further explore the research on governance strategies to promote equity, looking specifically at the role of values and norms; laws, rights, and regulations; and social movements as tools to foster more equitable development pathways for both current and future generations.

5 CAPACITY TO PROMOTE ADAPTATION

Adaptationw has long been an important focus of sustainability science, addressed by a broad range of research traditions. Scholars of riskx have highlighted the deep and interlinked uncertainties that are a common property of the Anthropocene System and latent in all nature– society interactions (Keys et al. 2019). Scholars of vulnerabilityy have focused on places or subpopulations likely to lack or lose access to the resources needed to secure people’s well-being in the face of threats (Adger 2006). Resiliencez researchers have explored how the characteristics of the Anthropocene as a complex system both support and constrain adaptation (Folke 2016). Research on innovationaa (Binz and Truffer 2017) and complexity economics (Elsner 2017) have emphasized how uncertainty and disturbance provide not just threats but also opportunities for novel ways of using resources to advance well-being.

Our review of these various research programs found substantial potential for complementarity among their insights. That potential has often remained unrealized, however, due to siloed

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

scholarship and a related proliferation of different terminologies for similar concepts. We do not seek to adjudicate those differences here but rather aim to highlight the substantive findings that lie beneath them. Our overall conclusion is that an additional necessary condition for sustainable development is the creation and maintenance of a substantial adaptive capacity. We find it useful to distinguish the capacity to adapt from the related capacity to transform on the basis of their relationship to regimes. For our purposes here, we define adaptive capacity as the ability to confront potentially disruptive change in ways that keep the system operating within its current regime and thus on something like its current development pathway. Transformative capacity, in contrast, can usefully be seen as the ability to shift a system between regimes, e.g., out of regimes supporting unsustainable pathways of development and into regimes supporting sustainable ones. We defer our exploration of research on the capacity to promote such transformations to Section 6.

5.1 Findings: Risk, vulnerability, and resilience The past two decades of research on topics related to adaptation have built a foundation of findings on which efforts to enhance adaptive capacity for sustainable development can build. We cannot do justice here to that rich array of findings here. Instead, we summarize three fundamental results that we find to be of particular importance for sustainability. We refer readers interested in the evidence behind these results to several excellent reviews on which we have drawn extensively: (J. Anderies et al. 2013; Eriksen, Nightingale, and Eakin 2015; Nelson, Adger, and Brown 2007).

Adaptive capacity is necessary for sustainable development: The Anthropocene System is invariably full of disruptionsbb: shocks, surprises, novelty, and the unfolding unknown (Polasky et al. 2011). This implies that even development pathways that are considered sustainable now will eventually be pushed in unsustainable directions. Moreover, assessments concluding that certain future development pathways should be sustainable will eventually turn out to be wrong (e.g., due to uncertainty or external shocks or internal novelty) and thus will require adaptive corrections. The research challenge is better to understand how such adaptive capacity functions, and how it can be strengthened, maintained, utilized, and evaluated.

Adaptation capacity is dynamic: Early work on adaptation, vulnerability, and resilience generally focused on the capacity to produce static assessments relevant to specific risks and action situations. More recent studies have shown that in order to support sustainable development the capacity to carry out such static assessments must be complemented with a capacity to carry out dynamical assessments focused on adaptation pathwayscc (Leach, Scoones, and Stirling 2010). The argument behind this shift is simple but profound: adaptations, like other attributes of complex adaptive systems, are path dependent with each one setting in place a cascade of subsequent system reactions and adjustments (Wise et al. 2014). Moreover, the Anthropocene System will always be experiencing multiple adaptation pathways driven by multiple strategic actors working at multiple organizational levels in the context of multiple action situations. Some of these adaptation pathways will invariably interact with one another, further complicating the picture (Tellman et al. 2018). Sustainability science should therefore strive to improve society’s capacity to understand the dynamics of these multiple interacting adaptation pathways and to evaluate not just immediate local benefits of particular adaptive actions but also foreseeable responses to those actions by other actors elsewhere and later.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Adaptation pathways don’t reduce risk so much as redistribute it: Adaptations often redistribute risk and vulnerability within the Anthropocene system rather than reducing it in any absolute sense. Research has shown a great variety of circumstances in which adaptations that mitigate immediate and local vulnerability do so by exporting it to other people, places, and times (Adger 2016). The theory behind such apparent conservation of fragility is well established for linear control systems but still lacking for the non-linear systems that characterize the Anthropocene (J. Anderies et al. 2013; Homayounfar et al. 2018). A growing number of case studies, however, convincingly demonstrate how interventions to control short-term variability and associated risks arising from nature–society interactions can initiate adaptation pathways that systematically reduce adaptive capacity over longer periods and larger areas (e.g., Carpenter et al. 2015). In particular, the discourse of climate change adaptation—especially in the context of development and developing countries—can reinforce existing vulnerabilities and power structures (Mikulewicz 2020). Sustainability science should continue to broaden its perspective beyond short-term risk reduction to develop a capacity for guiding the risk (re)distribution and trade-offs that adaptation pathways seem inevitably to entail.

5.2 Building Capacity: Resources, complexity, and power What determines adaptive capacity for the pursuit of sustainability? Research has demonstrated potentially important and interrelated roles for virtually all of the elements and relationships that characterize the Anthropocene as a complex adaptive system (see Section 2 and Figure 1). Five components stand out: resources, heterogeneity, connections, systems dynamics, and actors. The summary account of their roles we present here draws heavily on the following reviews, to which we refer the reader interested in the detailed evidence: (Brown and Westaway 2011; Biggs et al. 2012; Levin et al. 2012; de Bruijn et al. 2017).

Resources: Adaptation involves changing how resources are used in the face of disturbance so that they continue to yield a flow of goods and services commensurate with the pursuit of sustainability. Perhaps obviously but nonetheless importantly, the capacity for such adaptations is greater when resources—natural and anthropogenic—are more plentiful. Indeed, some scholars have argued that the same metric of capital assets that are being used in responding to the question “What must be sustained for sustainable development?” can also be used to respond to the question “Who has how much adaptive capacity for sustainable development?” (Irwin, Gopalakrishnan, and Randall 2016). Other things being equal, richer is almost certainly safer (Wildavsky 1980). But questions of trade-offs remain, and have not been adequately illuminated by research: How much wealth should be committed to immediate well-being, and how much to building adaptive capacity?

Heterogeneity is a defining characteristic of the Anthropocene System (see Section 2). It makes important contributions to adaptive capacity in at least two ways (Baird et al. 2019; Tilman, Isbell, and Cowles 2014; Levin et al. 2012). • by providing the potential for partially compensating losses in well-being resulting from disturbance to particular places or elements; • by providing locally nurtured sources of novelty (biological variation, technological or policy innovation) that the larger system can draw on for dealing with post-disturbance realities in new ways.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Different kinds of heterogeneity—ranging from functional redundancy to fundamental diversity—have been shown to make distinctive contributions to adaptive capacity. In general, too little heterogeneity detracts from adaptive capacity. In particular cases, such as national crop yields, added diversity can have a significant stabilizing effect (Renard and Tilman 2019). Beyond that, however, the picture is less clear. Redundancy and diversity can compete with one another. And both can come at the cost of efficiency relative to more homogeneous systems well adapted to the circumstances of the moment. The challenge, as ever, is getting the balance right for particular action situations.

Connections: The potential contribution of heterogeneity to adaptive capacity can be realized only if it is complemented by appropriate connectivity. Connections, as noted in Section 2, are fundamental attributes of all complex adaptive systems. For the Anthropocene System, research has shown that patterns of connectivity—which elements are interconnected and how strongly— matter for adaptive capacity and can be manipulated to manage it. A sampling of relevant studies is provided in Dakos et al. (2015). These show that in general either too much or too little connectivity can undermine adaptive capacity. A common resolution of this tension in complex adaptive systems is modularity: relatively tight connections among a selective subset of elements in ways that promote complementarities and efficiency, but with those modules relatively weakly and selectively connected to other elements of the system. However, the specific configurations of modularity that would best support adaptive capacity for sustainable development are poorly understood and almost certainly context dependent. Progress in resolving how connections can be managed to promote adaptive capacity has long been hindered by lack of theory-grounded language for providing nuanced characterization of connectivity patterns. That is now beginning to change with the application of network approaches to the assessment of connectivity in Anthropocene Systems (Henry and Vollan 2014). Even the best of this work, however, still struggles with dynamic assessments of how alternative network configurations should evolve to provide continuing support for the capacity to shape adaptation pathways under changing conditions (Bodin et al. 2019).

Systems dynamics: The dynamics of nature–society interactions pose two related challenges that must be addressed in building adaptive capacity for sustainable development. The first is associated with the multiple timescales those dynamics entail, the second with their potential for non-reversibility. A sampling of relevant research papers is provided in (Biggs et al. 2015). We summarize their findings here. Multiple timescales: The dynamics of the Anthropocene System involve a variety interactive processes operating at multiple timescales. Adaptations can, in principle, address both (relatively) fast and (relatively) slow dynamics. In practice, however, a variety of factors tend to favor adaptations that mitigate the immediate damages associated with fast variables—e.g., natural selection, human cognitive bias, and political short-termism. Too often, this means that the system ends up supporting adaptations to symptoms rather than adaptations that address the underlying causes. Slow dynamics are left unaddressed and may even erode the capacity to guide adaptation pathways over the long run. The net result is that most of the adaptations actually undertaken often end up being too little, and too late, to support sustainable development. Research suggests that adaptive capacity to address the challenge of multiple timescales must include at least two components:

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

• the ability to create research knowledge about the dynamics of relevant slow processes and how they are likely to shape the long-term vulnerability of various components of Anthropocene System (e.g., Pershing et al. 2019); • the ability to devise governance arrangements that can use such knowledge to support relevant adaptation actions on the ground (see Section 8).

Irreversibility: The second challenge for adaptation arising from systems dynamics is the potential for irreversibility or hysteresisdd latent in the Anthropocene as a complex adaptive system (Bohensky et al. 2015). Its significance is that trial-and-error adaptation, even in its most thoughtful adaptive management varieties, may fail to keep the development pathway within a desired regime. In principal, research can address this challenge by mapping relevant regimes and the thresholds separating them; determining which regimes lead to dangerous declines in inclusive well-being; evaluating the likelihood that adaptive strategies will be able to keep development pathways within desired regimes; and monitoring development pathways with a view toward providing early warnings that inform policy. Research summarized in the reviews cited at the beginning of this section has contributed to progress on building capacity for dealing with each of these tasks for particular action situations. That progress, however, has generally been modest. For example, relatively comprehensive mapping of relevant regimes has been accomplished for only a very few action situations (e.g., Steffen et al. 2018; Meyfroidt et al. 2018). Talk about “planetary boundaries” has gotten far out ahead of what science can justify, often confusing normative issues of risk tolerance with the scientific (but poorly understood) mapping of thresholds separating alternative regimes (Downing et al. 2019; DeFries et al. 2012; Biermann and Kim 2020). Promising theoretical work on the prospects that appropriate monitoring could detect early warning signs when dynamics are approaching boundaries has proven feasible at the level of organisms and their health but enormously challenging to implement at the level of nature–society interactions (Scheffer et al. 2015).

Power: Who benefits and who loses from the redistribution of risks that occurs along adaptation pathways is not random. Rather, as already discussed in Section 4, it is determined by the continuing coevolution of nature and society within which some people have more power than others. Power shapes how risks are articulated, causation is attributed, adaptations are formulated, decisions are made, and outcomes are evaluated (Eriksen, Nightingale, and Eakin 2015; Wise et al. 2014). The result has been a highly inequitable distribution of risk and vulnerability at all levels of organization: household, community, regional, and national (Brown and Westaway 2011). Human agency matters in shaping this distribution (e.g., Tellman et al. 2018). But it is usually the actors with power who have greater capacity to shape adaptation pathways. And they generally do so in ways that protect or promote their immediate interests. The plight of actors with relatively less power is accentuated in the Anthropocene as larger risks are increasingly shifted over larger distances in space and time, rendering even actors with substantial local adaptive capacity increasingly vulnerable to disruptions beyond their immediate control. We conclude that a central, although relatively late-arriving, message of research on adaptive capacity is that efforts to understand and build it must grapple with questions of power, who has it, and how they deploy it.

The components of adaptive capacity we discuss here are akin to those identified by the research literature on “general” resilience, i.e., they are components that have the potential to enhance

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

adaptive capacity for sustainability in many systems of the Anthropocene and in the face of many disturbances—even ones with which the systems have no prior experience (Carpenter et al. 2012). But none of these components can be built without costs. We are left with the depressing conclusion that all must therefore be balanced, Goldilocks-like, for each specific action situation. For adaptive capacity, as for other determinants of sustainable development, there are no panaceas. In section 8.2 on building governance capacity, we discuss what research suggests can be done about resolving these trade-offs.

6 CAPACITY TO PROMOTE TRANSFORMATIONS

“Transformations” are shifts from one regime and its associated development pathways to another. Sustainability transformationsee are shifts from regimes associated with unsustainable pathways of development to alternative regimes in which development pathways are (provisionally thought to be) sustainable, e.g., from fossil to renewable energy regimes (Geels et al. 2017) or from declining to prospering fisheries (Lubchenco et al. 2016). The need to hasten transformations of current development pathways toward sustainability is increasingly central to social and political discourse around the world (Wibeck et al. 2019).

6.1 Findings: Innovation, assessment, and incumbency The sustainability science community has been interested in the concepts of system transformation or transition since its founding (National Research Council 1999). The terms transformation and transition are used interchangeably and without consistent distinctions in much of the literature (Hölscher, Wittmayer, and Loorbach 2018). We use transformation as a term for both in this review. Multiple programs of relevant research have been active over the past decade, most with a focus on specific resources. Examples include transformations in forest use (Rudel et al. 2020), demography (Barnett and Adger 2018), environmental justice (G. Evans and Phelan 2016), industry (Schaffartzik et al. 2014; Haberl et al. 2019) and, more broadly, socio-technical systems (Köhler et al. 2019). We cannot cover in detail the rich findings of this research. We refer readers interested in a deeper dive into sustainability transformations to four papers that review the growth of this field and synthesize results (Scoones 2016; Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino 2017; Markard, Raven, and Truffer 2012; Geels 2019). We draw heavily on these reviews for the high-level summary provided below.

Transformative capacity is a necessary complement of adaptive capacity: Transformations involve shifts across regime thresholds resulting in future development pathways that are qualitatively different than they would have been if the shift had not occurred. When current regimes are unsustainable, tendencies toward path-dependence and lock-in can make incremental adaptation an insufficient and even counter-productive strategy for the successful pursuit of sustainability over the long run (Seto et al. 2016; Díaz et al. 2019). A capacity for promoting qualitative transformations of regimes and their associated development pathways is thus a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for sustainable development.

Transformative capacity must embrace the intertwined dynamics of the Anthropocene: Recent research on transformations is struggling to move beyond its earlier focus on single resources to embrace interactions among the full range of natural and anthropogenic resources

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

described in Section 2. Its focus is thus increasingly on transforming the intertwined, coevolutionary interactions of nature and society (Ahlborg et al. 2019). Transformations, like adaptations, are also coming to be seen not as discrete events but rather as dynamical cascades entailing multi-dimensional regime shifts and associated qualitative changes in development pathways (Rocha et al. 2018). The implications of this dynamic character of transformation pathways for efforts to build capacity for guiding, much less managing, them are only beginning to be explored (Scoones et al. 2020). Especially underexplored are the dynamics of transformations in developing countries where issues of informality and inequality are among the defining challenges (Hansen et al. 2018).

The heart of transformative capacity is innovation: The pursuit of sustainability is ultimately about finding novel ways to mobilize resources of the Anthropocene System to create inclusive well-being (Binz and Truffer 2017; Kattel and Mazzucato 2018). Not surprisingly, concerns for stimulating and managing appropriate innovation have therefore been at the center of many of the formative documents of the field. These have highlighted the importance of innovations not only in science and technology (Anadon et al. 2016) but also in institutions and in social goals for sustainability (Westley, McGowan, and Tjörnbo 2017). The difficulties of stimulating innovations to promote sustainability have been explored at length, particularly those due to the public good character of many of those that are most needed (Silvestre and Ţîrcă 2019). Long missing from sustainability science, however, was either empirical case studies or conceptual models to help understand and promote the full innovation process: incentives for invention, uptake of the results, their spread and displacement of existing ways of doing things, and ultimately the transformation of practices at system scale.

This unsatisfactory state of affairs has itself been transformed through the gradual adoption into the mainstream of sustainability science of an initially independent program theorizing the history of large-scale socio-technical transformations (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, and Avelino 2017). This exciting work has demonstrated the importance of connectivity and cross-level interactions for understanding the role of novelty in general and innovation in particular in both regime stability and change. A particularly useful approach to conceptualizing the relationships between connectivity and innovation in transformation studies has been the multi-level perspective (MLP)ff from which the Sustainability Science Framework we presented in Figure 1 draws inspiration (Geels 2019; 2020). The MLP takes as its point of departure the observation that in any given action situation, prevailing development pathways are structured by regimes (see Section 4). The positive feedbacks of the regime create path dependencies that make transformations to new development pathways difficult. Exogenous changes at higher levels of organization such as global economic orthodoxies, wars, and climate change put pressure on regimes that can sometimes create openings for change. But disruptions to dominant regimes are unlikely without sources of novelty. These usually are rooted in micro-levels of organization. Novelty can take many forms including new or re-combined traits of organisms, technologies or practices; institutional structures; actors’ goals, values or behaviors; and knowledge about the Anthropocene System.

The MLP and the related literature on strategic niche management emphasize the importance of fostering diverse forms of novelty and innovations at the micro-level. The likelihood that innovations will prosper and spread is often improved by the creation of niches or protected

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

spaces that allow for experimentation, adaptation, and the coevolution of novelty, user practices, and regulatory structures shielded from the forces of dominant regime structures (Sengers, Wieczorek, and Raven 2019). Managing connectivity between the micro- and meso-level is important for transforming development pathways, just as it is for adaptation. The flows of novelty from the micro- to the meso-level are influenced not only by the appropriateness of an innovation itself but also by selection rules of the relevant regime (Hausknost and Haas 2019; Ghosh and Schot 2019). Actors seeking to transform development pathways must therefore attempt to change the selection relationships created by the relevant regime (Schot and Steinmueller 2018; Fagerberg 2018).

Transformation must overcome path dependence: The path dependency that hinders transformation of regimes has two causes, one passive and one active. The passive cause, often cited in the literature on technological innovation, is increasing returns to scale. This is a general property of complex adaptive systems, caused by learning effects, economies of scale, adaptive expectations, and network economies (Foxon 2011). The active cause is action by powerful actors to block novelty that threatens the established position of winners in dominant regimes. Those actors mobilize multiple dimensions of power (see Section 4) to reinforce regimes that favor them, thus protecting their continued advantage. Indeed, powerful incumbents demonstrate a nuanced ability not only to create barriers to expansion of novelty that threatens their interests but also to selectively influence the emergence of novelty in ways that maintain the stability of dominant regimes (Bakker 2014; Apajalahti, Temmes, and Lempiälä 2018). An ability to destabilize existing regimes and overcome incumbency is therefore a fundamental component of the capacity for transformation. It should thus be at the cutting edge of transformation research for sustainability.

6.2 Building Capacity: Anticipation, imagination, and integration The capacities for adaptation and transformation are not unrelated. But two challenges for building transformation capacity merit special attention: promoting collective visions of what sustainability transformations of the Anthropocene System might look like; and combining sectoral transformations into integrated regional transformations for sustainability.

Transformations to what? Integrating anticipation and imagination: Transformations to what? This is a question that needs to be answered, given that the novelty and regime changes discussed earlier in this section simply send development pathways somewhere else. If that somewhere is to be toward sustainability, then transformation research needs to be self-conscious about what it is aiming for. Two approaches, recently characterized as “anticipation” and “imagination” (Burch et al. 2019, 11), have offered partial answers. Both have strengths and weaknesses. The challenge now for sustainability science is to integrate them and thus provide better answers for its “to what” question.

Anticipatory approaches have generally started with present trends in development, sought to illuminate potentially dangerous outcomes of continuation of those trends, and explored the likely efficacy of alternative interventions designed to avoid or mitigate the dangers. Transformation research guided by such anticipatory studies is largely about shifting away from development pathways that risk being unsustainable toward a “safe operating space” for humanity (J. M. Anderies, Mathias, and Janssen 2019). Common methods employed in anticipatory research include modeling, assessments, foresight exercises, and some forms of

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

scenario building (Mach and Field 2017; Cashore et al. 2019; Spangenberg 2019). Imagination- driven approaches, in contrast, have been less about what people want to avoid and more about their shared visions of what they want to achieve. Common methods do make use of science but tend to do so in a qualitative and discursive manner that can tap the arts and humanities as well. An early example is the work of the Global Scenarios Group and its successor, The Great Transition Initiative (Raskin 2016). More recent work is reflected in the creative use of imagination-driven scenarios in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and its successor, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Sitas et al. 2019).

Neither anticipation-driven nor imagination-driven approaches are pure types, and in recent years scholars have increasingly combined the two in their efforts to envision targets for sustainability transformations and plans for achieving them (e.g., Pereira et al. 2019; Narayan and Tidström 2019; Hajer and Versteeg 2019). What is becoming clear in all of these approaches is the implicit conservatism of most efforts to address the “Transformation to what?” question. In particular, most efforts leave unchanged existing assumptions about relevant actors, institutions, and power structures—exactly the features that lie at the core of many worrisome development pathways (Stirling 2019).

The narrow framing of most efforts to envision sustainability transformations is now being questioned by scholarship emphasizing the importance of crafting more radical shared imaginariesgg (Schot and Steinmueller 2018). Imaginaries are collectively held visions of good or attainable futures—with an emphasis on their institutions and power relations—that serve to envision the possible and motivate action toward new development pathways (Jasanoff and Kim 2015). These in turn can stimulate new laws, regulations, and investments in research and development of new technologies that fit the aspirations of the imagined social order (Beckert and Bronk 2018).

What are the prospects for creating collectively held sustainability imaginaries—ones that create visions of good and attainable futures and justify investments in research and development and scale-up of more sustainable technologies and socio-technical systems? Practitioners and activists are now leading the way on this question. For example, recent talk of a Green New Deal in many ways offers its own kind of sustainable imaginary—one that tightly couples solutions to climate change with social justice and job creation (White 2020; Ocasio-Cortez 2019). The challenge for sustainability science is, once again, to catch up with practice in their explorations of the question “Transformations to what?” The essence of this challenge is to build a capacity for generating answers that simultaneously make the best use of available knowledge; encourages pluralistic answers to the question for specific action situations; and create shared visions that can help to guide the collective action needed to achieve results at scale (see Section 8).

Integrating sectoral transformations: Combining sectoral transformations into integrated regional sustainability transformations poses an additional challenge for capacity building. When is it useful explicitly to combine work on transformations in particular sectors like energy or food into broader visions of sustainability transformations? Understanding of nexus interactions among sectors may not be sufficiently

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

advanced to justify pushing transformation research to integrate across them. However, there is every reason to suppose that efforts to advance individual sectors in isolation will result in competition and conflict (e.g., Nepal et al. 2019; Shah, Giordano, and Mukherji 2012). Many worry that such counterproductive interactions are inevitable if the UN’s multiple SDGs are pursued independently (Schot et al. 2018; Sachs et al. 2019). A way forward may be available through combining frontier work on transformations with advances in the integrated measurement of sustainable development that we reviewed in Section 3. Indeed, one possible answer to the “Transformation to what?” question would be to define a sustainability transformation as a shift from a regime in which development pathways are characterized by declining inclusive wealth to a regime in which development pathways are characterized by stable or increasing inclusive wealth. To our knowledge, this has not yet been seriously explored by sustainability science. It almost certainly should be, although with a heavy dose of humility in how far scholarship can take us in such an ultimately imaginative endeavor (Jasanoff 2018).

Building a capacity for transformation necessarily involves the creation of sustainability imaginaries and the integration of siloed sectoral approaches. Perhaps even more challenging however, a capacity for sustainability transformation will require the ability to destabilize existing regimes that seek to preserve the unsustainable status quo (Kanger and Schot 2019). We defer discussion of what research can tell us about building the capacity for the collective mobilization required to destabilize dominant regimes to Section 8.2 on building governance capacity.

7 CAPACITY TO LINK KNOWLEDGE WITH ACTION

Knowledge, we argued in Section 3, is one of the key resources on which society draws to grow well-being. The stock of knowledge capital, like the stock of all resources, can be both depleted and augmented through human activities. The sustainability science community, drawing on basic research across a wide range of disciplines, has built a growing stock of knowledge over the past 20 plus years with the goal of helping to guide sustainable development. At the same time, many agitators working on the front lines of action for sustainable development continue to lament the lack of knowledge they most need. The gap between what is known or knowable about sustainable development and what is applied on the ground has long been recognized but is receiving renewed attention in the scholarly community (ICSU and ISSC 2015; Junguo Liu et al. 2019; Turnhout, Tuinstra, and Halffman 2019).

7.1 Findings: Expertise, co-production, and trust We turn in this section to the body of research relevant to understanding how a capacity to link knowledge with action determines the extent to which the potential of knowledge to support informed agitation for sustainability is realized in practice. Central to that literature is the realization that knowledge is more likely to influence practice when it emerges from a dialog between experts and decision-makers, rather than from one-way efforts in science communication. Who gets to participate in those dialogs—whose expertise and interests are recognized and whose are excluded—are therefore central questions that must be addressed in efforts to create trusted knowledge capable of bringing diverse and often conflictual parties together in pursuit of sustainable development goals.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Co-production: The most fundamental finding that research has brought to the challenge of linking knowledge with action is the idea of co-production.hh The essence of the idea is that knowledge and society continually reshape one another (Forsyth 2003, 104). What questions are (not) asked, whose evidence is (not) considered, and which sorts of explanations (do not) carry weight are shaped not just by the research community but also by society’s prevailing institutions and power relationships. Reciprocally, the knowledge so produced stabilizes and legitimizes some institutions and power structures while undermining others. The resulting co-production process is a dynamic one, subject to guiding interventions but also prone to the path dependence typical of other processes in the complex Anthropocene System. Co-production, its origins as a research focus, and its implications for sustainable development are the subject of a recent critical review in this journal, the conclusions of which square largely with our own (Wyborn et al. 2019). We therefore refer the reader interested in the antecedents of co-production scholarship (e.g., action research, mode-2 science, post-normal science), its continuing controversies, and its current directions to that review. We focus here on the specific insights from co-production that inform the capacity to link knowledge with action in pursuit of sustainability.

A central preoccupation of scholarship informed by co-production is the question of who gets to participate in, and who gets excluded from, efforts to link knowledge with action. This work at its core is anti-elitist, critiquing and building alternatives to models of knowledge and action based on assumptions of single or hierarchically organized decision-makers informed by single experts or expert consensus. A principal focus has therefore been on enhancing participation and inclusiveness.

Sources of expertise: One objective of this effort has been to enhance available knowledge capital by tapping into multiple sources of expertise. This has involved efforts to bring together scholars to do interdisciplinary research with due attention to achieving mixes across genders, regions, and other attributes. But it has also entailed reaching beyond the community of scholars to include actors with relevant indigenous and local knowledge or knowledge gained from practice. The IPBES has been a leader in recent efforts to improve the diversity of expertise participating in assessments of nature–society interactions (Pascual et al. 2017). A recent review of its efforts, accomplishments, and remaining challenges provides an excellent perspective on contemporary thinking about participation and inclusiveness in sustainability efforts more generally (Díaz-Reviriego, Turnhout, and Beck 2019). Hurdles identified include reliance on established procedures for identifying experts, a bias toward natural science expertise, and the push toward consensus that too easily marginalizes views not of the mainstream.

Creating trusted knowledge: A second objective of enhancing participation and inclusiveness has been to strengthen the influence of knowledge on action by bringing decision-makers and other stakeholders to join experts in the co-production process (Fischhoff 2019). This approach to co-production involves the collaborative creation of knowledge that users come to perceive as trustworthy and thus something they will allow to influence their decisions. Trustworthiness has been explored as a relational property of co-production in which potential users come to see knowledge products as meeting the criteria of saliency, credibility, and legitimacy (Daly and Dilling 2019). Available evidence suggests that at least minimum levels of performance on each criterion are necessary to achieve influence (Clark, Tomich, et al. 2016). A balanced approach is

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

needed. Going to extreme lengths to assure scientific credibility through peer review may be wasted effort if sufficient attention is not given to steps that would assure practical relevance to decision-makers or political legitimacy through a fair treatment of contested positions (Turnhout, Tuinstra, and Halffman 2019).

Relevant to both diversifying sources of expertise and creating trusted knowledge is the fact that participation is almost always expensive for participants. Obvious costs are time and other scarce resources. But reputational risks (for experts) and political risks (for stakeholders) can also be important (Oliver, Kothari, and Mays 2019). The pursuit of sustainability, as we have emphasized throughout this review, is an inherently political activity conducted in the presence of strong incumbent interests and substantial power differentials among actors. Because knowledge is one dimension of power, experts seeking to inform agitation for sustainable development should know that they are players on a political field. This means that they are likely to be seen as taking sides in the political contest. It means that they should acknowledge that the incentives they face in deciding which questions to pursue with their research are likely to reflect the interests of the already rich or powerful. And it means taking responsibility for the fact that how they interact with other participants in the co-production process—particularly those representing marginalized knowledge and interests—has the potential to either undermine or strengthen those participants’ own positions (Clark, van Kerkhoff, et al. 2016). The focus of recent co-production scholarship on participation and inclusiveness is a welcome corrective to more elitist models of linking knowledge with action. Still needed, however, is work to identify effective strategies for navigating the political context of participation and for identifying just what sort of participation is most important at each stage of dynamic efforts to link knowledge with action (Grillos 2019; Wyborn et al. 2019).

7.2 Building Capacity: Social learning, boundary work, and decision support Building capacity to link knowledge with action for sustainability is a complex, multifaceted challenge. We highlight here several of the themes emphasized in recent extensive reviews of the topic (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2015; Clark, van Kerkhoff, et al. 2016).

Suitably trained researchers can significantly enhance their capacity to link knowledge with action for sustainable development. Experts of all sorts have long been informing agitators for sustainability without special training, serving as a reminder that the importance of informal and experiential knowledge should not be underrated. On-the-job training is almost certainly how most of today’s sustainability scientists have learned the substantive content, interdisciplinary skills, and political savvy that have helped them to contribute effectively to frontline action. And a growing number of courses and training programs are available (Evans 2019). Nonetheless, the urgency of the sustainability challenge, together with the complex and rapidly developing character of the field as sketched in this review, suggests that better and more accessible training programs are needed (West, van Kerkhoff, and Wagenaar 2019). Many approaches are being tried around the world (Giangrande et al. 2019). An effort to pool lessons from these ongoing experiments would almost certainly be useful, though here as elsewhere in the pursuit of sustainability the temptation to advance panaceas should be resisted. Different curricula, competencies, and pedagogies will almost certainly be best suited for different people and contexts.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Social learning: Support for continuous, contextualized social learning is also an important component of capacity for linking knowledge with action for sustainability. Many concepts of social learning are in play (Social Learning Group et al. 2001). We focus on learning that occurs above the level of the individual in the sense that societies learn about the threat of global warming or the opportunities of globalization. Lessons learned at the social level are remembered through embedding in the facts, technologies, rules, and norms that are embodied in the relevant system’s knowledge capital and social capital. An ability to learn, rather than just know, is important because of the complex adaptive character of the Anthropocene System that we have emphasized throughout this review (de Kraker 2017). The ability to do this effectively, rather than becoming stuck in ruts of old but no longer valid knowledge, is hard to master. It has been shown to benefit from mind sets that recognize the complex adaptive character of the Anthropocene, and from the creation of organizational safe spacesii that encourage experimentation. Also important are the timely acknowledgment of error, an appreciation of the co-produced character of useable knowledge, and an abiding humility of researchers as we confront the tasks before us (Suškevičs et al. 2018; Gerlak et al. 2018).

Boundary work: Building capacity to link knowledge with action for sustainability also requires investing in organizations to carry out the boundary workjj of connecting experts and decision- makers (Clark, Tomich, et al. 2016). As expected, which forms of organization work best is context dependent. There are strong suggestions in the literature, however, that the degree of political contestation involved in choosing which actions to take makes a substantial difference in the form of the advisory system most likely to mobilize knowledge effectively. One of the most demanding situations is that in which research is called upon to advise contentious transnational or global negotiations, e.g., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A significant body of scholarship has examined the effectiveness of various arrangements for providing scientific assessments in such situations (Kohler 2020). It emphasizes the tensions that arise in arrangements to secure the credibility, saliency, and legitimacy of scientific findings for multiple users who almost always have different views of what they would like the science to say. The most vibrant area of experimentation in boundary work and organizations to carry it out is almost certainly taking place at the level of regions. Once viewed as extension work in agricultural and early industrial contexts, much of this effort is now grappling more explicitly with ideas about co-production under the umbrella term of decision support. Critical assessments have been carried out of experience with decision support organizations across a range of development activities (Clark, Matson, and Dickson 2016), but with special emphasis in the context of advice for dealing with climate change (Palutikof, Street, and Gardiner 2019). Findings are generally consistent with structuring decision support as a co- production process, entraining multiple forms of expertise, and engaging in continuing dialog with decision-makers and other stakeholders (Webber 2019; Cashore et al. 2019). Like all organizations, decision support efforts are prone to getting caught in ruts and captured by particular interests (be they academic disciplines or particular users), as well as simple exhaustion. If they are to guide development pathways toward sustainability over the long run, boundary organizations must themselves be learning organizations, assisted in their efforts by periodic external reviews (Weichselgartner and Arheimer 2019).

Remaining hurdles: Looking ahead, the co-production research noted above implies that sustainability science researchers face especially tough hurdles in their efforts to generate

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley knowledge that can influence development pathways toward sustainability. One reason is that because knowledge creation is so intertwined with society and its power structures, the research that is likely to be most readily funded and adopted by decision-makers is research that supports (or at least does not threaten) current development pathways. For a lot of sustainability issues, these potential entanglements may be relatively unproblematic. But the risk is real that the knowledge most needed by marginalized groups or interests will not get produced, as exemplified by the continuing struggle for drugs to treat neglected diseases (Ferreira and Andricopulo 2019). An even deeper cause for concern highlighted by the co-production perspective is that when researchers persist and do create knowledge that threatens powerful interests vested in the status quo, they often induce pushback, personal attacks, or outright disinformation campaigns. Ongoing efforts to undermine research-based knowledge on the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis and the role of junk food in driving the malnutrition crisis are well-known examples (Farrell 2019; Nestle 2016). But the pervasive resistance to inconvenient truths has even darker sides that, in their more extreme forms, surface in the continuing campaigns of intimidation and murder facing local expert-activists seeking to expose illegal deforestation around the world (Middeldorp and Billon 2019). For all of these reasons, the co-production of knowledge must be at the center of efforts to build governance arrangements to support sustainable development. We delve further into these issues in section 8.2 on building governance capacity and in our conclusion.

8 CAPACITY FOR GOVERNANCE

Governance, as we noted in Section 2.1, consists of the arrangements by which any collectivity, from the local to the global, seeks to manage its common affairs. Governance is thus about both process (who gets what say in defining what is desirable and in doing the managing) and results (whether the managing gets us where we want to go). Governance is the product of efforts by actors to either stabilize or change existing institutional structures (including norms, rules, and practices) to meet specific goals. Those actors include governments but also a variety of other public and private actors.

Some treatments of governance for sustainable development view the role of governance as primarily one of fixing market failures. That is not the approach we take here. Rather, we echo the arguments of Mazzucato and others, who see the task of governance in general as one of creating public value—in the case of sustainable development, value denominated as inclusive well-being (Mazzucato 2018). Governance for sustainable development thus pays specific attention to the resources (both natural and anthropogenic) that society draws on to meet its goals. It involves all the key elements of the Anthropocene System summarized in the Framework for Research in Sustainability Science of Figure 1: actors, institutions, goals, and resources. Power differentials among actors mediate the relationships among those elements. Different action situations are governed by different arrangements of these elements and relationships. Interactions among action situations include interactions among their respective governance arrangements. Politically engaged agitators are necessarily the frontline change agents in the pursuit of sustainability. But research can help to inform agitation by identifying governance arrangements that strengthen the capacity of people to work together—not least in

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

exercising the other capacities we have identified in this review—in the collective pursuit of sustainability.

A growing number of scholars are pursuing research to help build governance capacity for sustainability. That work is now being systematically advanced through a vigorous international program on Earth System Governance (Burch et al. 2019). We summarize here some of the most important findings to emerge from their research. We refer the reader interested in more extended coverage to several excellent books from a variety of perspectives (Adger and Jordan 2009; Young 2017; Dryzek and Pickering 2018).

8.1 Findings: Rescaling, expanding the tool kit, fit Today’s governance arrangements are the path dependent product of efforts to solve the problems and seize the opportunities of previous centuries. That said, several trends in governance have emerged over the past several decades that are shifting its foundations in ways that are particularly relevant for the pursuit of sustainability.

Rescaling of governance: The most general of these governance trends is the rescaling of governance arrangements beyond the historical focus on national governments (Hale 2020). Three dimensions of this rescaling have received the greatest attention. The first involves spatial extent and hierarchical level: governance today increasingly operates not just at single levels of organization but rather at multiple, interacting levels spanning the local through the national to the global (Brondízio, Ostrom, and Young 2009). A second dimension involves actors: governance increasingly involves not just governments but also firms and other private sector organizations, a blossoming array of non-governmental organizations and active participation by civil society (Pattberg and Widerberg 2016; Andonova 2017; Henderson 2020). A third dimension has been the increasing linkage among action situations: governance initiatives in particular places and sectors increasingly find themselves intertwined (Bleischwitz et al. 2018). These three dimensions of rescaling interact with one another. The result has been new varieties of polycentric systems in which multiple sources of partial authority interact to create multi-level governance arrangements that may or may not guide collective behavior toward shared goals. Polycentric governance has been argued to hold multiple potential advantages over more traditional monocentric arrangements (Jordan et al. 2018). But empirical research shows that it, too, has its limitations (Morrison et al. 2019).

Expanding the tool kit: Another broad trend in governance has been the expansion of the tool kit of interventions it employs. Formal rules and regulations will almost certainly remain important components of efforts to guide collective behavior toward more sustainable outcomes (Heilmayr and Lambin 2016). But efforts to shape governance arrangements for sustainability are increasingly exploring complementary tools. These include generative tasks such as identifying emergent issues and pushing them on public agendas (Romsdahl, Blue, and Kirilenko 2018); behavioral nudges (Bornemann 2019); the promotion of norms (Mitchell and Carpenter 2019), including both responsibilities and rights of actors (Sikkink 2020); and governing through goals (Kanie and Biermann 2017). This expanded array of governance tools is increasingly being deployed in novel combinations to address the challenges of sustainable development (Ruggie 2014; Young 2017).

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Rejecting panaceas, striving for fit: A further trend in governance is the growing (if still incomplete) rejection of panaceas claiming to be the one right way to guide collective behavior independent of particular action situations (Ostrom, Janssen, and Anderies 2007). Panaceas that have been advocated for pursuing sustainability include strong states, private ownership, market solutions, participatory management, polycentric governance, and a variety of other enthusiasms. Each of these governance arrangements has demonstrated value in particular situations and contexts. Each has also failed dramatically when applied to action situations where it does not fit. Indeed, the importance of fitkk has emerged as a central preoccupation of contemporary governance scholarship (Epstein et al. 2015), a finding consistent with what we know about the central role of persistent heterogeneity in the Anthropocene (see Section 2). A remaining challenge is to sort out how diverse, polycentric governance arrangements can fit their interventions to the particular mixes of heterogeneous actors found in particular action situations. And to figure out how the resulting mix can be sufficiently integrated to be mutually supportive in guiding collective action (Brown 2009)—a particularly urgent challenge given the diversity of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (LeBlanc 2015).

8.2 Building Capacity: Nurturing resources, promoting equity, confronting uncertainty The unsurprising conclusion of most scholars, and of this review, is that present governance arrangements are woefully inadequate to guide the accelerating and complex dynamics of the Anthropocene toward more sustainable pathways of development (Dryzek and Pickering 2018). Better governance capacity is needed in general to support collective action for sustainable development. In particular, it is needed to support the five other capacities we have already discussed in this review: the capacity to measure sustainable development; to promote equity; to adapt to shocks and surprises; to transform the system onto more sustainable development pathways; and to link knowledge with action. Building and maintaining governance capacity, however, is always expensive—not least in the time and bandwidth it demands from all of the actors involved. Moreover evidence from efforts to build and implement specific capacities often comes at the cost of ignoring the others (Marshall et al. 2012; Reyers et al. 2018). The temptation to tailor-make unique governance arrangements for each of the capacities named above should therefore be resisted, and the search for multi-purpose governance arrangements should be prioritized. This will be hard, given the pitfalls of panaceas and the need for fit noted in Section 8.1. Fortunately, however, our reading of the evidence suggests that many of the same governance reforms could help strengthen multiple capacities. We have therefore structured our discussion of building governance capacity around three cross-cutting themes: nurturing resources, enhancing equity, and embracing uncertainty (J. M. Anderies 2015). We argue that progress on each of these governance themes would provide important support for the collective capacities society needs to build for the successful pursuit of sustainability.

Nurturing shared resources: A central challenge of governance for sustainable development is to guide the use of shared resources (capital assets) today down pathways that do not degrade the ability of those resources to nurture well-being elsewhere or tomorrow. The research we reviewed in Section 3 has established that the resources in question include all of those—both natural and anthropogenic—that form the productive base on which society relies for the goods and services that are the constituents of well-being. Scholarship on enhancing governance capacity for sustainability has focused on two dimensions of this challenge: preventing

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

overconsumption of shared natural resources and preventing underproduction of shared anthropogenic resources.

Devising governance arrangements to avoid tragedies of the commons—overconsumption of natural resources to the detriment of social well-being—has always been a central concern for sustainable development and continues to be an area of active scholarship (Dasgupta, Mitra, and Sorger 2019). The most extensive contribution of scholarship to this challenge has been that of Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues on common pool resources (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Their vigorous, diverse, multidisciplinary research program has demolished the claim that only central direction by an all-powerful state can provide such governance. In its place, research has identified conditions under which and ways in which self-interested actors can work together to achieve common goals for the sustainable use of natural resources (Boyd et al. 2018; Moritz et al. 2018). The core finding is the importance of arrangements that build trust among actors, encourage reciprocity in what is asked of them, and facilitate communication among them (Agrawal 2014). These arrangements interact: a failure of one can lead to a failure of all and the consequent degradation of the resource system. Finally, the general trend toward polycentric governance arrangements we noted earlier also turns out to be a useful strategy for the particular case of collective action to manage natural resource commons (Hajjar and Oldekop 2018; Österblom et al. 2017; Miteva, Loucks, and Pattanayak 2015). Difficulties, of course, remain (Quintana and Campbell 2019). The highest profile of these involve questions regarding the extent to which governance arrangements that have been shown to work for managing local commons can be applied at higher organizational levels, e.g., to regional or even global problems. Researchers and practitioners have made substantial headway in advancing such a polycentric approach to create governance arrangements for nurturing larger scale natural resource commons (e.g., Keohane and Victor 2016; Morrison 2017). These arrangements currently include patchworks making use of the entire expanding tool kit of governance instruments we noted earlier. A substantial body of research evaluating the determinants of effectiveness for these varied governance arrangements has also begun to emerge (Young 2018; Mitchell et al. 2020; Lambin and Thorlakson 2018). This research shows clearly that progress has been made. But shortfalls persist and outright governance failures remain the rule rather than the exception.

Governance arrangements for sustainability are also needed because individual actors underproduce certain resources that, if once provided, would enhance overall social well-being. The resources in question are potentially all of those included in the anthropogenic component of the productive base characterized in Section 3, i.e., those involved in the production of publicly accessible security and social insurance, physical infrastructure, education, health services, knowledge, technological innovation, and various forms of social capital. The character of such resources and the challenges of governance arrangements to provide them have been well- studied under the general heading of public sector economics and public goods for development (e.g., Ocampo 2016). Sustainability researchers have been slow to acknowledge that governance arrangements to encourage production of such anthropogenic resources can ultimately be as important for advancing sustainable development as are arrangements to discourage the overuse of natural resource commons. That is now beginning to change, with focused analysis on governance arrangements for promoting the innovations most needed for sustainable development (Anadon et al. 2016), including prizes (Galasso, Mitchell, and Virag 2018) and

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

other financing measures (Griffiths 2018). A second approach has been through analysis of what forms of treaties and other cooperative agreements have been effective in advancing the production of neglected anthropogenic resources (T. Liu and Kahn 2017). In general, the merits of the polycentric approaches and attention to local fit we noted earlier as general trends in governance have turned out to be especially important for nurturing underproduced resources for sustainable development (Estevadeordal and Goodman 2017).

Looking forward, numerous opportunities exist for research that would almost certainly be useful in improving the governance of resources for sustainability: • creating more and better data bases that capture the relevant governance arrangements that are actually in place around the world and how they are actually doing at nurturing resources for the pursuit of sustainability (e.g., Jabbour and Flachsland 2017; T. Liu and Kahn 2017); • further operationalizing the inclusive wealth metrics of resource stocks we discussed in Section 3 to provide objective functions for the design of integrative governance arrangements in lieu of those that focus only on individual sectors and resources (e.g., R. D. Collins et al. 2017); and • encouraging network analysis (Sayles et al. 2019; Bodin, García, and Robins 2020) and complex adaptive systems modelling (Moritz et al. 2018; Schlüter et al. 2019) approaches for use in evaluating proposed governance arrangements.

Promoting equity: We noted in Section 4 that conserving the resource base is not the same as assuring equity in the distribution of the goods and services that flow from it. There is a voluminous scholarly literature relevant to governance arrangements for advancing equity, e.g., on human rights, social security, and environmental justice. We do not address that literature here. Unfortunately, the general scarcity of research on equity in sustainability that we noted in Section 4 is reflected in a scarcity of research on governance arrangements to promote the specific dimensions of equity most central to the pursuit of sustainability. Practice is therefore often ahead of scholarship in this area, with researchers mostly cataloging and analyzing governance arrangements to promote equity that frontline change agents are inventing and implementing. We summarize here some highlights of their findings.

Virtually every tool in the expanded kit of governance interventions that we summarized earlier in this section has been deployed by agitators pursuing equity in sustainable development. Scholarship is beginning to catch up. Values supporting intra- and intergenerational equity for sustainable development are being spread through a variety of mechanisms (Leiserowitz, Kates, and Parris 2006), with the importance of empathy (Brown et al. 2019) and efforts to enhance it (Venkataraman 2019) receiving particular attention. A value-behavior gap nonetheless persists here as in other fields (Peattie 2010). Norm-building efforts grounded in new logics of appropriatenessll are enhancing governance capacity to guide international action in the pursuit of intragenerational equity for sustainable development (Mitchell and Carpenter 2019; March and Olsen 2011), emulating their modest success in other issue areas, such as human rights (Ruggie 2013) and access to medicines (Moon 2019). The logics of appropriateness are also behind a growing number of goals-based governance initiatives through which local governments and private firms have declared their intentions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that pose inequities for future generations (Henderson 2020). These commitments are

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

almost certainly a good thing. But the risk of cheap talk or greenwashing remains (Marquis, Toffel, and Zhou 2016), and the efficacy of these declarations has yet to be assessed.

Novel state-backed arrangements to enhance governance capacity to promote equity are also being explored (Sitaraman, Ricks, and Serkin 2020). Internationally, the Paris Climate Change Agreement represents a significant evolution in governance approaches to governance agreements for promoting intergenerational equity accords, but its durability remains to be seen (Chan, Stavins, and Ji 2018). Nationally, sovereign wealth funds have been introduced around the world as a means for protecting the value of natural resources for future use (Barbier 2019). Experiments in the state appointment of public guardians for future generations are increasingly being undertaken and their impacts are beginning to be analyzed (Pearce 2019). The legal arena is the site of some of the most exciting developments in both theory and practice to empower future generations, with a resurgent interest in creative application to climate change issues of the public trust doctrinemm , which argues that governments have a legal duty to hold certain natural resources in trust on behalf of present and future citizens (Sagarin and Turnipseed 2012; Blumm and Wood 2017). Other proposed mechanisms for empowering future generations include mandating discount rates for calculating the benefits of climate change policies that place greater weight on the well-being of future generations, designing and embedding strategic foresight capabilities into governance bodies, and insulating decision-making from short-term political pressure (Boston 2017). Rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of these measures is, unsurprisingly, not yet available.

Social movements and political mobilization are important components of enhanced governance capacity to promote equity because of the mutually reinforcing relationship between inequity and maldistributions of power discussed in Section 4 (Sovacool and Brisbois 2019; Stirling 2019). Social movements are “sustained and organized collective action to effect change in institutions by citizens…who are excluded from routine decision-making” (Amenta and Polletta 2019, 281). Social movements work by spreading the values forged in communities of micro-level activists and agitators to the institutions including the rules, norms, values, and beliefs that undergird incumbent regimes. Successful strategies for such mobilization usually involve enhanced citizen participation and other forms of collective resistance (Veltmeyer 2020; Kashwan, MacLean, and García-López 2019; Scoones, Leach, and Newell 2015). These are often bottom-up affairs, as is perhaps most evident in the growing global youth climate movement that consistently highlights the unfairness of present development pathways to the children and grandchildren of today’s leaders in business and government (Farmer et al. 2019). Recent work, however, questions blanket calls for participation which comes at significant cost to participants in terms of energy, effort, and time (Bobbio 2019). So while promoting participation and other forms of mobilization almost certainly should remain one strategy for building governance capacity to promote equity, care must be taken that it is deployed efficiently (Grillos 2019; Casey 2018) and that it resists government attempts to use nominal participation as symbolic cover for continued business as usual (Dryzek et al. 2019).

Researchers have multiple opportunities to contribute to the enhancement of governance capacity to promote equity in sustainable development (Biermann and Kalfagianni 2020). Among the most important are:

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

• articulating equity or fairness as a multidimensional construct but pushing for mutual recognition of a limited range of scientifically credible and politically legitimate norm interpretations (Underdal and Wei 2015); • producing and highlighting equality metrics in the valuation of current development pathways and the evaluation of possible sustainability interventions (see Section 3); and • conducting comparative research on the effectiveness of various kinds of social movements and institutional arrangements for promoting equity in pursuit of sustainable development over long historical periods and across different kinds of action situations.

Confronting uncertainty: The Anthropocene is characterized by deep uncertainty, posing extraordinary challenges to governance (Polasky et al. 2011). Research has made several modest contributions to clarifying the challenges and providing some guidance on what would constitute better governance capacity to address it. Here are some of the highlights.

Scholars have certainly made significant advances in understanding and modeling uncertainty in the Anthropocene System using a variety of methods that take seriously the complex and adaptive dynamics of the Anthropocene (Schlüter et al. 2019; Johnson and Geldner 2019; Moritz et al. 2018; Wiebe et al. 2018; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine 2018; Mach and Field 2017). Despite these advances, sustainability science still has only a modest ability to predict future shocks and surprises, let alone recommend optimal development pathways over the multi-generational timescales relevant to sustainability (Young 2017). Moreover, such predictions are not in the offing. Public disclosure of asset risks (Caldecott 2018), wide-spread provision of asset insurance (Kousky 2019; Chantarat et al. 2017), and precautionary policies (Read and O’Riordan 2017) more generally can help, but their utility remains limited in the face of deep uncertainty. This is the fundamental reason behind our focus in this review on capacities for continuing guidance, rather than on recommendations for one- time decisions or hard-wired strategies.

Capacities for adaptation (Section 5) and transformation (Section 6) are essential for the pursuit of sustainability in the face of deep uncertainty. These two capacities may often compete with or undermine one another for reasons we discussed in Section 6 (Reyers et al. 2018; Marshall et al. 2012). And various actors may have self-interested reasons for advancing or opposing one approach or the other (Slate 2019; Folke et al. 2019; L. C. Stokes 2020). Governance capacity is therefore needed to articulate and advance the public interest in adaptation and transformation as responses to uncertainty and help balance trade-offs among them. Sustainability science to date has conducted limited research on what such governance capacity might look like (e.g., Hirsch and Long 2020). The good news is that insights from studies of flexibility in systems design (Asokan, Yarime, and Esteban 2017) and of real options theory by management and operations scholars (Trigeorgis and Reuer 2017) are applicable to this challenge. Firms routinely face strategic trade-offs between exploiting their core competencies and investing in innovation to reconfigure their assets to exploit new opportunities and respond to threats. Indeed, the actors within a single firm who work on these separate issues often find themselves in conflict and competition with one another. To manage these competing visions, best practice suggests that senior management should assign these roles to separate teams within the organization. Senior management’s role is then to dispassionately weigh the evidence for and against stability and innovation and to develop a shared vision in the best interest of the overall organization

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

(O’Reilly and Tushman 2016; Henderson 2015). Efforts to balance adaptation and transformation for sustainability will likely require this kind of capacity for high-level strategic thinking. At the international level, this is one of the key roles envisioned for the UN’s High- Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Whether and how the Forum might accomplish this remain to be seen (Abbott and Bernstein 2015). And what analogous capacities would look like at other levels of governance is just beginning to be addressed by scholars.

Narratives and imagination are the focus of a second group of research results relevant to building governance capacity to pursue sustainability in the face of great uncertainty. We argued in Section 6 that actors’ behavior and decisions, especially with respect to choices about the future, are motivated less by accurate anticipations of the future, than by collectively held narratives (Beckert and Bronk 2018). Current governance arrangements for sustainability have become increasingly proficient in conducting anticipatory assessments. But it is not clear that the dominant governance arrangements currently in place are particularly good at imagining more sustainable futures or embedding those futures into collectively held imaginaries with the ability to drive change. Governance capacity to support the crafting of narratives to help guide transformations toward sustainable development pathways remain at the fringes of sustainability efforts (Pereira et al. 2020).

A capacity for reflexive governance nn is the ultimate requirement that research suggests is necessary for pursuing sustainability in the face of deep uncertainty. That is, governance must be able to question its own core commitments—to evaluate whether the governance arrangements in use are part of the solution or, as is too often the case, part of the problem that just helps to confine development pathways to unsustainable trajectories (Dryzek and Pickering 2018). This is a particular case of lessons offered by the history of development in the 20th century: governance systems must learn to live with uncertainty rather than trying to manage or avoid it through tools of optimization and control (Hoekstra, Bredenhoff-Bijlsma, and Krol 2018; Scott 1998). Research shows that reflexive governance arrangements benefit from tools of participation and deliberative democracy that engage diverse viewpoints to widen frames, raise concerns about distribution and vulnerability, and ensure continual learning (Dryzek et al. 2019). A capacity for reflexive governance means balancing the flexibility for change with the stability and foresight capable of balancing the interests of current and future generations and governing sustainability over the long term. Participatory governance strategies are more likely to successfully balance flexibility and stability when they engage publics early and often (Stirling 2009), but no single model of reflexive governance will work in all action situations. Rather, efforts in sustainability science should strive to design governance capacity that is “flexible enough to respond to feedback from public deliberation and changing environmental conditions, while stable enough to provide a framework for collective, large-scale responses to risks” (Dryzek and Pickering 2018, 152). There are, once again, no panaceas. Reflexive governance arrangements will require a “fit” between these general insights and the specific conditions of particular action situations (Young 2017).

9 CONCLUSIONS

We began this review with the goal of surveying the insights that scholars have brought to bear on the challenge of sustainable development over the past 20 years. We found a rapidly emerging

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley field of sustainability science that nonetheless remains less than the sum of its diverse parts. We concluded (to paraphrase literary theorist Northrop Frey’s observations on a comparably siloed field of scholarship) that there is no reason why the greater project to which numerous individual research programs are contributing should remain forever invisible to them, “as the coral atoll is invisible to the polyp” (Frye 1957, 12). We therefore attempted to fashion a synoptic perspective from which scholars can more readily see the remarkable progress in scientific understanding of sustainable development that is emerging from the work of the many efforts contributing to the field. The purpose of this synoptic perspective, distilled in the integrative Framework for Research in Sustainability Science presented in Section 2, is not to suggest some grand theory of the field: we remain middle-range theorists to the core. Rather, it is to highlight the union set of elements and relationships that various research approaches have shown to be especially useful in explaining nature–society interactions in particular contexts, and that therefore merit serious consideration in the formulation of future sustainability research.

From the synoptic perspective we have fashioned here, it is clear that multiple lines of research now support the long-held intuition that the Anthropocene is at its core a complex adaptive system centered in the intertwined, coevolving interactions of nature and society. Because that system is complex, it will surprise us. Because it is adaptive, innovation and other sources of novelty will drive it, making how it works tomorrow different from how it worked yesterday. Because it is heterogeneous, experience in one location will be an important but perilous guide to action in another. And because the actors who inhabit the system have their own agency and goals, power struggles will play central roles in shaping its pathways of development.

Given these properties of the Anthropocene System, sustainability science has a substantial ability to understand, but a limited ability to predict, how development pathways will actually unfold, or how particular interventions meant to guide those pathways toward sustainability will actually work out. The effective pursuit of sustainability therefore requires that researchers partner with frontline agitators to learn by doing. To be sure, this means working collaboratively to design interventions (technologies, policies, visions) that are as smart and research-informed as possible. But it also means treating those interventions as experiments, being flexible enough to revise them as more information becomes available and mustering the courage to quickly abandon them when they don’t work out as planned.

Fostering such a social learning approach to the pursuit of sustainability requires a number of operational capacities. This review highlighted research on six such capacities: the capacity to measure sustainable development, the capacity to promote equity, the capacity to support adaption, the capacity to foster transformations, the capacity to link knowledge with action, and the capacity to devise governance arrangements that allow people to work together in exercising the other capacities (see Figure 2). The evidence reviewed here suggests that significant progress in building these six capacities is necessary for the successful pursuit of sustainability. This capacity building, however, needs to move beyond its own siloes. The capacities we have highlighted often appear to interact with one another as potential complements (e.g., the capacity for promoting equity will be stronger if it is backed by better capacity for measuring equity). Capacities can also, however, exist in tension with one another (e.g., actors wedded to adaptation strategies may well overlook or dismiss the need for transformation). Research that informs our

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

understanding of how to build and implement the necessary capacities in an integrated fashion would go a long way toward making sustainability science more than the sum of its parts.

Figure 2 Capacities for Sustainable Development

Figure 2: Capacities for Sustainable Development

Six interdependent capacities are necessary for the successful pursuit of sustainability: (i) capacity to measure progress toward sustainable development, (ii) capacity to promote equity within and between generations, (iii) capacity to adapt to shocks and surprises, (iv) capacity to transform the system onto more sustainable development pathways, (v) capacity to link knowledge with action for sustainability, and (vi) capacity to devise governance arrangements that allow people to work together in exercising the other capacities.

The practical advantage of the capacities perspective outlined here is that society has already built a significant understanding of how to foster such capacities. They can therefore be implemented today by front-line agitators pursuing sustainability at levels from the local to the global and across multiple contexts and action situations. Further strengthening and integrating these capacities should almost certainly be a high priority for sustainability science research going forward. That said, the past twenty years of research provide ample evidence that we ought to proceed humbly and reflexively not only as scholars but also as inhabitants of the complex, ever-changing Anthropocene System that we are seeking to understand. New surprises surely await, and additional capacities not yet identified will doubtless prove to be important in our collective efforts to inform agitation for the successful pursuit of sustainability.

One such surprise enveloped the world as we were finalizing this review: the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Like everyone else, we watched the virus kill family members and colleagues, disrupt development pathways, and trigger cascades of assaults on human well-being. The full implications of SARS-CoV-2 for sustainable development will take years to fully comprehend. Already clear, however, is that contemporary development pathways with their growing

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

inequalities have exacerbated both the spread and the impacts of the virus. Viewed through the lens of sustainability science, SARS-CoV-2 is an all-encompassing disruption posing substantial challenges for humanity’s capacities to promote inclusive well-being. That said, this pandemic, like others the world has weathered, will one day be over. When it is, we will continue to face unsustainable development pathways, held in place by path-dependent regimes and powerful, self-interested actors. Promoting transformations toward more sustainable development pathways will remain the defining challenge of our time.

10 SUMMARY POINTS

1. The goals of sustainable development have been debated through a multi-decade deliberative process spanning the globe. The particular constituents of the goals that are given the most weight varies across groups, places, and times. But a widely shared common vision has emerged focused on equitable improvements in human well-being within and across generations. 2. The ultimate foundations or determinants of sustainable development are the suite of natural and anthropogenic resources on which people draw to produce the goods and services that are consumed to create well-being. Development paths that deplete the ability of the resource base to generate well-being are not sustainable. 3. Interactions between nature and society in the Anthropocene constitute a globally interconnected, complex adaptive system in which heterogeneity, nonlinear relationships, innovation, and power play formative roles. 4. The complex adaptive dynamics of the Anthropocene give rise to a system that is inherently unpredictable and subject to deep uncertainty. Decisive collective action is nonetheless essential to confront the sustainability crisis. Needed are strong, polycentric, and reflexive strategies capable of advancing collaborative action agendas at all scales of social organization, even while continuously reexamining their own core commitments. 5. Such strategies for the pursuit of sustainability can be strengthened by fostering a set of six essential capacities: i) the capacity to measure sustainable development; ii) the capacity to promote equity; iii) the capacity to adapt to shocks and surprises; iv) the capacity to transform the system onto more sustainable development pathways; v) the capacity to link knowledge with action; vi) the capacity to devise governance arrangements that allow people to work together in exercising the other capacities. 6. The advantage of focusing sustainability efforts on the six capacities identified here is that society has already built a significant understanding of how to foster each of them. Even as we conduct further research and experimentation to strengthen and integrate these six capacities, they can be put into action today by diverse actors across levels and between action situations to support the pursuit of a more just and sustainable world.

11 FUTURE ISSUES

1. As sustainability science matures as a field, it would benefit from expanding its historical emphasis on short term, local impacts of development on environment to focus more on the

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

long term, large scale patterns in the coevolution of nature and society that ultimately shape the prospects for sustainability. 2. Efforts to explain patterns in the coevolution of nature and society should embrace the finding that the Anthropocene is a complex adaptive system, and thus systematically assess the roles played by heterogeneity, multi-level organization, partial connections, innovation and power. This also means accepting that far-from-equilibrium behavior will be the norm for the Anthropocene, and that the successful pursuit of sustainability will require research to strengthen the multiple capacities needed for society to continuously learn and adjust as it navigates its pathways of development. 3. First among those capacities is better ability to evaluate the likelihood that present trajectories and proposed interventions will promote human well-being over the long run. Especially important will be extending existing metrics so that they can better integrate the contributions of all relevant resources (natural and anthropogenic); capture intra- and intergenerational equity concerns; address connections within and across levels of systems organization; and monitor the adequacy of the other capacities identified in this review. 4. The basic elements that can contribute to adaptive capacity in complex systems have been identified, but trade-offs among those elements remain poorly understood. Research is needed that illuminates strategies and guidelines for balancing such tradeoffs in particular contexts, and shows how to rebalance them as adaptation pathways become entwined in long term system dynamics. 5. Transforming unsustainable pathways of development into sustainable ones is perhaps the grand challenge of sustainability science. Meeting that challenge will require above all a greater capacity to foster innovation, but also a capacity to shape the collective visions of sustainable futures needed to encourage the sorts of innovations most needed to promote sustainability. 6. Good governance – the capacity to work together in achieving what we can’t do alone – is essential for sustainable development, but is always an experiment. Sustainability science needs to do better at treating it that way, documenting the governance arrangements relevant to sustainability that are in place around the world, evaluating their impacts and interactions with one another, and designing better ones—all as part of a continuing exercise in reflexive learning. 7. The asymmetric distribution of power among stakeholders in development has profound but understudied implications for sustainability. Especially needed are more creative designs of governance arrangements aimed at mitigating the intra- and inter-generational inequities in well-being that are both the cause and consequence of power asymmetries, together with systematic evaluations of the efficacy of those arrangements when they are put into practice. 8. Because knowledge itself is power, efforts to mobilize it for sustainability are inescapably intertwined with politics. The sustainability science community must therefore work actively to assure that its agenda reflects not just the interests of those who are doing well from current development pathways and thus have the money and influence to support our research, but also the interests of those who are losing out and most need our support.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

12 APPENDIX: UNDERSTANDING POWER IN SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE

In response to the increasing awareness that maldistributions of power reinforce unsustainable development pathways, more and more scholarship in sustainability science is seriously grappling with power. However, this literature remains disjointed—failing to either build on itself or converge around a common theoretical language with which to discuss the mechanisms of power (Gerlak et al. 2019). Having reviewed core political and sociological approaches to the study of power (e.g., Dahl 1957; Bachrach and Baratz 1970; Lukes 1974; Foucault 1979; Haugaard 2002) as well as contemporary approaches to power in sustainability science literature (e.g., Clement 2010; Avelino and Wittmayer 2016; Boonstra 2016; Avelino 2017; Brisbois, Morris, and de Loë 2019; Kashwan, Maclean, and García-López 2019) we believe that future work in sustainability science would be well served to build on an adaptation of the three-dimensional view of power first articulated by Steven Lukes (Lukes 1974). We selected Lukes’ approach both because it is one of the citations most frequently used to conceptualize the mechanisms of power in empirical work, and because by articulating power’s relationship between actors, resources, institutions, and goals, the three-dimensions of compulsion, exclusion, and influence complement the Framework for Sustainability Science.

Of course, the literature on power is replete with many useful perspectives. Many scholars use the terms ‘decision-making’, ‘non-decision making’ and ‘ideological’ to refer to the 1st 2nd and 3rd dimensions of power respectively. We find that these terms are less useful than the labels we have chosen. We prefer compulsion, exclusion, and influence because they convey the mechanisms through which each of the dimensions of power operate. By clearly articulating the mechanisms of power, these definitions help agitators articulate strategies of empowerment (Gaventa 2020). Another useful perspective on power emphasizes relational power and the dynamics of synergy, antagonism, and neutrality that emerge when different actors possess different kinds of power in relation to one another (Avelino 2017).

First dimension Actor A has power over actor B to the extent that he can compel B to do something that B of power: would not otherwise do. This dimension of power is derived from ownership of or access to Compulsion natural and anthropogenic resource and/or flows of benefits from those resources. For example, the ability of colonial governments to extract vast quantities of resources and labor from others was predicated on military and economic power derived from control over resources (Mann 2012).

Second Actor A has power over actor B to the extent that A can exclude B from decision-making dimension of arenas and restructure rules and norms to further A’s own interests. This dimension of power power: is derived from the ability to shape institutional structures including rules and norms. For Exclusion example, the ability of Canadian energy interests to block collaborative governance efforts to protect local common pool resources was predicated on their ability to limit the scope of negotiations and eliminate from consideration potential outcomes that would negatively impact the interests of industry (Brisbois, Morris, and de Loë 2019).

Third Actor A has power over actor B to the extent that A can influence or shape B’s aspirations dimension of and beliefs. This dimension of power is derived from the ability of actors to influence the power: goals, aspirations, values, and even knowledge systems that privilege the well-being of some Influence actors over others. The third dimension of power often prevents observable conflict from arising. For example, the ability of powerful corporations to stymie efforts to regulate greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals is predicated on their ability influence public beliefs about the threats (or lack thereof) posed by climate change and pollution (Michaels 2020).

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

13 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

14 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by a generous gift from Italy’s Ministry for Environment, Land and Sea to the Sustainability Science Program at Harvard University. We are grateful to Carl Folke and his colleagues in Stockholm for generously hosting a week of exchanges about the scope and content of this review early in its genesis; to Wyatt Hurt for research assistance; to Arun Agrawal, Anthony Bebbington, Christian Binz, Terry Chapin, Adam Clark, Ruth DeFries, Bipashyee Ghosh, Rebecca Henderson, Michele Lamont, Larissa de Lima, Pamela Matson, Kira Matus, Ronald Mitchell, Nadav Orian Peer, Noelle Selin, Afreen Siddiqi, Billie Turner II, John Schellnhuber, and Arild Underdal for their critical reviews of early drafts; to Marie-Therese Wright, Nora O’Neil and Anni Clark for editorial assistance; to Annual Reviews for making this paper open access through their laudable Subscribe to Open initiative; and to the extraordinary Harvard University Library for the unstinting support of its people and systems as we pursued the literatures of sustainability science.

15 LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, Kenneth W., and Steven Bernstein. 2015. “The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: Orchestration by Default and Design.” Global Policy 6 (3): 222–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12199. Adger, W. Neil. 2006. “Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change, Resilience, Vulnerability, and Adaptation: A Cross-Cutting Theme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, 16 (3): 268–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006. ———. 2016. “Place, Well-Being, and Fairness Shape Priorities for Adaptation to Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change 38 (May): A1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.009. Adger, W. Neil, and Andrew Jordan, eds. 2009. Governing Sustainability. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Agarwal, Priti, and Aparna Sawhney. 2020. “Sustainability and Comprehensive Wealth Accounting: The Case of India.” Environment, Development and Sustainability, April. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00743-9. Agrawal, Arun. 2003. “Sustainable Governance of Common-Pool Resources: Context, Methods, and Politics.” Annual Review of Anthropology 32 (1): 243–62. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093112.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

———. 2014. “Studying the Commons, Governing Common-Pool Resource Outcomes: Some Concluding Thoughts.” Environmental Science & Policy, Interrogating The Commons, 36: 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.012. Agyeman, Julian, David Schlosberg, Luke Craven, and Caitlin Matthews. 2016. “Trends and Directions in Environmental Justice: From Inequity to Everyday Life, Community, and Just Sustainabilities.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41 (1): 321–40. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090052. Ahlborg, Helene, Ilse Ruiz-Mercado, Sverker Molander, and Omar Masera. 2019. “Bringing Technology into Social-Ecological Systems Research—Motivations for a Socio- Technical-Ecological Systems Approach.” Sustainability 11 (7): 2009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072009. Ahlquist, John S. 2017. “Labor Unions, Political Representation, and Economic Inequality.” Annual Review of Political Science 20 (1): 409–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- polisci-051215-023225. Amenta, Edwin, and Francesca Polletta. 2019. “The Cultural Impacts of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 45 (1): 279–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018- 022342. Anadon, Laura Diaz, Gabriel Chan, Alicia G. Harley, Kira Matus, Suerie Moon, Sharmila L. Murthy, and William C. Clark. 2016. “Making Technological Innovation Work for Sustainable Development.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (35): 9682–90. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525004113. Anderies, John, Carl Folke, Brian Walker, and Elinor Ostrom. 2013. “Aligning Key Concepts for Global Change Policy: Robustness, Resilience, and Sustainability.” Ecology and Society 18 (2): art8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05178-180208. Anderies, John M. 2015. “Managing Variance: Key Policy Challenges for the Anthropocene.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (47): 14402–3. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519071112. Anderies, John M., Jean-Denis Mathias, and Marco A. Janssen. 2019. “Knowledge Infrastructure and Safe Operating Spaces in Social-Ecological Systems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (12): 5277–84. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802885115. Andonova, Liliana B. 2017. Governance Entrepreneurs: International Organizations and the Rise of Global Public-Private Partnerships. Business and Public Policy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Apajalahti, Eeva-Lotta, Armi Temmes, and Tea Lempiälä. 2018. “Incumbent Organisations Shaping Emerging Technological Fields: Cases of Solar Photovoltaic and Electric Vehicle Charging.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 30 (1): 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1285397. Arrow, Kenneth J., Partha Dasgupta, Lawrence H. Goulder, Kevin J. Mumford, and Kirsten Oleson. 2012. “Sustainability and the Measurement of Wealth.” Environment and Development Economics 17 (3): 317–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X12000137. Arrow, Kenneth J., Paul R. Ehrlich, and Simon A. Levin. 2014. “Some Perspectives on Linked Ecosystems and Socioeconomic Systems.” In Environment and Development Economics, edited by Scott Barrett, Karl-Göran Mäler, and Eric S. Maskin, 95–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677856.003.0003.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Arthur, W. Brian. 2015. “Complexity Economics: A Different Framework for Economic Thought.” In Complexity and the Economy, edited by W. Brian Arthur, 1-29. New York: Oxford University Press. Asokan, Vivek Anand, Masaru Yarime, and Miguel Esteban. 2017. “Introducing Flexibility to Complex, Resilient Socio-Ecological Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Economics, Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Evolutionary Biology, and Supply Chain Management.” Sustainability; Basel 9 (7): 1091. http://dx.doi.org.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.3390/su9071091. Avelino, Flor. 2017. “Power in Sustainability Transitions: Analysing Power and (Dis)Empowerment in Transformative Change towards Sustainability: Power in Sustainability Transitions.” Environmental Policy and Governance 27 (6): 505–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1777. Avelino, Flor, and Julia M. Wittmayer. 2016. “Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A Multi-Actor Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 18 (5): 628–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259. Bachrach, P., and M. Baratz. 1970. Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baird, Julia, Ryan Plummer, Lisen Schultz, Derek Armitage, and Örjan Bodin. 2019. “How Does Socio-Institutional Diversity Affect Collaborative Governance of Social–Ecological Systems in Practice?” Environmental Management 63 (2): 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1123-5. Bakker, Sjoerd. 2014. “Actor Rationales in Sustainability Transitions – Interests and Expectations Regarding Electric Vehicle Recharging.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 13 (December): 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.08.002. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, Lala Ma, and Christopher Timmins. 2019. “Environmental Justice: Establishing Causal Relationships.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 11 (1): 377– 98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094131. Barbier, Edward B. 2019. “The Concept of Natural Capital.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 35 (1): 14–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gry028. Barbier, Edward B., and Jacob P. Hochard. 2019. “Poverty-Environment Traps.” Environmental and Resource Economics 74 (3): 1239–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00366-3. Barnett, Jon, and W. Neil Adger. 2018. “Mobile Worlds: Choice at the Intersection of Demographic and Environmental Change.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43 (1): 245–65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060952. Bebbington, Anthony, Abdul-Gafaru Abdulai, Denise Humphreys Bebbington, Marja Hinfelaar, and Cynthia Sanborn. 2018. Governing Extractive Industries: Politics, Histories, Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198820932.001.0001Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Beckert, Jens, and Richard Bronk. 2018. Uncertain Futures: Imaginaries, Narratives, and Calculation in the Economy. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bengtsson, Magnus, Eva Alfredsson, Maurie Cohen, Sylvia Lorek, and Patrick Schroeder. 2018. “Transforming Systems of Consumption and Production for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: Moving beyond Efficiency.” Sustainability Science 13 (6): 1533–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0582-1. Benhabib, Jess, and Alberto Bisin. 2018. “Skewed Wealth Distributions: Theory and Empirics.” Journal of Economic Literature 56 (4): 1261–91. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20161390.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Bennett, Elena M. 2017. “Research Frontiers in Ecosystem Service Science.” Ecosystems; New York 20 (1): 31–37. http://dx.doi.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1007/s10021-016- 0049-0. Betsill, Michele, Tabitha M. Benney, and Andrea K. Gerlak, eds. 2020. Agency in Earth System Governance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108688277. Bettencourt, Luís M. A., and Jasleen Kaur. 2011. “Evolution and Structure of Sustainability Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (49): 19540–45. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102712108. Biermann, Frank, and Agni Kalfagianni. 2020. “Planetary Justice: A Research Framework.” Earth System Governance June. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100049. In press. Biermann, Frank, and Rakhyun E. Kim. 2020. “The Boundaries of the Planetary Boundary Framework: A Critical Appraisal of Approaches to Define a ‘Safe Operating Space’ for Humanity.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45 (1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-080337. Biggs, Reinette, Line Gordon, Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, Maja Schlüter, and Brian Walker. 2015. “Principle 3 – Manage Slow Variables and Feedbacks.” In Principles for Building Resilience, edited by Reinette Biggs, Maja Schlüter, and Michael L. Schoon, 105–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.006. Biggs, Reinette, Garry D. Peterson, and Juan C. Rocha. 2018. “The Regime Shifts Database: A Framework for Analyzing Regime Shifts in Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 23 (3): art9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10264-230309. Biggs, Reinette, Maja Schlüter, Duan Biggs, Erin L. Bohensky, Shauna BurnSilver, Georgina Cundill, Vasilis Dakos, et al. 2012. “Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1): 421–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836. Binz, Christian, and Bernhard Truffer. 2017. “Global Innovation Systems—a Conceptual Framework for Innovation Dynamics in Transnational Contexts.” Research Policy 46 (7): 1284–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.012. Bleischwitz, Raimund, Catalina Spataru, Stacy D. VanDeveer, Michael Obersteiner, Ester van der Voet, Corey Johnson, Philip Andrews-Speed, Tim Boersma, Holger Hoff, and Detlef P. van Vuuren. 2018. “Resource Nexus Perspectives towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Sustainability 1 (12): 737–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0173-2. Blumm, Michael C., and Mary Christina Wood. 2017. “No Ordinary Lawsuit: Climate Change, Due Process, and the Public Trust Doctrine.” American University Law Review 67 (1): 1– 88. Bobbio, Luigi. 2019. “Designing Effective Public Participation.” Policy and Society 38 (1): 41– 57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1511193. Bodin, Örjan, Steven M. Alexander, Jacopo Baggio, Michele L. Barnes, Ramiro Berardo, Graeme S. Cumming, Laura E. Dee, et al. 2019. “Improving Network Approaches to the Study of Complex Social-Ecological Interdependencies.” Nature Sustainability 2 (7): 551–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0308-0. Bodin, Örjan, María Mancilla García, and Garry Robins. 2020. “Reconciling Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Governance: A Social Network Perspective.” Annual

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Review of Environment and Resources 45 (1): annurev-environ-011020-064352. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352. Bohensky, Erin L., Louisa S. Evans, John M. Anderies, Duan Biggs, and Christo Fabricius. 2015. “Principle 4 – Foster Complex Adaptive Systems Thinking.” In Principles for Building Resilience, edited by Reinette Biggs, Maja Schlüter, and Michael L. Schoon, 142–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.007. Boonstra, Wiebren J. 2016. “Conceptualizing Power to Study Social-Ecological Interactions.” Ecology and Society 21(1):21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26270351. Bornemann, Basil. 2019. “Nudging to Sustainability? Critical Reflections on Nudging from a Theoretically Informed Sustainability Perspective.” In Handbook of Behavioural Change and Public Policy, by Holger Straßheim, Silke Beck, and Paul Burger, 209–26. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367854.00022. Boston, Jonathan. 2017. Governing for the Future: Designing Democratic Institutions for a Better Tomorrow. First edition. Public Policy and Governance, volume 25. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Boyd, Robert, Peter J. Richerson, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Tine De Moor, Matthew O. Jackson, Kristina M. Gjerde, Harriet Harden-Davies, et al. 2018. “Tragedy Revisited.” Science 362 (6420): 1236–41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw0911. Brisbois, Marie Claire, Michelle Morris, and Rob de Loë. 2019. “Augmenting the IAD Framework to Reveal Power in Collaborative Governance – an Illustrative Application to Resource Industry Dominated Processes.” World Development 120: 159–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.017. Brondízio, Eduardo S., Elinor Ostrom, and Oran R. Young. 2009. “Connectivity and the Governance of Multilevel Social-Ecological Systems: The Role of Social Capital.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34 (1): 253–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707. Brown, Katrina. 2009. “Human Development and Environmental Governance: A Reality Check.” In Governing Sustainability, edited by W. Neil Adger and Andrew Jordan, 32– 52. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807756.004. Brown, Katrina, W. Neil Adger, Patrick Devine-Wright, John M. Anderies, Stewart Barr, Francois Bousquet, Catherine Butler, Louisa Evans, Nadine Marshall, and Tara Quinn. 2019. “Empathy, Place and Identity Interactions for Sustainability.” Global Environmental Change 56 (May): 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.003. Brown, Katrina, and Elizabeth Westaway. 2011. “Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change: Lessons from Human Development, Well-Being, and Disasters.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36 (1): 321–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-052610-092905. Bruijn, Karin de, Joost Buurman, Marjolein Mens, Ruben Dahm, and Frans Klijn. 2017. “Resilience in Practice: Five Principles to Enable Societies to Cope with Extreme Weather Events.” Environmental Science & Policy 70 (April): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.02.001. Burch, Sarah, Aarti Gupta, Cristina Y. A. Inoue, Agni Kalfagianni, Åsa Persson, Andrea K. Gerlak, Atsushi Ishii, et al. 2019. “New Directions in Earth System Governance

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Research.” Earth System Governance 1 (January): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100006. Caldecott, Ben. 2018. Stranded Assets and the Environment: Risk, Resilience and Opportunity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315651606. Caney, Simon. 2018. “Justice and Future Generations.” Annual Review of Political Science 21 (1): 475–93. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052715-111749. Carpenter, Stephen R., Kenneth J. Arrow, Scott Barrett, Reinette Biggs, William A. Brock, Anne-Sophie Crepin, Gustav Engstrom, et al. 2012. “General Resilience to Cope with Extreme Events.” Sustainability 4 (12): 3248–59. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4123248. Carpenter, Stephen R., William A. Brock, Carl Folke, Egbert H. van Nes, and Marten Scheffer. 2015. “Allowing Variance May Enlarge the Safe Operating Space for Exploited Ecosystems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (46): 14384–89. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511804112. Casey, Katherine. 2018. “Radical Decentralization: Does Community-Driven Development Work?” Annual Review of Economics 10 (1): 139–63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- economics-080217-053339. Cashore, Benjamin, Steven Bernstein, David Humphreys, Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers, and Katharine Rietig. 2019. “Designing Stakeholder Learning Dialogues for Effective Global Governance.” Policy and Society 38 (1): 118–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1579505. Chan, Gabriel, Robert Stavins, and Zou Ji. 2018. “International Climate Change Policy.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 10: 335–60. Chantarat, Sommarat, Andrew G. Mude, Christopher B. Barrett, and Calum G. Turvey. 2017. “Welfare Impacts of Index Insurance in the Presence of a Poverty Trap.” World Development 94 (June): 119–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.044. Chen, Bin, Rui Xiong, Hailong Li, Qie Sun, and Jin Yang. 2019. “Pathways for Sustainable Energy Transition.” Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (August): 1564–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.372. Clark, William C., Pamela A. Matson, and Nancy M. Dickson. 2016. “Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development: Special Feature Based on a Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (17): 4570–4622. Clark, William C., Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Louis Lebel, and Gilberto C. Gallopin. 2016. “Crafting Usable Knowledge for Sustainable Development.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (17): 4570–78. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113. Clark, William C., Thomas P. Tomich, Meine van Noordwijk, David Guston, Delia Catacutan, Nancy M. Dickson, and Elizabeth McNie. 2016. “Boundary Work for Sustainable Development: Natural Resource Management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (17): 4615–22. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900231108. Clement, Floriane. 2010. “Analysing Decentralised Natural Resource Governance: Proposition for a ‘Politicised’ Institutional Analysis and Development Framework.” Policy Sciences 43 (2): 129–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9100-8. Cohen, François, Cameron J. Hepburn, and Alexander Teytelboym. 2019. “Is Natural Capital Really Substitutable?” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44 (1): 425–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033055.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Collins, Patricia Hill. 2015. “Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas.” Annual Review of Sociology 41 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142. Collins, Ross D., Noelle E. Selin, Olivier L. de Weck, and William C. Clark. 2017. “Using Inclusive Wealth for Policy Evaluation: Application to Electricity Infrastructure Planning in Oil-Exporting Countries.” Ecological Economics 133: 23–34. https://doi.org///dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.013. Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “The Concept of Power.” Behavioral Science 2 (3): 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303. Dakos, Vasilis, Allyson Quinlan, Jacopo A. Baggio, Elena Bennett, Örjan Bodin, and Shauna Burnsilver. 2015. “Principle 2 – Manage Connectivity.” In Principles for Building Resilience, edited by Reinette Biggs, Maja Schlüter, and Michael L. Schoon, 80–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.005. Daly, Meaghan, and Lisa Dilling. 2019. “The Politics of ‘Usable’ Knowledge: Examining the Development of Climate Services in Tanzania.” Climatic Change, October, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02510-w. Dasgupta, Partha. 2004. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment. 1st paperback, with Revised Appendix. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. “Measuring the Wealth of Nations.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 6 (1): 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012358. Dasgupta, Partha S. 2018. “Foreword to the Inclusive Wealth Report 2018.” In Inclusive Wealth Report 2018 | Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability, edited by Shunsuke Managi and Pushpam Kumar, 1st ed., xxi–xxviii. London: Routledge. http://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781351002073. Dasgupta, Partha S., and Paul R. Ehrlich. 2013. “Pervasive Externalities at the Population, Consumption, and Environment Nexus.” Science 340 (6130): 324–28. Dasgupta, Partha, Tapan Mitra, and Gerhard Sorger. 2019. “Harvesting the Commons.” Environmental and Resource Economics 72 (3): 613–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640- 018-0221-4. Deaton, Angus. 2013. The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DeFries, Ruth, Erle C. Ellis, F. Stuart Chapin III, Pamela A. Matson, B. L. Turner II, Arun Agrawal, Paul J. Crutzen, et al. 2012. “Planetary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change Science to Contribute to a Sustainable Future.” Bioscience 62 (6): 603–6. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.11. Díaz, Sandra, Sebsebe Demissew, Julia Carabias, Carlos Joly, Mark Lonsdale, Neville Ash, Anne Larigauderie, et al. 2015. “The IPBES Conceptual Framework — Connecting Nature and People.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Open Issue, 14 (June): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002. Díaz, Sandra, Unai Pascual, Marie Stenseke, Berta Martín-López, Robert T. Watson, Zsolt Molnár, Rosemary Hill, et al. 2018. “Assessing Nature’s Contributions to People.” Science 359 (6373): 270–72. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826. Díaz, Sandra, Josef Settele, Eduardo S. Brondízio, Hien T. Ngo, John Agard, Almut Arneth, Patricia Balvanera, et al. 2019. “Pervasive Human-Driven Decline of Life on Earth Points to the Need for Transformative Change.” Science 366 (6471): eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Díaz-Reviriego, Isabel, E. Turnhout, and S. Beck. 2019. “Participation and Inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Nature Sustainability 2 (6): 457–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0290-6. Dietz, Thomas. 2017. “Drivers of Human Stress on the Environment in the Twenty-First Century.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42 (1): 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085440. Downing, Andrea S, Avit Bhowmik, David Collste, Sarah E Cornell, Jonathan Donges, Ingo Fetzer, Tiina Häyhä, Jennifer Hinton, Steven Lade, and Wolf M Mooij. 2019. “Matching Scope, Purpose and Uses of Planetary Boundaries Science.” Environmental Research Letters 14 (7): 073005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab22c9. Dryzek, John S., André Bächtiger, Simone Chambers, Joshua Cohen, James N. Druckman, Andrea Felicetti, James S. Fishkin, et al. 2019. “The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation.” Science 363 (6432): 1144–46. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694. Dryzek, John S., and Jonathan Pickering. 2018. The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/view/10.1093/oso/9780198809616.001.0001/oso-9780198809616. Dryzek, John S., and Hayley Stevenson. 2014. Democratizing Global Climate Governance. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Ekins, Paul, Joyeeta Gupta, and Pierre Boileau, eds. 2019. Global Environment Outlook 6. New York: Cambridge University Press. Elsner, Wolfram. 2017. “Complexity Economics as Heterodoxy: Theory and Policy.” Journal of Economic Issues 51 (4): 939–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2017.1391570. Enqvist, Johan P, Simon West, Vanessa A. Masterson, L. Jamila Haider, Uno Svedin, and Maria Tengö. 2018. “Stewardship as a Boundary Object for Sustainability Research: Linking Care, Knowledge and Agency.” Landscape and Urban Planning 179 (November): 17– 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.005. Epstein, Graham, Jeremy Pittman, Steven M Alexander, Samantha Berdej, Thomas Dyck, Ursula Kreitmair, Kaitlyn J Rathwell, Sergio Villamayor-Tomas, Jessica Vogt, and Derek Armitage. 2015. “Institutional Fit and the Sustainability of Social–Ecological Systems.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Open Issue, 14 (June): 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.005. Eriksen, Siri H., Andrea J. Nightingale, and Hallie Eakin. 2015. “Reframing Adaptation: The Political Nature of Climate Change Adaptation.” Global Environmental Change 35 (November): 523–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014. Estevadeordal, Antoni, and Louis W Goodman, eds. 2017. 21st Century Cooperation: Regional Public Goods, Global Governance, and Sustainable Development. London; New York: Routledge. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4862621. Evans. 2019. “Competencies and Pedagogies for Sustainability Education: A Roadmap for Sustainability Studies Program Development in Colleges and Universities.” Sustainability 11 (19): 5526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195526. Evans, Alice. 2018. “Politicising Inequality: The Power of Ideas.” World Development 110 (October): 360–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.006. Evans, Geoff, and Liam Phelan. 2016. “Transition to a Post-Carbon Society: Linking Environmental Justice and Just Transition Discourses.” Energy Policy 99 (December): 329–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.003.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Fagerberg, Jan. 2018. “Mobilizing Innovation for Sustainability Transitions: A Comment on Transformative Innovation Policy.” Research Policy 47 (9): 1568–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.012. Farmer, J. D., C. Hepburn, M. C. Ives, T. Hale, T. Wetzer, P. Mealy, R. Rafaty, S. Srivastav, and R. Way. 2019. “Sensitive Intervention Points in the Post-Carbon Transition.” Science 364 (6436): 132–34. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw7287. Farrell, Justin. 2019. “The Growth of Climate Change Misinformation in US Philanthropy: Evidence from Natural Language Processing.” Environmental Research Letters 14 (3): 034013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf939. Ferreira, Leonardo L. G., and Adriano D. Andricopulo. 2019. “Drugs and Vaccines in the 21st Century for Neglected Diseases.” The Lancet Infectious Diseases 19 (2): 125–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30005-2. Fischhoff, Baruch. 2019. “Evaluating Science Communication.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (16): 7670–75. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805863115. Folke, Carl. 2016. “Resilience (Republished).” Ecology and Society 21 (4): art44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444. Folke, Carl, Henrik Österblom, Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, Eric F. Lambin, W. Neil Adger, Marten Scheffer, Beatrice I. Crona, et al. 2019. “Transnational Corporations and the Challenge of Biosphere Stewardship.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 3 (September): 1396–1403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0978-z. Forsyth, Tim. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science. London; New York: Routledge. Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Social Theory. New York: Vintage Books. Foxon, Timothy J. 2011. “A Coevolutionary Framework for Analysing a Transition to a Sustainable Low Carbon Economy.” Ecological Economics 70 (12): 2258–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.014. Frye, Northrop. 1957. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fuenfschilling, Lea, and Christian Binz. 2018. “Global Socio-Technical Regimes.” Research Policy 47 (4): 735–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.003. Galaitsi, Stephanie, Jason Veysey, and Annette Huber-Lee. 2018. “Where Is the Added Value? A Review of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus Literature.” SEI Working Paper. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/publications/added-value-review- water-energy-food-nexus-literature/. Galasso, Alberto, Matthew Mitchell, and Gabor Virag. 2018. “A Theory of Grand Innovation Prizes.” Research Policy 47 (2): 343–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.11.009. Ganz, Marshall. 2009. Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebookbatch.GEN_batch:EDZ000008281120160621. Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ———. 2020. “Applying Power Analysis: Using the ‘Powercube’ to Explore Forms, Levels and Spaces.” In Power, Empowerment and Social Change, edited by Rosemary McGee and Jethro Pettit, 117–38. Rethinking Development. London: Routledge.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Geels, Frank W. 2019. “Socio-Technical Transitions to Sustainability: A Review of Criticisms and Elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Open Issue 2019, 39 (August): 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009. Geels, Frank W. 2020. “Micro-Foundations of the Multi-Level Perspective on Socio-Technical Transitions: Developing a Multi-Dimensional Model of Agency through Crossovers between Social Constructivism, Evolutionary Economics and Neo-Institutional Theory.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 152 (March): 119894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894. Geels, Frank W., Andy McMeekin, Josephine Mylan, and Dale Southerton. 2015. “A Critical Appraisal of Sustainable Consumption and Production Research: The Reformist, Revolutionary and Reconfiguration Positions.” Global Environmental Change 34 (September): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.013. Geels, Frank W., Benjamin K. Sovacool, Tim Schwanen, and Steve Sorrell. 2017. “Sociotechnical Transitions for Deep Decarbonization.” Science 357 (6357): 1242–44. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3760. Gerlak, Andrea K., Thomas R. Eimer, Marie-Claire Brisbois, Luuk Schmitz Mills-Novoa, Luimers Jorrit, and Abernethy Paivi. 2019. “Power(Ful) and Power(Less): A Review of Power in the ESG–Agency Scholarship.” In Agency in Earth System Governance. Earth System Governance Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. www.cambridge.org/9781108484053. Gerlak, Andrea K., Tanya Heikkila, Sharon L. Smolinski, Dave Huitema, and Derek Armitage. 2018. “Learning Our Way out of Environmental Policy Problems: A Review of the Scholarship.” Policy Sciences 51 (3): 335–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9278- 0. Ghosh, Bipashyee, and Johan Schot. 2019. “Towards a Novel Regime Change Framework: Studying Mobility Transitions in Public Transport Regimes in an Indian Megacity.” Energy Research & Social Science 51 (May): 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.12.001. Giangrande, Naresh, Rehema M. White, May East, Ross Jackson, Tim Clarke, Michel Saloff Coste, and Gil Penha-Lopes. 2019. “A Competency Framework to Assess and Activate Education for Sustainable Development: Addressing the UN Sustainable Development Goals 4.7 Challenge.” Sustainability 11 (10): 2832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102832. Gilarranz, Luis J., Bronwyn Rayfield, Gustavo Liñán-Cembrano, Jordi Bascompte, and Andrew Gonzalez. 2017. “Effects of Network Modularity on the Spread of Perturbation Impact in Experimental Metapopulations.” Science 357 (6347): 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4122. Gollier, Christian, and James K. Hammitt. 2014. “The Long-Run Discount Rate Controversy.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 6 (1): 273–95. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- resource-100913-012516. Griffiths, Jesse. 2018. “Financing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” Development 61 (1): 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-018-0178-1. Grillos, Tara. 2019. Deliberation Improves Collective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence from Kenya. Paper presented at the 115th Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC. Aug 29–Sept. 1.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

https://www.taragrillos.com/uploads/1/1/7/1/117111931/grillos_2019_deliberation_impro ves_collective_decisions.pdf. Haberl, Helmut, Dominik Wiedenhofer, Stefan Pauliuk, Fridolin Krausmann, Daniel B. Müller, and Marina Fischer-Kowalski. 2019. “Contributions of Sociometabolic Research to Sustainability Science.” Nature Sustainability 2 (3): 173–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0225-2. Hagstrom, George I., and Simon A. Levin. 2017. “Marine Ecosystems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Emergent Patterns, Critical Transitions, and Public Goods.” Ecosystems 20 (3): 458–76. http://dx.doi.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1007/s10021-017-0114-3. Hajer, Maarten, and Wytske Versteeg. 2019. “Imagining the Post-Fossil City: Why Is It So Difficult to Think of New Possible Worlds?” Territory, Politics, Governance 7 (2): 122– 34. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2018.1510339. Hajjar, Reem, and Johan A. Oldekop. 2018. “Research Frontiers in Community Forest Management.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Environmental change issues 2018, 32 (June): 119–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.06.003. Hale, Thomas. 2020. “Transnational Actors and Transnational Governance in Global Environmental Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 23: 12.1-12.18. Hamann, Maike, Kevin Berry, Tomas Chaigneau, Tracie Curry, Robert Heilmayr, Patrik J.G. Henriksson, Jonas Hentati-Sundberg, et al. 2018. “Inequality and the Biosphere.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43 (1): 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- environ-102017-025949. Hamilton, Kirk E., John F. Helliwell, and Michael Woolcock. 2016. “Social Capital, Trust, and Well-Being in the Evaluation of Wealth.” WPS7707. The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/249031468195550873/Social-capital-trust- and-well-being-in-the-evaluation-of-wealth. Hansen, Ulrich Elmer, Ivan Nygaard, Henny Romijn, Anna Wieczorek, Linda M. Kamp, and Laurens Klerkx. 2018. “Sustainability Transitions in Developing Countries: Stocktaking, New Contributions and a Research Agenda.” Environmental Science & Policy 84 (June): 198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.009. Haugaard, Mark. 2002. Power: A Reader. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hausknost, Daniel, and Willi Haas. 2019. “The Politics of Selection: Towards a Transformative Model of Environmental Innovation.” Sustainability 11 (2): 506. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020506. Heilmayr, Robert, and Eric F. Lambin. 2016. “Impacts of Nonstate, Market-Driven Governance on Chilean Forests.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (11): 2910– 15. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600394113. Henderson, Rebecca. 2015. “Making the Business Case for Environmental Sustainability.” In Leading Sustainable Change: An Organizational Perspective, edited by R Henderson, R Gulati, ML Tushman, 22–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198704072.001.0001/a cprof-9780198704072-chapter-2. ———. 2020. Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire. New York: PublicAffairs. Henry, Adam Douglas, and Björn Vollan. 2014. “Networks and the Challenge of Sustainable Development.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39 (1): 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013246.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Hess, Charlotte. 2012. “The Unfolding of the Knowledge Commons.” Text. May 2012. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/stair/stair/2012/00000008/00000001/art00003. Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom, eds. 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hicks, Christina C., Arielle Levine, Arun Agrawal, Xavier Basurto, Sara J. Breslow, Courtney Carothers, Susan Charnley, et al. 2016. “Engage Key Social Concepts for Sustainability.” Science 352 (6281): 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4977. Hirsch, Shana Lee, and Jerrold Long. 2020. “Adaptive Epistemologies: Conceptualizing Adaptation to Climate Change in Environmental Science.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, January. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919898517. Hoekstra, Arjen Y., Rianne Bredenhoff-Bijlsma, and Maarten S. Krol. 2018. “The Control versus Resilience Rationale for Managing Systems under Uncertainty.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (10): 103002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aadf95. Hölscher, Katharina, Julia M. Wittmayer, and Derk Loorbach. 2018. “Transition versus Transformation: What’s the Difference?” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27 (June): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007. Homayounfar, Mehran, Rachata Muneepeerakul, John M. Anderies, and Chitsomanus P. Muneepeerakul. 2018. “Linking Resilience and Robustness and Uncovering Their Trade- Offs in Coupled Infrastructure Systems.” Earth System Dynamics 9 (4): 1159–68. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-1159-2018. Hull, Vanessa, and Jianguo Liu. 2018. “Telecoupling: A New Frontier for Global Sustainability.” Ecology and Society 23 (4): art11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10494-230441. ICSU, and ISSC. 2015. “Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective.” Paris: International Council for Science. https://council.science/publications/review-of-targets-for-the-sustainable-development- goals-the-science-perspective-2015/. Ikeda, Shinya, and Shunsuke Managi. 2019. “Future Inclusive Wealth and Human Well-Being in Regional Japan: Projections of Sustainability Indices Based on Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.” Sustainability Science; Dordrecht 14 (1): 147–58. http://dx.doi.org.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1007/s11625-018-0589-7. IPBES, Sandra Díaz, J Settele, Eduardo Brondízio, H Ngo, M Guèze, J Agard, et al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat. https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversity-ecosystem-services. IPCC. 2018. “Global Warming of 1.5°C.” Geneva: World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Program. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/. Irwin, Elena G., Sathya Gopalakrishnan, and Alan Randall. 2016. “Welfare, Wealth, and Sustainability.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 8 (1): 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095351. Jabbour, Jason, and Christian Flachsland. 2017. “40 Years of Global Environmental Assessments: A Retrospective Analysis.” Environmental Science & Policy 77 (November): 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.001. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2018. “Just Transitions: A Humble Approach to Global Energy Futures.” Energy Research & Social Science, Energy and the Future, 35 (January): 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.025.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn- 3:hul.ebookbatch.GEN_batch:EDZ000128427620160622. Johnson, David R., and Nathan B. Geldner. 2019. “Contemporary Decision Methods for Agricultural, Environmental, and Resource Management and Policy.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 11 (1): 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518- 094020. Jordan, Andrew, Dave Huitema, Jonas J. Schoenefeld, Harro van Asselt, and Johanna Forster. 2018. “Governing Climate Change Polycentrically: Setting the Scene.” In Governing Climate Change, edited by Andrew Jordan, Dave Huitema, Harro van Asselt, and Johanna Forster, 1st–25th ed., 359–83. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108284646.021. Jumbri, Isma Addi, and Shunsuke Managi. 2020. “Inclusive Wealth with Total Factor Productivity: Global Sustainability Measurement.” Global Sustainability 3: e5. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.1. Kabeer, Naila. 1999. “Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment.” Development and Change 30 (3): 435–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00125. Kanger, Laur, and Johan Schot. 2019. “Deep Transitions: Theorizing the Long-Term Patterns of Socio-Technical Change.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 32 (September): 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.006. Kanie, Norichika, and Frank Biermann. 2017. Governing Through Goals: Sustainable Development Goals as Governance Innovation. Earth System Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://muse-jhu-edu.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/book/52006/. Kashwan, Prakash, Lauren M. Maclean, and Gustavo A. García-López. 2019. “Rethinking Power and Institutions in the Shadows of Neoliberalism.” World Development 120: 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.026. Kashwan, Prakash, Lauren M. MacLean, and Gustavo A. García-López. 2019. “Rethinking Power and Institutions in the Shadows of Neoliberalism: (An Introduction to a Special Issue of World Development).” World Development 120 (August): 133–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.026. Kates, Robert W. 2011. “What Kind of a Science Is Sustainability Science?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (49): 19449–50. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116097108. Kattel, Rainer, and Mariana Mazzucato. 2018. “Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy and Dynamic Capabilities in the Public Sector.” Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 787–801. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty032. Keohane, Robert O., and David G. Victor. 2016. “Cooperation and Discord in Global Climate Policy.” Nature Climate Change; London 6 (6): 570–75. http://dx.doi.org.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1038/nclimate2937. Kerkhoff, Lorrae van, and Louis Lebel. 2015. “Coproductive Capacities: Rethinking Science- Governance Relations in a Diverse World.” Ecology and Society 20 (1): art14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07188-200114.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Keys, Patrick W., Victor Galaz, Michelle Dyer, Nathanial Matthews, Carl Folke, Magnus Nyström, and Sarah E. Cornell. 2019. “Anthropocene Risk.” Nature Sustainability 2: 667–673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0327-x. Köhler, Jonathan, Frank W. Geels, Florian Kern, Jochen Markard, Anna Wieczorek, Floortje Alkemade, Flor Avelino, et al. 2019. “An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (January): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004. Kohler, Pia M. 2020. Science Advice and Global Environmental Governance: Expert Institutions and the Implementation of International Environmental Treaties. London: Anthem Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&A N=2317844. Kousky, Carolyn. 2019. “The Role of Natural Disaster Insurance in Recovery and Risk Reduction.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 11 (1): 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094028. Kraker, Joop de. 2017. “Social Learning for Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 28 (October): 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.002. Lambin, Eric F., and Tannis Thorlakson. 2018. “Sustainability Standards: Interactions between Private Actors, Civil Society, and Governments.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43 (1): null. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025931. Lange, Glenn-Marie, Quentin Wodon, and Kevin Carey. 2018. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1- 4648-1046-6. Laurent, Éloi. 2018. Measuring Tomorrow: Accounting for Well-Being, Resilience, and Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Leach, Melissa, Ian Scoones, and Andy Stirling. 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice. Pathways to Sustainability Series. London; Washington, DC: Earthscan. LeBlanc, David. 2015. “Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets.” Sustainable Development 23 (3): 176–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582. Leiserowitz, Anthony A., Robert W. Kates, and Thomas M. Parris. 2006. “Sustainability Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors: A Review of Multinational and Global Trends.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31 (1): 413–44. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102505.133552. Levin, Simon. 2003. “Complex Adaptive Systems: Exploring the Known, the Unknown and the Unknowable.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 40 (1): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0273-0979-02-00965-5. Levin, Simon, Tasos Xepapadeas, Anne-Sophie Crépin, Jon Norberg, Aart de Zeeuw, Carl Folke, Terry Hughes, and Kenneth Arrow. 2012. “Social-Ecological Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Modeling and Policy Implications.” Environment and Development Economics 18 (2): 111–32. http://dx.doi.org.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1017/S1355770X12000460. Lim, Michelle, Peter Søgaard Jørgensen, and Carina Wyborn. 2018. “Reframing the Sustainable Development Goals to Achieve Sustainable Development in the Anthropocene—a

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Systems Approach.” Ecology and Society 23 (3): art22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 10182-230322. Lintsen, Harry, Frank Veraart, Jan-Pieter Smits, and John Grin. 2018. Well-Being, Sustainability and Social Development: The Netherlands 1850-2050. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76696-6. Liu, Jianguo, Vanessa Hull, H. Charles J. Godfray, David Tilman, Peter Gleick, Holger Hoff, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, et al. 2018. “Nexus Approaches to Global Sustainable Development.” Nature Sustainability 1 (9): 466–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018- 0135-8. Liu, Junguo, Kamaljit S. Bawa, Thomas P. Seager, Ganquan Mao, Ding Ding, Janice Ser Huay Lee, and Janet K. Swim. 2019. “On Knowledge Generation and Use for Sustainability.” Nature Sustainability 2 (2): 80. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0229-y. Liu, Teng, and Theodore Kahn. 2017. “Regional Public Goods Cooperation: An Inductive Approach to Measuring Regional Public Goods.” In 21st Century Cooperation: Regional Public Goods, Global Governance, and Sustainable Development, edited by Antoni Estevadeordal and Louis W Goodman, 3–13. London; New York: Routledge. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4862621. Loorbach, Derk, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Flor Avelino. 2017. “Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42 (1): 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ- 102014-021340. Loste, Natalia, Esther Roldán, and Beatriz Giner. 2019. “Is Green Chemistry a Feasible Tool for the Implementation of a Circular Economy?” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27 (December): 6215–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07177-5. Lubchenco, Jane, Elizabeth B. Cerny-Chipman, Jessica N. Reimer, and Simon A. Levin. 2016. “The Right Incentives Enable Ocean Sustainability Successes and Provide Hope for the Future.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (51): 14507–14. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604982113. Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. Studies in Sociology (Macmillan Press). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Mach, Katharine J., and Christopher B. Field. 2017. “Toward the next Generation of Assessment.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42 (1): 569–97. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061007. Managi, Shunsuke, and Pushpam Kumar, eds. 2018. Inclusive Wealth Report 2018 | Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability. 1st ed. London: Routledge. http://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781351002073. Mann, Michael. 2012. The Sources of Social Power: Volume 3, Global Empires and Revolution, 1890–1945. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 2011. “The Logic of Appropriateness.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, edited by R. Goodin, 478-497. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. Markard, Jochen, Frank W. Geels, and Rob Raven. 2020. “Challenges in the Acceleration of Sustainability Transitions.” Environmental Research Letters, May. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9468.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Markard, Jochen, Rob Raven, and Bernhard Truffer. 2012. “Sustainability Transitions: An Emerging Field of Research and Its Prospects.” Research Policy, Special Section on Sustainability Transitions, 41 (6): 955–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013. Marquis, Christopher, Michael W. Toffel, and Yanhua Zhou. 2016. “Scrutiny, Norms, and Selective Disclosure: A Global Study of Greenwashing.” Organization Science 27 (2): 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1039. Marshall, N. A., S. E. Park, W. N. Adger, K. Brown, and S. M. Howden. 2012. “Transformational Capacity and the Influence of Place and Identity.” Environmental Research Letters 7 (3): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034022. Martín-López, Berta, María R. Felipe-Lucia, Elena M. Bennett, Albert Norström, Garry Peterson, Tobias Plieninger, Christina C. Hicks, et al. 2019. “A Novel Telecoupling Framework to Assess Social Relations across Spatial Scales for Ecosystem Services Research.” Journal of Environmental Management 241 (July): 251–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.029. May, Robert M., Simon A. Levin, and George Sugihara. 2008. “Complex Systems: Ecology for Bankers.” Nature; London 451 (7181): 893–95. http://dx.doi.org.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1038/451893a. Mazzucato, Mariana. 2018. The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy. First US edition. New York: PublicAffairs. McGee, Rosemary, and Jethro Pettit, eds. 2019. Power, Empowerment and Social Change. Milton: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351272322. McGinnis, Michael D., and Elinor Ostrom. 2014. “Social-Ecological System Framework: Initial Changes and Continuing Challenges.” Ecology and Society 19 (2): art30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230. McKibben, Bill. 2019. “Money Is the Oxygen on Which the Fire of Global Warming Burns.” The New Yorker, September 17, 2019. https://www-newyorker-com.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/news/daily-comment/money-is-the-oxygen-on-which-the-fire-of- global-warming-burns?verso=true. McNeill, John Robert. 2016. The Great Acceleration: An Environmental History of the Anthropocene Since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Menton, Mary, Carlos Larrea, Sara Latorre, Joan Martinez-Alier, Mika Peck, Leah Temper, and Mariana Walter. 2020. “Environmental Justice and the SDGs: From Synergies to Gaps and Contradictions.” Sustainability Science, April. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020- 00789-8. Merli, Roberto, Michele Preziosi, and Alessia Acampora. 2018. “How Do Scholars Approach the Circular Economy? A Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 178 (March): 703–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112. Meyfroidt, P., R. Roy Chowdhury, A. de Bremond, E.C. Ellis, K.-H. Erb, T. Filatova, R.D. Garrett, et al. 2018. “Middle-Range Theories of Land System Change.” Global Environmental Change 53 (November): 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.006. Michaels, David. 2020. The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/lib/harvard-ebooks/detail.action?docID=6006824. Middeldorp, Nick, and Philippe Le Billon. 2019. “Deadly Environmental Governance: Authoritarianism, Eco-Populism, and the Repression of Environmental and Land

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Defenders.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109 (2): 324–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1530586. Mikulewicz, Michael. 2020. “The Discursive Politics of Adaptation to Climate Change.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1736981. In press. Milanovic, Branko. 2018. “Towards an Explanation of Inequality in Premodern Societies: The Role of Colonies, Urbanization, and High Population Density.” The Economic History Review 71 (4): 1029–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.12613. Milfont, Taciano L., Paul G. Bain, Yoshihisa Kashima, Victor Corral-Verdugo, Carlota Pasquali, Lars-Olof Johansson, Yanjun Guan, et al. 2018. “On the Relation between Social Dominance Orientation and Environmentalism: A 25-Nation Study.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 9 (7): 802–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722832. Milkoreit, Manjana, Jennifer Hodbod, Jacopo Baggio, Karina Benessaiah, Rafael Calderón- Contreras, Jonathan F. Donges, Jean-Denis Mathias, Juan Carlos Rocha, Michael Schoon, and Saskia E. Werners. 2018. “Defining Tipping Points for Social-Ecological Systems Scholarship—an Interdisciplinary Literature Review.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (3): 033005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa75. Mitchell, Ronald B., Liliana B. Andonova, Mark Axelrod, Jörg Balsinger, Thomas Brenauer, Jessica F. Green, James Hollway, Rakhyun E. Kim, and Jean-Frédéric Morin. 2020. “What We Know (and Could Know) About International Environmental Agreements” Global Environmental Politics 20 (1): 103–121. Mitchell, Ronald B., and Charli Carpenter. 2019. “Norms for the Earth: Changing the Climate on ‘Climate Change.’” Journal of Global Security Studies 4: 413–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz006. Miteva, Daniela A., Colby J. Loucks, and Subhrendu K. Pattanayak. 2015. “Social and Environmental Impacts of Forest Management Certification in Indonesia.” PLOS ONE 10 (7): e0129675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129675. Moon, Suerie. 2019. “Power in Global Governance: An Expanded Typology from Global Health.” Globalization and Health 15 (1): 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0515- 5. Moran, Emilio F. 2010. Environmental Social Science: Human-Environment Interactions and Sustainability. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Moritz, Mark, Roy Behnke, Christine M. Beitl, Rebecca Bliege Bird, Rafael Morais Chiaravalloti, Julia K. Clark, Stefani A. Crabtree, et al. 2018. “Emergent Sustainability in Open Property Regimes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (51): 12859–67. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812028115. Morrison, T. H., W. N. Adger, K. Brown, M. C. Lemos, D. Huitema, J. Phelps, L. Evans, et al. 2019. “The Black Box of Power in Polycentric Environmental Governance.” Global Environmental Change 57 (July): 101934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934. Morrison, T.H. 2017. “Evolving Polycentric Governance of the Great Barrier Reef.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (15): E3013–21. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620830114. Narayan, Rumy, and Annika Tidström. 2019. “Circular Economy Inspired Imaginaries for Sustainable Innovations.” In Innovation for Sustainability: Business Transformations

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Towards a Better World, edited by Nancy Bocken, Paavo Ritala, Laura Albareda, and Robert Verburg, 393–413. Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business In Association with Future Earth. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-97385-2_21. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. 2018. Understanding the Long- Term Evolution of the Coupled Natural-Human Coastal System: The Future of the U.S. Gulf Coast. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25108. National Research Council. 1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability. National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9690. National Research Council, Christopher D Mackie, Hermann Habermann, National Research Council (U.S.), and Panel on Measuring Social and Civic Engagement and Social Cohesion in Surveys. 2014. Civic Engagement and Social Cohesion: Measuring Dimensions of Social Capital to Inform Policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18831. Nelson, Donald R., W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown. 2007. “Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32 (1): 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348. Nepal, Santosh, Nilhari Neupane, Devesh Belbase, Vishnu Prasad Pandey, and Aditi Mukherji. 2019. “Achieving Water Security in Nepal through Unravelling the Water-Energy- Agriculture Nexus.” International Journal of Water Resources Development, December, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2019.1694867. Nestle, Marion. 2016. “Food Industry Funding of Nutrition Research: The Relevance of History for Current Debates.” JAMA Internal Medicine 176 (11): 1685–86. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5400. Nordhaus, William. 2019. “Economics of the Disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (June): 201814990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1814990116. Nordin, Martin, and Dan Olof Rooth. 2018. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital: The Role of Skills and Health.” Journal of Population Economics 31 (4): 1035– 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-018-0702-3. Oberlack, Christoph, Sébastien Boillat, Stefan Brönnimann, Jean-David Gerber, Andreas Heinimann, Chinwe Ifejika Speranza, Peter Messerli, Stephan Rist, and Urs Wiesmann. 2018. “Polycentric Governance in Telecoupled Resource Systems.” Ecology and Society 23 (1): art16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09902-230116. Ocampo, Jose Antonio. 2016. Global Governance and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198785941.001.0001. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria. 2019. Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal. H. Res. 109. 116th Congress (2019-2020), 1st session. OECD. 2018. “Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060 - Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences - En - OECD.” 2018. http://www.oecd.org/environment/global-material-resources-outlook-to-2060- 9789264307452-en.htm. Oliver, Kathryn, Anita Kothari, and Nicholas Mays. 2019. “The Dark Side of Coproduction: Do the Costs Outweigh the Benefits for Health Research?” Health Research Policy and Systems 17 (1): 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

O’Reilly, Charles A., and Michael Tushman. 2016. Lead and Disrupt: How to Solve the Innovator’s Dilemma. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books, an imprint of Stanford University Press. Österblom, Henrik, Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, Carl Folke, and Johan Rockström. 2017. “Emergence of a Global Science–Business Initiative for Ocean Stewardship.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (34): 9038–43. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704453114. Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton Paperbacks. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 2011. “Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (1): 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x. Ostrom, Elinor, Marco A. Janssen, and John M. Anderies. 2007. “Going beyond Panaceas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39): 15176–78. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104. Otto, Ilona M., Jonathan F. Donges, Roger Cremades, Avit Bhowmik, Richard J. Hewitt, Wolfgang Lucht, Johan Rockström, et al. 2020. “Social Tipping Dynamics for Stabilizing Earth’s Climate by 2050.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (January) :2354–65. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900577117. Palutikof, Jean P., Roger B. Street, and Edward P. Gardiner. 2019. “Looking to the Future: Guidelines for Decision Support as Adaptation Practice Matures.” Climatic Change 153 (March): 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02404-x. Pascual, Unai, Patricia Balvanera, Sandra Díaz, György Pataki, Eva Roth, Marie Stenseke, Robert T Watson, et al. 2017. “Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Open issue, part II, 26–27 (June): 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006. Pattberg, Philipp, and Oscar Widerberg. 2016. “Transnational Multistakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Conditions for Success.” Ambio 45 (1): 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0684-2. Pearce, Catherine. 2019. “Guardians for Future Generations: Bringing Intergenerational Justice into the Heart of Policy-Making.” In Intergenerational Equity: Environmental and Cultural Concerns, edited by T Cottier, S Lalani, C Siziba, 52–63. Leiden, Neth.: Brill. Peattie, Ken. 2010. “Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35 (1): 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-032609- 094328. Pedde, Simona, Kasper Kok, Katharina Hölscher, Niki Frantzeskaki, Ian Holman, Rob Dunford, Alison Smith, and Jill Jäger. 2019. “Advancing the Use of Scenarios to Understand Society’s Capacity to Achieve the 1.5 Degree Target.” Global Environmental Change 56 (May): 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.010. Pereira, Laura, Niki Frantzeskaki, Aniek Hebinck, Lakshmi Charli-Joseph, Scott Drimie, Michelle Dyer, Hallie Eakin, et al. 2020. “Transformative Spaces in the Making: Key Lessons from Nine Cases in the Global South.” Sustainability Science 15 (1): 161–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x. Pereira, Laura, Nadia Sitas, Federica Ravera, Amanda Jimenez-Aceituno, and Andrew Merrie. 2019. “Building Capacities for Transformative Change towards Sustainability: Imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes.” Elem Sci Anth 7 (1): 35. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.374.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Perry, Andre, Jonathan Rothwell, and David Harshbarger. 2018. “The Devaluation of Assets in Black Neighborhoods: The Case of Residential Property.” Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018.11_Brookings- Metro_Devaluation-Assets-Black-Neighborhoods_final.pdf. Pershing, Andrew J., Nicholas R. Record, Bradley S. Franklin, Brian T. Kennedy, Loren McClenachan, Katherine E. Mills, James D. Scott, Andrew C. Thomas, and Nicholas H. Wolff. 2019. “Challenges to Natural and Human Communities from Surprising Ocean Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (37): 18378–83. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901084116. Peterson, Garry, Zuzana Harmáčková, Megan Meacham, Cibele Queiroz, Amanda Jiménez- Aceituno, Jan Kuiper, Katja Malmborg, Nadia Sitas, and Elena Bennett. 2018. “Welcoming Different Perspectives in IPBES: ‘Nature’s Contributions to People’ and ‘Ecosystem Services.’” Ecology and Society 23 (1): art39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 10134-230139. Pierson, Paul, and Michèle Lamont, eds. 2019. “Inequality as a Multidimensional Process.” Special Issue of Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Science 148 (3): 5–190. Piketty, Thomas. 2020. Capital and Ideology. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Polasky, Stephen, Benjamin Bryant, Peter Hawthorne, Justin Johnson, Bonnie Keeler, and Derric Pennington. 2015. “Inclusive Wealth as a Metric of Sustainable Development.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40 (1): 445–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- environ-101813-013253. Polasky, Stephen, Stephen R. Carpenter, Carl Folke, and Bonnie Keeler. 2011. “Decision- Making under Great Uncertainty: Environmental Management in an Era of Global Change.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26 (8): 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.007. Preiser, Rika, Reinette Biggs, Alta De Vos, and Carl Folke. 2018. “Social-Ecological Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Organizing Principles for Advancing Research Methods and Approaches.” Ecology and Society 23 (4): 46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446. Quintana, Anastasia, and Lisa M. Campbell. 2019. “Critical Commons Scholarship: A Typology.” International Journal of the Commons 13 (2): 1112–1127. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.925. Raskin, Paul. 2016. Journey to Earthland: The Great Transition to Planetary Civilization. 1. Aufl. Boston, MA: Tellus Institute. https://greattransition.org/publication/journey-to- earthland. Read, Rupert, and Tim O’Riordan. 2017. “The Precautionary Principle Under Fire.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 59 (5): 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2017.1350005. Renard, Delphine, and David Tilman. 2019. “National Food Production Stabilized by Crop Diversity.” Nature 571 (June): 257–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1316-y. Reyers, Belinda, Carl Folke, Michele-Lee Moore, Reinette Biggs, and Victor Galaz. 2018. “Social-Ecological Systems Insights for Navigating the Dynamics of the Anthropocene.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43 (1): 267–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Ribas, Aline, André F. P. Lucena, and Roberto Schaeffer. 2017. “Bridging the Energy Divide and Securing Higher Collective Well-Being in a Climate-Constrained World.” Energy Policy 108: 435–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.017. Rocha, Juan C., Garry Peterson, Örjan Bodin, and Simon Levin. 2018. “Cascading Regime Shifts within and across Scales.” Science 362 (6421): 1379–83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7850. Rogge, Karoline S., Florian Kern, and Michael Howlett. 2017. “Conceptual and Empirical Advances in Analysing Policy Mixes for Energy Transitions.” Energy Research & Social Science, Policy mixes for energy transitions, 33 (November): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025. Romsdahl, Rebecca, Gwendolyn Blue, and Andrei Kirilenko. 2018. “Action on Climate Change Requires Deliberative Framing at Local Governance Level.” Climatic Change 149 (3–4): 277–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2240-0. Roser, Max. 2019. Our World in Data. 2019. https://ourworldindata.org/. Rudel, Thomas K., and Monica Hernandez. 2017. “Land Tenure Transitions in the Global South: Trends, Drivers, and Policy Implications.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42 (1): 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060924. Rudel, Thomas K., Patrick Meyfroidt, Robin Chazdon, Frans Bongers, Sean Sloan, H. Ricardo Grau, Tracy Van Holt, and Laura Schneider. 2020. “Whither the Forest Transition? Climate Change, Policy Responses, and Redistributed Forests in the Twenty-First Century.” Ambio 49 (1): 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-01143-0. Ruggie, John Gerard. 2013. Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. First edition. Amnesty International Global Ethics Series. New York: W.W. Norton. ———. 2014. “Global Governance and ‘New Governance Theory’: Lessons from Business and Human Rights.” Global Governance 20 (1): 5–17. Sachs, Jeffrey D., Guido Schmidt-Traub, Mariana Mazzucato, Dirk Messner, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, and Johan Rockström. 2019. “Six Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Sustainability 2 (9): 805–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9. Sagarin, Raphael D., and Mary Turnipseed. 2012. “The Public Trust Doctrine: Where Ecology Meets Natural Resources Management.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1): 473–96. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-031411-165249. Sayles, J. S., M. Mancilla Garcia, M. Hamilton, S. M. Alexander, J. A. Baggio, A. P. Fischer, K. Ingold, G. R. Meredith, and J. Pittman. 2019. “Social-Ecological Network Analysis for Sustainability Sciences: A Systematic Review and Innovative Research Agenda for the Future.” Environmental Research Letters 14 (9): 093003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/ab2619. Schaffartzik, Anke, Andreas Mayer, Simone Gingrich, Nina Eisenmenger, Christian Loy, and Fridolin Krausmann. 2014. “The Global Metabolic Transition: Regional Patterns and Trends of Global Material Flows, 1950–2010.” Global Environmental Change 26 (May): 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.013. Scheffer, Marten. 2009. Critical Transitions in Nature and Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://hollis.harvard.edu/?itemid=%7Clibrary/m/aleph%7C012052676. Scheffer, Marten, Bas van Bavel, Ingrid A. van de Leemput, and Egbert H. van Nes. 2017. “Inequality in Nature and Society.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (50): 13154–57. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706412114.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Scheffer, Marten, Stephen R. Carpenter, Vasilis Dakos, and Egbert H. van Nes. 2015. “Generic Indicators of Ecological Resilience: Inferring the Chance of a Critical Transition.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 46 (1): 145–67. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054242. Scheidel, Walter. 2017. The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton Economic History of the Western World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Scheve, Kenneth, and David Stasavage. 2017. “Wealth Inequality and Democracy.” Annual Review of Political Science 20 (1): 451–68. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci- 061014-101840. Schlüter, Maja, L. Haider, Steven Lade, Emilie Lindkvist, Romina Martin, Kirill Orach, Nanda Wijermans, and Carl Folke. 2019. “Capturing Emergent Phenomena in Social-Ecological Systems: An Analytical Framework.” Ecology and Society 24 (3): art11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11012-240311. Schot, Johan, Alejandra Boni, Matias Ramirez, and Fred Steward. 2018. “TIPC Research Brief: Addressing the Sustainable Development Goals Through Transformative Innovation Policy.” 2018–01. Brighton, UK: Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium. Schot, Johan, and W. Edward Steinmueller. 2018. “Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change.” Research Policy 47 (9): 1554–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011. Schröder, Patrick, Philip Vergragt, Halina Szejnwald Brown, Leonie Dendler, Neal Gorenflo, Kira Matus, Jaco Quist, Christoph D. D. Rupprecht, Arnold Tukker, and Ronald Wennersten. 2019. “Advancing Sustainable Consumption and Production in Cities — a Transdisciplinary Research and Stakeholder Engagement Framework to Address Consumption-Based Emissions and Impacts.” Journal of Cleaner Production 213 (March): 114–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.050. Scoones, Ian. 2009. “Livelihoods Perspectives and Rural Development.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 171–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820503. ———. 2016. “The Politics of Sustainability and Development.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41 (1): 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615- 090039. Scoones, Ian, Melissa Leach, and Peter Newell, eds. 2015. The Politics of Green Transformations. Pathways to Sustainability. London; New York: Routledge. Scoones, Ian, Andrew Stirling, Dinesh Abrol, Joanes Atela, Lakshmi Charli-Joseph, Hallie Eakin, Adrian Ely, et al. 2020. “Transformations to Sustainability: Combining Structural, Systemic and Enabling Approaches.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42 (February): 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.004. Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale Agrarian Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press. SDSN Association. 2019. “Sustainable Development Solutions Network.” 2019. https://www.unsdsn.org/. Sen, Amartya. 2013. “The Ends and Means of Sustainability.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 14 (1): 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2012.747492. Sengers, Frans, Anna J. Wieczorek, and Rob Raven. 2019. “Experimenting for Sustainability Transitions: A Systematic Literature Review.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 145 (August): 153–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Seto, Karen C., Steven J. Davis, Ronald B. Mitchell, Eleanor C. Stokes, Gregory Unruh, and Diana Ürge-Vorsatz. 2016. “Carbon Lock-in: Types, Causes, and Policy Implications.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41 (1): 425–52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934. Seto, Karen C., Jay S. Golden, Marina Alberti, and B. L. Turner. 2017. “Sustainability in an Urbanizing Planet.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (34): 8935– 38. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606037114. Shah, Tushaar, Mark Giordano, and Aditi Mukherji. 2012. “Political Economy of the Energy- Groundwater Nexus in India: Exploring Issues and Assessing Policy Options.” Hydrogeology Journal 20 (5): 995–1006. http://dx.doi.org.ezp- prod1.hul.harvard.edu/10.1007/s10040-011-0816-0. Sheely, Ryan. 2015. “Mobilization, Participatory Planning Institutions, and Elite Capture: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural Kenya.” World Development 67 (March): 251–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.024. Siddiqi, Afreen, and Ross D Collins. 2017. “Sociotechnical Systems and Sustainability: Current and Future Perspectives for Inclusive Development.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Sustainability science, 24 (February): 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.006. Sikkink, Kathryn. 2020. The Hidden Face of Rights: Toward a Politics of Responsibilities. The Castle Lectures in Ethics, Politics, and Economics. New Haven: Yale University Press. Silvestre, Bruno S., and Diana Mihaela Ţîrcă. 2019. “Innovations for Sustainable Development: Moving toward a Sustainable Future.” Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (January): 325–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.244. Sitaraman, Ganesh, Morgan Ricks, and Christopher Serkin. 2020. “Regulation and the Geography of Inequality.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3527055. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3527055. Sitas, Nadia, Zuzana V. Harmáčková, Jonathan A. Anticamara, Almut Arneth, Ruchi Badola, Reinette Biggs, Ryan Blanchard, et al. 2019. “Exploring the Usefulness of Scenario Archetypes in Science-Policy Processes: Experience across IPBES Assessments.” Ecology and Society 24 (3): art35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11039-240335. Slate Staff. 2019. “Cashing in on Climate Change.” Slate Magazine, September 19, 2019. https://slate.com/business/2019/09/climate-change-crisis-companies-rich-lucky-farming- firefighting.html. Social Learning Group, William C. Clark, Jill Jäger, Jose VanEijndhoven, and Nancy Dickson, eds. 2001. Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, Vol 2: A Functional Analysis of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Acid Rain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Marie-Claire Brisbois. 2019. “Elite Power in Low-Carbon Transitions: A Critical and Interdisciplinary Review.” Energy Research & Social Science 57 (November): 101242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101242. Spangenberg, Joachim H. 2019. “Scenarios and Indicators for Sustainable Development: Towards a Critical Assessment of Achievements and Challenges.” Sustainability 11 (4): 942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040942. Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Opha Pauline Dube, Sébastien Dutreuil, Timothy M. Lenton, and Jane Lubchenco. 2020. “The

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Emergence and Evolution of Earth System Science.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1 (1): 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0005-6. Steffen, Will, Johan Rockström, Katherine Richardson, Timothy M. Lenton, Carl Folke, Diana Liverman, Colin P. Summerhayes, et al. 2018. “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (August): 8252– 59. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115. Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2012. The Price of Inequality. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton. ———. 2019. “Addressing Climate Change through Price and Non-Price Interventions.” European Economic Review 119 (October): 594–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.05.007. Stiglitz, Joseph E., Jean-Paul Fitoussi, and Martine Durand. 2019. Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-Being. New York: The New Press. Stirling, Andy. 2009. “Participation, Precaution and Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development.” In Governing Sustainability, edited by W. Neil Adger and Andrew Jordan, 193–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807756.011. ———. 2019. “How Deep Is Incumbency? A ‘Configuring Fields’ Approach to Redistributing and Reorienting Power in Socio-Material Change.” Energy Research & Social Science 58 (December): 101239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101239. Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Stokes, Leah C. 2020. Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States. Studies in Postwar American Political Development. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Suškevičs, Monika, Thomas Hahn, Romina Rodela, Biljana Macura, and Claudia Pahl-Wostl. 2018. “Learning for Social-Ecological Change: A Qualitative Review of Outcomes across Empirical Literature in Natural Resource Management.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61 (7): 1085–1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1339594. Tellman, Beth, Julia Bausch, Hallie Eakin, John Anderies, Marisa Mazari-Hiriart, David Manuel-Navarrete, and Charles Redman. 2018. “Adaptive Pathways and Coupled Infrastructure: Seven Centuries of Adaptation to Water Risk and the Production of Vulnerability in Mexico City.” Ecology and Society 23 (1): art1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09712-230101. Tessum, Christopher W., Joshua S. Apte, Andrew L. Goodkind, Nicholas Z. Muller, Kimberley A. Mullins, David A. Paolella, Stephen Polasky, et al. 2019. “Inequity in Consumption of Goods and Services Adds to Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Air Pollution Exposure.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (13): 6001–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818859116. Tilman, David, Forest Isbell, and Jane M. Cowles. 2014. “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 45 (1): 471–93. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091917. Torpey-Saboe, Nichole, Krister Andersson, Esther Mwangi, Lauren Persha, Carl Salk, and Glenn Wright. 2015. “Benefit Sharing among Local Resource Users: The Role of Property Rights.” World Development 72 (August): 408–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.005.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Trigeorgis, Lenos, and Jeffrey J. Reuer. 2017. “Real Options Theory in Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal 38 (1): 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2593. Tu, Chengyi, Samir Suweis, and Paolo D’Odorico. 2019. “Impact of Globalization on the Resilience and Sustainability of Natural Resources.” Nature Sustainability 2 (4): 283–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0260-z. Turner, B. L., Karen J. Esler, Peter Bridgewater, Joshua Tewksbury, Nadia Sitas, Brent Abrahams, F Stuart Chapin, et al. 2016. “Socio-Environmental Systems (SES) Research: What Have We Learned and How Can We Use This Information in Future Research Programs.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Sustainability science, 19 (April): 160–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.04.001. Turnhout, Esther, Willemijn Tuinstra, and Willem Halffman. 2019. Environmental Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy, and Society. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Tzvetkova, Sandra, and Cameron Hepburn. 2018. “The Missing Economic Measure: Wealth.” Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/the-missing-economic-measure-wealth. Underdal, Arild, and Taoyuan Wei. 2015. “Distributive Fairness: A Mutual Recognition Approach.” Environmental Science & Policy 51 (August): 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.009. United Nations. 2015. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2019. “Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. http://www.unenvironment.org/explore- topics/chemicals-waste/what-we-do/policy-and-governance/global-chemicals-outlook. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP. 2019. “Human Development Report 2019: Beyond Income, beyond Averages, beyond Today: Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century.” New York: UNDP. Veltmeyer, Henry. 2020. “Latin America in the Vortex of Social Change: Development and Social Movement Dynamics.” World Development 130 (June): 104916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104916. Venkataraman, Bina. 2019. The Optimist’s Telescope: Thinking Ahead in a Reckless Age. New York: Riverhead Books. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio, and Gustavo García-López. 2018. “Social Movements as Key Actors in Governing the Commons: Evidence from Community-Based Resource Management Cases across the World.” Global Environmental Change 53 (November): 114–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.005. Wang, Chao, Pezhman Ghadimi, Ming K. Lim, and Ming-Lang Tseng. 2019. “A Literature Review of Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Comparative Analysis in Developed and Developing Economies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 206 (January): 741–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.172. Webber, Sophie. 2019. “Putting Climate Services in Contexts: Advancing Multi-Disciplinary Understandings: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Climatic Change 157 (November): 1– 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02600-9.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

Weichselgartner, Juergen, and Berit Arheimer. 2019. “Evolving Climate Services into Knowledge-Action Systems.” Weather, Climate, and Society 11 (2): 385–99. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0087.1. Weiss, Edith Brown. 1988. In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity. Tokyo, Japan; Dobbs Ferry, NY: United Nations University; Transnational Publishers. Weisz, Helga, Sangwon Suh, and T. E. Graedel. 2015. “Industrial Ecology: The Role of Manufactured Capital in Sustainability.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (20): 6260–64. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1506532112. West, Simon, Lorrae van Kerkhoff, and Hendrik Wagenaar. 2019. “Beyond ‘Linking Knowledge and Action’: Towards a Practice-Based Approach to Transdisciplinary Sustainability Interventions.” Policy Studies 40 (5): 534–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1618810. Westley, Frances, Katharine McGowan, and Ola Tjörnbo. 2017. The Evolution of Social Innovation: Building Resilience Through Transitions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. White, Damian. 2020. “Just Transitions/Design for Transitions: Preliminary Notes on a Design Politics for a Green New Deal.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 31(2):20—39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2019.1583762. Wibeck, Victoria, Björn-Ola Linnér, Melisa Alves, Therese Asplund, Anna Bohman, Maxwell T. Boykoff, Pamela M. Feetham, et al. 2019. “Stories of Transformation: A Cross-Country Focus Group Study on Sustainable Development and Societal Change.” Sustainability 11 (8): 2427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082427. Wiebe, Keith, Monika Zurek, Steven Lord, Natalia Brzezina, Gnel Gabrielyan, Jessica Libertini, Adam Loch, Resham Thapa-Parajuli, Joost Vervoort, and Henk Westhoek. 2018. “Scenario Development and Foresight Analysis: Exploring Options to Inform Choices.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43 (1): 545–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030109. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1980. “Richer Is Safer.” The Public Interest / New York, 60:23–39. Williams, T. G., S. D. Guikema, D. G. Brown, and A. Agrawal. 2020. “Resilience and Equity: Quantifying the Distributional Effects of Resilience-Enhancing Strategies in a Smallholder Agricultural System.” Agricultural Systems 182 (June): 102832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102832. Wing, Scott, and Members of the Anthropocene Working Group. 2019. “Letters: ‘The Anthropocene Epoch Is Not Hubris.’” The Atlantic, October 11, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/letters/archive/2019/10/readers-defend-the-anthropocene- epoch/597571/. Wise, R. M., I. Fazey, M. Stafford Smith, S. E. Park, H. C. Eakin, E. R. M. Archer Van Garderen, and B. Campbell. 2014. “Reconceptualising Adaptation to Climate Change as Part of Pathways of Change and Response.” Global Environmental Change 28 (September): 325–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002. Wittmayer, Julia M., Flor Avelino, Frank van Steenbergen, and Derk Loorbach. 2017. “Actor Roles in Transition: Insights from Sociological Perspectives.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24 (September): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.003.

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. [Rev.]. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. http://hollis.harvard.edu/?itemid=%7Clibrary/m/aleph%7C001468050. Wyborn, Carina, Amber Datta, Jasper Montana, Melanie Ryan, Peat Leith, Brian Chaffin, Clark Miller, and Lorrae van Kerkhoff. 2019. “Co-Producing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44 (1): 319–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103. Yamaguchi, Rintaro, and Shunsuke Managi. 2019. “Backward- and Forward-Looking Shadow Prices in Inclusive Wealth Accounting: An Example of Renewable Energy Capital.” Ecological Economics 156 (February): 337–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.020. Yoshida, Yuki, Hirotaka Matsuda, Kensuke Fukushi, Shinya Ikeda, Shunsuke Managi, and Kazuhiko Takeuchi. 2018. “Assessing Local-Scale Inclusive Wealth: A Case Study of Sado Island, Japan.” Sustainability Science 13 (5): 1399–1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0540-y. Young, Oran R. 2011. “Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Existing Knowledge, Cutting-Edge Themes, and Research Strategies.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (50): 19853–60. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111690108. ———. 2017. Governing Complex Systems: Social Capital for the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 2018. “Research Strategies to Assess the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes.” Nature Sustainability 1 (9): 461–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0132- y. Zimmerman, Julie B., Paul T. Anastas, Hanno C. Erythropel, and Walter Leitner. 2020. “Designing for a Green Chemistry Future.” Science 367 (6476): 397–400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3060. Zucman, Gabriel. 2019. “Global Wealth Inequality.” Annual Review of Economics 11 (1): 109– 38. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-025852.

16 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS: RESEARCH PROGRAMS THAT HAVE SHAPED SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE

The main purpose of this Supplementary Material is to explain how we arrived at the list of influential research programs listed in Table 1 of Clark and Harley’s ARER review: “Sustainability Science: Toward a synthesis” ((Clark and Harley 2020): henceforth, in this note “the Review”). In addition, we provide additional information about those programs: their substantive focus, their “footprint” on sustainability science, and how future contributions from each of them can be tracked by interested researchers. Readers interested in a deeper dive into the bibliometric analyses that underlie the information summarized here are encouraged to consult a longer working paper we have prepared (Hurt, Harley, and Clark 2020). Wyatt Hurt did much of the data collection and analysis for this SI, and is the lead author on the working paper. We derived the final set of influential research programs provided in Table 1 of the main review from a longer preliminary list of candidate research programs that emerged from our initial discussions with colleagues, existing surveys of the sustainability science literature, and searches in various databases. Two big findings emerged from that preliminary work. First, the argument of Bettencourt and Kaur (2011) that the field of sustainability science had “unified” around the year 2000 may have been somewhat premature: many of the research programs in our candidate list are still relatively isolated from one another and are only now beginning to collaborate and draw from one another’s insights. Second, much scholarship that experienced researchers see as being highly relevant to sustainable development does not describe itself as “sustainability science.” That work is missed by literature searches requiring only that some variant of the word “sustainable” appear in titles, abstracts, or key words. Most published bibliometric studies seeking to identify and analyze scholarly contributions to our understanding of sustainable development have adopted just such expedients and are therefore seriously incomplete (e.g., Bettencourt and Kaur 2011; Buter and Van Raan 2013; Kajikawa, Saito, and Takeuchi 2017; Fang et al. 2018).

The strategy we found most useful to address the sobering findings of our preliminary survey of research on sustainability may be summarized as follows: • We began by treating each candidate research program as a potential source of scholarship relevant to sustainability, regardless of whether its publications commonly used the term. • Next, we sought to design a set of search terms that would reliably identify the subset of works published in that program that qualified as “sustainability science” as we had defined the field in our Review.a These search terms, and our strategy more generally, could in principle be applied to any database, including the “everything (books+journals)” catalogs of holdings in particular libraries now being offered by an increasing number of universities.b As a practical matter, we applied our terms only to the Web of Science (WoS), with all the advantages and limitations that use of this particular database entails.c In particular, we searched all indexes in the Web of Science Core Collection, restricting results to English-language articles, books, and book chapters only. (Note that the Review itself cites works from a larger range of sources, not all indexed by WoS.) • Our tuning of the search terms depended heavily on our own determination of whether the works a given combination of terms identified should qualify as “sustainability science.” We made the “qualification” judgment through our own

76 (admittedly subjective) reading of the title, abstract, and often substantial fractions of the body of the text in question. We performed this judgment for the most recent 100 works identified by a given configuration of search terms.d Most of the works that we “disqualified” through this close reading were clearly irrelevant to sustainable development. In addition, however, we disqualified a non-negligible number of works because they fell outside of the Pasteur’s quadrant focus of our review, i.e., they were plausibly relevant to sustainability, but were too much Bohr’s quadrant (basic research that may have provide foundations for sustainability studies but did not explicitly build sustainability arguments from those foundations) or too much Edison’s quadrant (applications to particular situations with little to offer our search for generalizable knowledge). • We continued tuning the search terms until we achieved an acceptable balance of Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Our first step was to achieve a result in which Type 1 errors (works identified by the search that we ultimately disqualified) were less than 10% of all the items identified in the search. (Most of our initial search term combinations in fact yielded a Type 1 error rate of less than 5%.) To limit Type 2 errors (works that we judged to be qualified, and thus should have been identified by the search, but were not), we experimented with less restrictive variations of each search. Our goal was to drive the Type 2 error rate down while maintaining a Type 1 error rate of 10% or less. We refer in what follows to the resulting list as “qualified works,” meaning that—in our judgment—they qualify as works centered in Pasteur’s quadrant and relevant to sustainable development. In short, they qualified as the “sustainability science” that was the focus of the Review.

The results of applying our strategy are summarized in Table SM1. Here are some highlights: • What search terms are needed to identify the most important works in sustainability science (column B)? We ultimately designed a search query combination that achieved our desired Type 1/Type 2 balance for each individual research program we investigated. These search query combinations are provided in Column B of Table SM1. This methodology is imperfect. Nevertheless, we think it is a powerful and comprehensive approach to understanding the broad contours of research contributing to sustainability science. Our results confirm the sad fact we noted earlier: any search strategy based on variations of the word “sustainable” alone will both turn up a lot of false positives (e.g., “sustainable sales strategy”) and miss a significant fraction of the all the scholarship relevant to sustainable development. Indeed, about a third of the total set of qualified works returned by the search queries in Table SM1 would have been missed by “sustainability” searches prevalent among bibliometric analyses of sustainability science, underscoring the need for more complex search strategies. To be practical and effective these search strategies must be tailored to the individual research programs listed in Table SM1. We have found it useful to create weekly WoS alerts for each of these search queries as a relatively easy if imperfect way of having our attention called to new publications in each research program on a regular basis. Here is how: https://clarivate.libguides.com/woscc/saving. We hope our readers will find the search queries useful for similar or related purposes of their own. We welcome suggestions for how the search queries can be used, and improved, to support the pursuit of sustainability. • How broad is the emerging field of sustainability science (Column C)? The magnitude of each research program’s offerings to sustainability science (specifically, to the Pasteur’s quadrant part of sustainability science) is shown in Column C: the count of qualified works in WoS identified by the search string in Column B for the period 2000–2019. Note that research programs that were included in our preliminary list, but that achieved very low scores on this metric, are excluded from this table and

77 from the simpler version of it published in the Review. In particular, new research programs that are just getting started may not yet score high enough to be included. Beyond these caveats, for all the reasons noted above, not much weight should be placed on the specific or perhaps even the relative counts listed in Column C: there are many limitations to the WoS database and different search queries would have produced different counts. Nonetheless, we were surprised by some of the results. And we suspect that most readers will find, as we did, that whichever research program(s) they consider to be their own “home” or starting place, there exist other programs that have produced a larger number of relevant offerings and therefore perhaps merit more attention than we are giving them in our respective efforts to shape a synoptic perspective on the emerging field of sustainability science. • Trends in number of qualified works in sustainability science (Column D): Trends in the number of qualified sustainability science works for each research program are shown in Column D. (The time period covered by our searches was usually set to cover only the period 2000–2019 because our Review was meant to cover that period, not the broader history of scholarship relevant to sustainable development. For this column only we extended the time period back to 1980 to let us explore which programs started early and which started late.) The general surge in publications over the last decade is clear if not surprising: the overall scientific literature relevant to sustainable development is now doubling every 3–4 years. (Column D shades in blue for each research program the years during which the most recent 50% of all qualified works were published. For the qualified works from all research programs combined—i.e., for what might be called the field of sustainability science—the time trend is shown in Table SM4.) More interesting, perhaps, is the suggestion from the trends of the listed research programs that some have long contributed to sustainability science and continue to do so today, while others are relatively new arrivals and still others may have already peaked in their contributions. We conclude that the field of sustainability science is growing rapidly in numbers of publications but also changing rapidly in terms of which research programs contribute most to those publications. • How many journals must a scholar read to keep up with sustainability science (Column E)? The 5 journals that publish the greatest number of qualified works for each research program are listed in Column E. (Where there is a tie in fifth place, we list more than five journals). Note that publications in the research programs are spread across a very large number of journals: the most commonly used journal for each program rarely publishes as much of 10% of all its qualified works. For all research programs combined, only one journal appears in the list of “5 journals with the most qualified publications” for two thirds of the research programs, and only four journals appear for more than a one third (see Table SM2). The situation is only slightly less daunting when we turn to the list of journals cited in the Review (see Table SM5). (These publications report what we judged to be some of the most significant and high-quality work in sustainability science. But to catch just one third of the articles cited in the Review requires keeping up with 5 different journals; to catch one half requires 10 journals; to catch two thirds requires 20 different journals. We conclude that there is no “short list” of journals that will let a diligent reader keep up with the field of sustainability science. This stands on contrast to many scholarly fields in which where keeping up with two to three journals is sufficient to have a good grasp of the most important recent literature in the field. • How many organizations must a scholar follow to keep up with sustainability science (Column F)? The 5 organizations whose researchers publish the greatest number of qualified works for each research program are listed in column F of Table SM1. Note that this research relevant to sustainable development is spread across a very large number of organizations, most

78 of which specialize in only a few of the research programs that have contributed to the field. In particular, the most prolific organization houses researchers who publish only 3% of the papers assembled through our search queries across all research programs (Table SM3). And any one organization is a major player in at most half of the research programs listed in Table SM1. We conclude that there is no “short list” of organizations that dominate research production across the multiple research programs contributing to sustainability science. • How influential are the various research programs that contribute to sustainability science (Column G)? The findings noted above have been based primarily on the total quantity of research output that our search strategies have identified as “qualifying” as, and contributing to, sustainability science. What we would most like to know, however, is the quality or influence of those programs. Col. G in Table SM1 reports a first step toward assessment of influence other than quantity. It does so by tabulating the number of citations to all of the works identified through our search queries in each of the listed research programs (Column C). The results, sadly, tell us little that we didn’t already know from the raw publication counts of Col. H: research programs that publish most get cited most. We conclude that there is no “short list” of research programs that dominate in the production of cited (and therefore, presumably, quality) research. • Contributions to this Review (columns H and I): Columns H and I of Table SM1 are the bridge from the details of bibliometric analysis reported here to the Review itself. Drawing on our close reading of the literature for each research program, we summarize in Col. H the contributions particular to each program that have, in our subjective judgment, done most to influence the course of contemporary sustainability science. As we note in the body of the Review, all the research programs listed in Table SM1 have been converging in recent years. They increasingly share the synoptic view of key questions, elements, and relationships that we have highlighted in the Review. Historically, however, each of the research programs listed here has brought something special to the party. It is those special contributions that we note in Col. H. Column I indicates the review paper(s) that we believe provides the best recent overview of each listed research program.

Table SM1: Research Program Bibliometrics: Publications relevant to sustainability science indexed in the Web of Science

A) Research B) Search query for WoS C) # of D) Publication trends in qualified works E) Journals publishing F) Organizations G) # of H) Special I) Recent review(s) of program name(s) qualified greatest number of supporting greatest citations contributions of research program, Final version produced works Plotted timeseries of search results. Columns are qualified works 2000- number of qualified to research selected by Clark & through the iterative 2000-2019 shaded blue for the years during which the most 2019 works 2000-2019 qualified programs from Harley 2020 method described above. recent 50% of all qualified works were published. works Clark & Harley Total # of Based on Web of Science 2000- 2020 works: attempts to index the 2019 20,813 affiliation of all authors (some listed on a given record. Includes works are self- returned by citations. multiple queries).

Complex adaptive TS = (“complex adaptive 107 Ecology and Society (6) Stockholm University (9) 4,119 Local action by Levin S, Xepapadeas T, systems (CAS) system*”) AND (TI = Ecological Economics (5) Princeton University (6) heterogeneous Crépin A-S, Norberg J, de (sustainab*) OR [all other (diverse) agents, Zeeuw A, et al. 2012. searches]) NOT SU = Journal of Cleaner North Carolina State constrained by Social-ecological systems (“computer science” OR Production (4) University (5) higher level as complex adaptive “general & internal”) Journal of Industrial Royal Swedish Academy of structures, central systems: modeling and Ecology (4) Sciences (5) role of innovation/ policy implications. 1 novelty Environ. Dev. Econ. Journal of Water University of North See footnote for details 18(2):111–32 Resources Planning and Carolina (5)

Management (4) Preiser R, Biggs R, De Vos A, Folke C. 2018. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecol. Soc. 23(4):46 Coupled human TS = ((("coupled human 356 Ecology and Society (48) Michigan State University 7,747 Reciprocal links Hull V, Liu J. 2018. and natural and natur*" OR "coupled PNAS (13) (64) between human Telecoupling: a new systems (CHANS) human-natur*") AND and natural frontier for global Sustainability (13) University of California system*) OR (telecoupled System (30) systems; special sustainability. Ecol. Soc. OR telecoupling)) Ambio (7) attention to links 23(4):41 Chinese Academy of across space Ecosystem Services (7) Sciences (20) Environmental Modelling United States Department Software (7) of Agriculture (17) Water Resources Humboldt University of Research (7) Berlin (15)

1 Full query for restricting all work in Complex Adaptive Systems to sustainability science: TS = ("complex adaptive system*") AND ((TI = (sustainab*)) OR (TS = ((("coupled human and natur*" OR "coupled human-natur*") AND system*) OR (telecoupled OR telecoupling))) OR (TS = (((human-environment* OR "human environment*") NEAR/5 coupl*) AND system*)) OR (TS = ("Earth system* governance")) OR (TS = ((“ecosystem service*” AND "sustainab*”) OR ("payments for ecosystem service*” OR "natural capital"))) OR (TS = ("Environmental justice")) OR (TS = ("social metabolism" OR "socioeconomic metabolism" OR "socio-economic metabolism" OR "industrial metabolism" OR "industrial ecology" OR (“circular economy” AND sustainab*))) OR (TS = ("Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services" OR IPBES)) OR (TS=((rural NEAR/4 livelihood*) OR "sustainable livelihood*" OR "livelihood* transformation*" OR "livelihood pathway*") NOT SU = ("veterinary sciences" OR entomology) NOT WC = (horticulture)) OR (TS = (“pathways” NEAR/2 sustainab*) NOT SU = (“chemistry” OR “microbiology”)) OR (TS = ("social-environmental system*" OR "socio-environmental system*")) OR (TS = (“socio-ecolog* system*” OR “socioecolog* system*”)) OR (TS = ("socio-technical transition*" OR "sociotechnical transition*" OR "sustainability transitions" OR "strategic niche management" OR (“multi-level perspective" AND (“socio-technical” OR “sociotechnical”)))) OR (TS = (((“production-consumption” OR “consumption-production” OR (production NEAR/2 consumption)) NEAR/2 system*) AND sustainab*)) OR (TS = ((“capital assets” OR “inclusive wealth” OR "comprehensive wealth" OR "genuine savings") AND (sustainab* OR well-being OR wellbeing)))) NOT SU = ("computer science" OR "general & internal") 80 Coupled human- TS = (((human- 97 Global Environmental Arizona State University 5,999 Place-based Moran EF. 2010. environment environment* OR "human Change (7) (7) analysis of Environmental Social systems (CHES) environment*") NEAR/5 Sustainability (5) ETH Zurich (7) linkages, Science: Human- coupl*) AND system*) emphasizing Environment Interactions Ecology and Society (4) University of Copenhagen physical and and Sustainability. Geografisk Tidsskrift (7) biotic Malden, MA: Wiley- Danish Journal of University of Guelph (7) environment; Blackwell actors and agency Geography (4) University of Waterloo (7) PNAS (4) Sustainability Science (4) Earth system TS = ("Earth system* 94 International Vrije Universiteit 2,561 Highlights Burch S, Gupta A, Inoue governance (ESG) governance") Environmental Amsterdam (30) importance of CYA, Kalfagianni A, Agreements: Politics, Lund University (16) institutional Persson Å, et al. 2019. Law, and Economics (12) design, agency, New directions in earth University of California Ecological Economics (6) and power for system governance System (14) governing nature- research. Earth Syst. Gov. Global Environmental Australian National society 1:100006 Change (5) University (7) interactions. Emphasis on Anthropocene Review (3) Chiang Mai University (7) transitions and Marine Policy (3) University of Oxford (7) inequality Ecosystem services TS = ((“ecosystem 7,695 Sustainability (385) Chinese Academy of 167,748 Goods and Peterson G, Harmáčková / natural capital service*” AND Ecosystem Services (322) Sciences (392) services flowing Z, Meacham M, Queiroz "sustainab*”) OR from functioning C, Jiménez-Aceituno A, et Ecological Economics Wageningen University & ("payments for ecosystem Research (265) ecosystems; role al. 2018. Welcoming service*” OR "natural (296) of institutions, different perspectives in capital")) Science of the Total University of California technologies in IPBES: “Nature’s Environment (205) System (191) shaping contributions to people” production of and and “Ecosystem services.” Land Use Policy (204) Beijing Normal University (177) human access to Ecol. Soc. 23(1):39 those services Centre National De La Bennett EM. 2017. Recherche Scientifique Research frontiers in (175) ecosystem service science. Ecosyst. N. Y. 20(1):31–37 Environmental TS = ("Environmental 3,333 International Journal of University of California 55,213 Focus on Agyeman J, Schlosberg justice (EJ) justice") Environmental Research System (298) inequality and D, Craven L, Matthews C. and Public Health (90) State University System of environmental 2016. Trends and Environmental Justice Florida (102) harm, highlights directions in (84) vulnerability of environmental justice: University of Texas System poor and from inequity to everyday Local Environment (59) (88) marginalized life, community, and just Environmental Health University of North communities to sustainabilities. Annu. Perspectives (57) Carolina (85) pollution, Rev. Environ. Resour. maldistributions 41(1):321–40 Geoforum (56) Autonomous University of of power Barcelona (73) Menton M, Larrea C, Latorre S, Martinez-Alier J, Peck M, et al. 2020. Environmental justice and the SDGs: from synergies to gaps and contradictions. Sustain Sci.

81 Industrial ecology / TS = ("social metabolism" 3,278 Journal of Industrial Yale University (92) 66,730 Focus on use of Haberl H, Wiedenhofer D, Social metabolism / OR "socioeconomic Ecology (919) Norwegian University of energy and Pauliuk S, Krausmann F, Circular economy metabolism" OR "socio- Journal of Cleaner Science and Technology biophysical Müller DB, Fischer- economic metabolism" OR Production (401) (86) resources; special Kowalski M. 2019. "industrial metabolism" attention to flows Contributions of OR "industrial ecology" Sustainability (201) Autonomous University of in and out of sociometabolic research to OR (“circular economy” Resources, Conservation Barcelona (84) manufactured sustainability science. AND sustainab*)) & Recycling (135) Chinese Academy of structures; Nat. Sustain. 2(3):173— technology 84 Ecological Economics Sciences (71) design; trade; (69) Delft University of adequacy of Loste N, Roldán E, Giner Technology (66) sources and sinks B. 2019. Is Green Chemistry a feasible tool for the implementation of a circular economy? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27:6215—27

Zimmerman JB, Anastas PT, Erythropel HC, Leitner W. 2020. Designing for a green chemistry future. Science 367(6476):397–400 IPBES conceptual TS = ("Intergovernmental 137 Environmental Science & Centre National De La 3,130 Focus on Díaz S, Pascual U, framework Platform on Biodiversity Policy (11) Recherche Scientifique (26) biodiversity Stenseke M, Martín- (Intergovernmental and Ecosystem Services" Innovation: The European Helmholtz Association (22) benefits for López B, Watson RT, et Platform on OR IPBES) people, al. 2018. Assessing Journal of Social Science Helmholtz Center for Biodiversity and Research (8) collaborative nature’s contributions to Ecosystem Environmental Research processes for fair people. Science Services) Biodiversity and (21) mobilization of 359(6373):270–72 Conservation (7) Wageningen University & multiple value, Sustainability Science (6) Research (12) multiple knowledge Ecology and Society (5) Universite De Montpellier systems (11) Livelihoods TS = ((rural NEAR/4 3,401 Sustainability (95) Wageningen University & 52,486 Local actors’ Scoones I. 2009. livelihood*) OR "sustaina World Development (72) Research (105) entitlements and Livelihoods perspectives ble livelihood*" OR "liveli capabilities to and rural development. J. Land Use Policy (68) Chinese Academy of hood* transformation*" O Sciences (86) secure access to Peasant Stud. 36(1):171– R "livelihood pathway*") Ecological Economics resources and 96 NOT SU = ("veterinary (52) University of Copenhagen their benefits; role sciences" OR (73) of agency, power, International Forestry entomology) NOT WC = ( politics, and Review (48) Center for International horticulture) Forestry Research (70) institutions

University of London (69)

Pathways to TS = (“pathways” 449 Journal of Cleaner University of Sussex (15) 8,520 Normative Leach M, Scoones I, sustainability NEAR/2 sustainab*) NOT Production (28) Wageningen University & emphasis on Stirling A. 2010. Dynamic SU = (“chemistry” OR Sustainability (18) Research (15) poverty Sustainabilities: “microbiology”) alleviation, local Technology, Environment, Ecology and Society (14) University of Oxford (13) knowledge and Social Justice. Sustainability Science University of California social justice as London/Wash., DC: (11) System (12) defined by and for Earthscan particular people Technological Stanford University (10) and contexts; Forecasting and Social analytic emphasis Change (11) on power, politics, roles of problem framing, and narratives

82 Resilience thinking TS = (resilien*) AND [all 1,794 Sustainability (109) Stockholm University (65) 48,033 Intertwined Reyers B, Folke C, Moore other searches] Ecology and Society (106) Arizona State University social/ecological M-L, Biggs R, Galaz V. systems as CAS 2018. Social-ecological Ecological Economics (52) 2 displaying systems insights for See footnote for details (37) University of California multiple regimes; navigating the dynamics Global Environmental System (52) tipping points; of the Anthropocene. Change (34) Wageningen University & fast vs. slow Annu. Rev. Environ. variables; coping Resour. 43(1):267–89 Ecosystem Services (32) Research (45) with risk, adaptive Commonwealth Scientific capacity and Industrial Research Organisation (43) Social- TS = ("social- 80 Ecology and Society (4) Arizona State University 2,064 Co-production of Turner BL, Esler KJ, environmental environmental system*" Environmental Modelling (6) useful knowledge Bridgewater P, systems OR "socio-environmental Software (4) University of California by actors and Tewksbury J, Sitas N, et system*") System (6) analysts; al. 2016. Socio- Current Opinion in boundary work; Environmental Systems Environmental Clark University (5) trust; power; (SES) Research: what Sustainability (3) University System of monitoring, have we learned and how Ecological Economics (3) Maryland (5) feedback for can we use this adaptive information in future PNAS (3) Wageningen University & management research programs. Curr. Research (5) Opin. Environ. Sustain 19:160–68 Socio-ecological TS = (“socio-ecolog* 1,110 Sustainability (39) University of California 18,626 “Action situation” McGinnis MD, Ostrom E. systems (SES) system*” OR Science of the Total System (42) focus on how 2014. Social-ecological “socioecolog* system*”) Environment (24) Centre National De La actors use system framework: initial Recherche Scientifique (35) resources in changes and continuing Journal of Environmental particular challenges. Ecol. Soc. Management (23) Wageningen University & contexts, role of 19(2):30 Ecological Indicators (22) Research (34) actors and institutions in Environmental Modelling Commonwealth Scientific governance Software (22) and Industrial Research Organisation (32) outcomes, and Environmental Science & multi-level (cross- Arizona State University Policy (22) scale) linkages (31) Socio-technical TS = ("socio-technical 1,281 Environmental Innovation University of Sussex (94) 32,876 Technology Markard J, Geels F, transitions / multi- transition*" OR and Societal Transition Erasmus University change and Raven R. 2020. level perspective "sociotechnical (101) Rotterdam (77) innovation as Challenges in the (MLP) / strategic transition*" OR Sustainability (97) multi-level, Acceleration of niche management "sustainability transitions" Utrecht University (67) evolutionary Sustainability Transitions. (SNM) OR "strategic niche Journal of Cleaner Eindhoven University of processes; Environ. Res. Lett., in management" OR (“multi- Production (94) Technology (54) transitions among press level perspective" AND socio-technical Energy Research & Social University of London (48) (“socio-technical” OR Science (75) regimes as whole- “sociotechnical”))) system, deep- Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki Technological structure, long N, Avelino F. 2017. Forecasting and Social term, path- Sustainability transitions Change (75) dependent, research: transforming incumbent actors science and practice for and institutions societal change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42(1):599–626

2 Full query for restricting all work in Resilience Thinking to sustainability science: TS = (resilien*) AND ((TS = ((("coupled human and natur*" OR "coupled human-natur*") AND system*) OR (telecoupled OR telecoupling))) OR (TS = (((human-environment* OR "human environment*") NEAR/5 coupl*) AND system*)) OR (TS = ("Earth system* governance")) OR (TS = ((“ecosystem service*” AND "sustainab*”) OR ("payments for ecosystem service*” OR "natural capital"))) OR (TS = ("Environmental justice")) OR (TS = ("social metabolism" OR "socioeconomic metabolism" OR "socio-economic metabolism" OR "industrial metabolism" OR "industrial ecology" OR (“circular economy” AND sustainab*))) OR (TS = ("Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services" OR IPBES)) OR (TS=((rural NEAR/4 livelihood*) OR "sustainable livelihood*" OR "livelihood* transformation*" OR "livelihood pathway*") NOT SU = ("veterinary sciences" OR entomology) NOT WC = (horticulture)) OR (TS = (“pathways” NEAR/2 sustainab*) NOT SU = (“chemistry” OR “microbiology”)) OR (TS = ("social-environmental system*" OR "socio-environmental system*")) OR (TS = (“socio-ecolog* system*” OR “socioecolog* system*”)) OR (TS = ("socio-technical transition*" OR "sociotechnical transition*" OR "sustainability transitions" OR "strategic niche management" OR (“multi-level perspective" AND (“socio-technical” OR “sociotechnical”)))) OR (TS = (((“production-consumption” OR “consumption-production” OR (production NEAR/2 consumption)) NEAR/2 system*) AND sustainab*)) OR (TS = ((“capital assets” OR “inclusive wealth” OR "comprehensive wealth" OR "genuine savings") AND (sustainab* OR well-being OR wellbeing)))) 83 Sustainable TS = (((“production- 138 Journal of Cleaner University of Manchester 3,655 Beyond control of Geels FW, McMeekin A, Consumption and consumption” OR Production (33) (6) pollution from Mylan J, Southerton D. Production (SCP) “consumption-production” Sustainability (10) University of London (5) production alone 2015. A critical appraisal OR (production NEAR/2 or consumption of sustainable consumption)) NEAR/2 Ecological Economics (6) Wageningen University & life styles alone to consumption and system*) AND sustainab*) Annual Review of Research (5) joint production research: the Environment and Chiang Mai University (4) consideration of reformist, revolutionary coupled and reconfiguration Resources (3) Chinese Academy of consumption and positions. Glob. Environ. Journal of Industrial Sciences (4) production Change 34:1–12 Ecology (3) activities Resources, Conservation Schröder P, Vergragt P, & Recycling (3) Brown HS, Dendler L, Sustainable Production Gorenflo N, et al. 2019. and Consumption (3) Advancing sustainable consumption and production in cities—a transdisciplinary research and stakeholder engagement framework to address consumption- based emissions and impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 213:114–25 Welfare, wealth, TS = ((“capital assets” OR 224 Ecological Economics Kyushu University (21) 3,283 Well-being across Irwin EG, Gopalakrishnan and capital assets “inclusive wealth” OR (29) Tohoku University (8) generations linked S, Randall A. 2016. "comprehensive wealth" to wealth defined Welfare, wealth, and Environmental Resource Arizona State University OR "genuine savings") Economics (9) by access to sustainability. Annu. Rev. AND (sustainab* OR (6) resource stocks Resour. Econ. 8(1):77–98 well-being OR wellbeing)) Sustainable Development Kobe University (6) from nature and (6) society; Managi S, Kumar P. London School of substitutability 2018, eds. Inclusive Journal of Environmental Economics and Political among stocks Wealth Report 2018: Management (5) Science (6) Measuring Progress Sustainability Science (5) The World Bank (6) Towards Sustainability. University of Cambridge London: Routledge. 1st (6) ed. University of London (6) University of St. Andrews (6) Yale University (6)

84 Table SM2: Which journals publish the greatest number of works relevant to sustainability science (across all research programs) This table displays: (1) journal name; (2) the total contribution of each journal as the percent of all qualified works identified in all of our searches (i.e., summed across all research programs, N = 20,813 works); (3) the number (N) of research programs for which each journal is one of those in which authors most frequently publish (i.e. number of appearances in Col. E of Table SM1).

1) Journal 2) Total 3) N Research Contributions Programs (% out of 20,813 (see caption) existing records) Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 0.52% 0 Ambio 0.39% 1 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 0.14% 1 Anthropocene Review 0.05% 1 Biodiversity and Conservation 0.24% 1 Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 0.29% 1 Ecological Economics 2.42% 9 Ecological Indicators 1.24% 1 Ecology and Society 1.47% 7 Ecosystem Services 1.65% 3 Energy Policy 0.62% 0 Energy Research & Social Science 0.47% 1 Environmental Health Perspectives 0.28% 1 Environmental Innovation and Societal Transition 0.51% 1 Environmental Justice 0.40% 1 Environmental Management 0.51% 0 Environmental Modelling Software 0.26% 3 Environmental and Resource Economics 0.20% 1 Environmental Science & Policy 0.72% 2 Forest Policy and Economics 0.58% 0 Geoforum 0.63% 1 Geografisk Tidsskrift Danish Journal of Geography 0.05% 1 Global Environmental Change 0.74% 3 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 0.07% 1 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics 0.10% 1 International Forestry Review 0.29% 1 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 0.66% 1 Journal of Cleaner Production 3.16% 5 Journal of Environmental Management 0.97% 2 Journal of Industrial Ecology 4.42% 3 Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 0.05% 1 Land Use Policy 1.50% 2 Landscape and Urban Planning 0.70% 0 Local Environment 0.37% 1 Marine Policy 0.53% 1 PLOS ONE 0.70% 0 PNAS 0.55% 3 Regional Environmental Change 0.59% 0 Resources, Conservation & Recycling 0.75% 2 Science of the Total Environment 1.40% 2 Sustainability 4.14% 10 Sustainability Science 0.64% 4 Sustainable Development 0.24% 1 Sustainable Production and Consumption 0.05% 1 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 0.47% 2 Water Resources Research 0.08% 1 World Development 0.49% 1

Table SM3: Which organizations support authors responsible for the greatest number of qualified works (across all research programs)? This table displays: (1) organization name; (2) the total contribution of each organization as the percent of works (articles, books, and book chapters) identified in our searches (i.e., summed across all research programs, N = 20,813 works); (3) the number (N) of research programs for which each organization is among those hosting researchers responsible for the greatest number of qualified works (i.e. number of appearances in Col. F of Table SM1.

1) Organization 2) Total Contribution 3) N Research 1) Organization 2) Total Contribution 3) N Research (% out of a total of Programs (% out of a total of Programs 20,813 research (see caption) 20,813 research (see caption) programs) programs) Arizona State University 1.94% 5 United States Department of Agriculture 0.08% 1 Australian National University 0.85% 1 Universite De Montpellier 0.26% 1 Autonomous University of Barcelona 0.29% 2 University of Arizona 0.63% 0 Beijing Normal University 1.40% 1 University of Berlin 0.04% 0 Center for International Forestry Research 0.61% 1 University of Bonn 0.57% 0 Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique 1.30% 3 University of British Columbia 1.09% 0 Chiang Mai University 0.17% 2 University of California System 4.20% 8 Chinese Academy of Sciences 1.07% 5 University of Cambridge 0.96% 1 Clark University 0.36% 1 University of Cape Town 0.55% 0 Colorado State University 0.86% 0 University of Colorado 0.59% 0 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Org. 0.06% 2 University of Copenhagen 1.06% 2 Cornell University 0.68% 0 University of East Anglia 0.73% 0 Delft University of Technology 0.78% 1 University of Edinburgh 0.66% 0 Duke University 0.64% 0 University of Exeter 0.53% 0 Eindhoven University of Technology 0.28% 1 University of Florida 0.89% 0 Erasmus University Rotterdam 0.70% 1 University of Guelph 0.29% 1 ETH Zurich 0.91% 1 University of Helsinki 0.80% 0 Ghent University 0.62% 0 University of Illinois 0.79% 0 Harvard University 0.50% 0 University of Leeds 1.48% 0 Helmholtz Association 1.22% 1 University of London 0.63% 4 Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research 0.87% 1 University of Manchester 0.83% 1 Humboldt University of Berlin 0.78% 1 University of Maryland 0.84% 0 Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research 0.79% 0 University of Melbourne 0.89% 0 James Cook University 0.73% 0 University of Michigan 1.31% 0 Kobe University 0.05% 1 University of Minnesota 1.09% 0 Kyushu University 0.32% 1 University of North Carolina 0.69% 2 London School of Economics and Political Science 0.21% 1 University of Oxford 1.12% 2 Lund University 1.14% 1 University of Pretoria 0.51% 0 McGill University 0.96% 0 University of Queensland 1.18% 0 Michigan State University 1.87% 1 University of Sao Paulo 0.58% 0 Monash University 0.56% 0 University of Sheffield 0.55% 0 National Autonomous University of Mexico 0.69% 0 University of Southampton 0.68% 0 National University of Singapore 0.50% 0 University of St. Andrews 0.21% 1 North Carolina State University 0.38% 1 University of Sussex 0.89% 2 Norwegian University of Science and Technology 0.64% 1 University of Sydney 0.53% 0 Ohio State University 0.88% 0 University of Texas System 0.73% 1 Oregon State University 0.70% 0 University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences 0.96% 0 Peking University 0.51% 0 University of Tokyo 0.72% 0 Penn State University 0.61% 0 University of Toronto 0.54% 0 Princeton University 0.26% 1 University of Vermont 0.82% 0 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 0.05% 1 University of Washington 0.66% 0 Stanford University 1.20% 1 University of Waterloo 0.59% 1 State University System of Florida 0.11% 1 University of Wisconsin 0.87% 0 Stockholm University 1.06% 2 University of Witwatersrand 0.51% 0 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 0.95% 0 University System of Maryland 0.92% 1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology 0.68% 0 U.S. Forest Service 0.53% 0 Texas A&M University 0.55% 0 Utrecht University 0.85% 1 The World Bank 0.36% 1 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 0.79% 1 Tohoku University 0.18% 1 Wageningen University & Research 2.42% 8 Tsinghua University 0.55% 0 Yale University 0.91% 2

Table SM4: Growth in Total Annual Production of Qualified Works This plot displays the number of qualified works published each year, summed across all research programs listed in Table SM1 (period covered: 1990 (year 0) to 2019 (year 29)). Columns are shaded blue for the years during which the most recent 50% of all qualified works were published.

Exponential fit curve: y = 9.360e .207(x) + 22.378 Residual standard error: 49.45 on 27 degrees of freedom

Table SM5: Journals Cited in the Review (Clark & Harley 2020) This table displays: (1) all journals cited by Clark & Harley 2020; (2) the count of times articles in those journals were cited in the Review. The appearance of multiple Annual Review publications in the list reflects in part Clark and Harley’s effort to cite recent reviews of specialized topics relevant to sustainability science. We note that one of the authors of this SM (WCC) is a member of the editorial board of PNAS. We worked hard to assure that this did not bias our selection of which articles to cite in the Review.

1) Journal 2) Count 1) Journal 2) Count Annual Review of Environment and Resources 25 Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 1 PNAS 25 Environmental Management 1 Ecology and Society 14 Environmental Policy and Governance 1 Global Environmental Change 11 Environmental Science and Pollution Research 1 Science 11 European Economic Review 1 Nature Sustainability 10 Global Environmental Politics 1 Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 9 Global Governance 1 Sustainability 8 Global Policy 1 Annual Review of Resource Economics 7 Global Sustainability 1 World Development 7 Globalization and Health 1 Environmental Research Letters 6 Health Research Policy and Systems 1 Research Policy 6 Hydrogeology Journal 1 Energy Research & Social Science 5 Industrial and Corporate Change 1 Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 Intergenerational Equity: Environmental and Cultural Concerns 1 Environmental Science & Policy 5 International Journal of the Commons 1 Journal of Cleaner Production 5 International Journal of Water Resources Development 1 Sustainability Science 5 JAMA Internal Medicine 1 Annual Review of Political Science 4 Journal of Economic Issues 1 Climatic Change 4 Journal of Economic Literature 1 Ecological Economics 3 Journal of Environmental Management 1 Ambio 2 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1 Annals of the American Association of Geographers 2 Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 1 Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2 Journal of Global Security Studies 1 Annual Review of Economics 2 Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 1 Annual Review of Sociology 2 Journal of Population Economics 1 Earth System Governance 2 Landscape and Urban Planning 1 Ecosystems 2 Nature Climate Change 1 Energy Policy 2 Nature Ecology & Evolution 1 Environment and Development Economics 2 Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1 Environmental and Resource Economics 2 Organization Science 1 Nature 2 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 1 Policy and Society 2 PLOS ONE 1 Policy Sciences 2 Policy Studies 1 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2 Policy Studies Journal 1 Agricultural Systems 1 Science, Technology, & Human Values 1 American University Law Review 1 Slate Magazine 1 Annual Review of Anthropology 1 Social Psychological and Personality Science 1 Behavioral Science 1 Strategic Management Journal 1 Bioscience 1 Sustainable Development 1 Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 1 Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 1 Capitalism Nature Socialism 1 Territory, Politics, Governance 1 Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Science 1 The Economic History Review 1 Development 1 The Journal of Peasant Studies 1 Development and Change 1 The Lancet Infectious Diseases 1 Earth System Dynamics 1 The Public Interest 1 Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 1 Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1 Environment, Development and Sustainability 1 Weather, Climate, and Society 1

References

Bettencourt, Luís M. A., and Jasleen Kaur. 2011. “Evolution and Structure of Sustainability Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (49): 19540–45. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102712108. Buter, R. K., and A. F. J. Van Raan. 2013. “Identification and Analysis of the Highly Cited Knowledge Base of Sustainability Science.” Sustainability Science 8 (2): 253–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0185-1. Clark, William C, and Alicia G Harley. 2020. “Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45 (accepted preprint). http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn- 3:HUL.InstRepos:42660129. Fang, Xuening, Bingbing Zhou, Xingyue Tu, Qun Ma, and Jianguo Wu. 2018. “‘What Kind of a Science Is Sustainability Science?’ An Evidence-Based Reexamination.” Sustainability 10 (5): 1478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051478. Garfield, Eugene. 1955. “Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas.” Science 122 (3159): 108–11. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108. Gusenbauer, Michael. 2019. “Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases.” Scientometrics 118 (1): 177–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5. Hurt, Wyatt W., Alicia G. Harley, and William C. Clark. 2020. “Searching for Sustainability Science: Practical Bibliometric and Curatorial Approaches.” 2020–02. Sustainability Science Program Working Paper. Cambridge, Massachusetts: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Kajikawa, Yuya, Osamu Saito, and Kazuhiko Takeuchi. 2017. “Academic Landscape of 10 Years of Sustainability Science.” Sustainability Science 12 (6): 869–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625- 017-0477-6. Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

ENDNOTES a From the Review: “We focus on the subset of research on sustainable development that seeks to produce generalizable guidance for use in practical problem solving, i.e., that resides in what historian Donald Stokes has termed “Pasteur’s quadrant” (Stokes 1997) . This means that we give short shrift to the important foundations of sustainability science that were built from curiosity- driven basic research in a variety of disciplines ranging from ecology to economics to history (i.e., work in Stokes’ “Bohr’s quadrant”). An overview of that work is available elsewhere. We also stop short of reviewing the application of sustainability science to solve particular problems in particular contexts (i.e., work in his “Edison’s quadrant”).” b An excellent example that we used extensively in our work is the Harvard Libraries “Hollis” catalog: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/hollishelp. c WoS is one of the most prominent collections of academic databases, containing over 67 million records categorized into 249 disciplines (Gusenbauer 2019). Founded in the 1950s by Eugene Garfield as the Institute for Scientific Information, the database began as a large body of ledgers that tracked scientific papers being published and how many times they were being cited (Garfield 1955). This system lives on in the modern Web of Science, which maintains a focus on citation network analysis, allowing users to see all references cited by a particular work (cited articles) as well as the publications which cite a particular work (citing articles). Thus, the Web of Science is useful for analyzing macro-scale citation and publication trends for authors, journals, institutions, and fields of research. Its curated nature means that WoS contains fewer records than more open (but less accurate) indexing services like Google Scholar, which contains approximately 389 million records (Gusenbauer 2019). While WoS index has exceptional coverage of journal articles, in general, it catalogs few books, almost no reports, and excludes a disproportionate number of newer journals. The limits of WoS in terms of its inclusivity have unfortunately impacted the results of Table SMI because some research programs, such as Earth System Governance (ESG), that have contributed to sustainability science tend to publish in journals and series that are not well indexed in WoS. Nevertheless, for tracking most research programs in sustainability science, WoS remains the imperfect best choice. See here (http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS535R69/help/WOS/hp_advanced_examples.html) for a catalog of the field tags, search operators, and wildcards used in the search queries above. d Or the total number of works, if that number was less than 100.

89 ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

17 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

a Well-being: an integrating concept of the good life, the constituents of which will vary among people and across time b Capacity: the intention and the ability to accomplish a task or achieve an outcome c Anthropocene System: a term for what some call the earth system or world system that better captures the increasingly global and intimate intertwining of nature and society (Wing and Members of the Anthropocene Working Group 2019) d Informed agitation: the arousing of public concern about an issue, through the means of knowledge sharing, research, and deliberation, for the purpose of bringing about action (Sen 2013) e Frameworks: the most general form of conceptualization in science; provide checklists or building blocks for consideration in constructing theories or models (Ostrom 2011) f Elements: variables or components of structure; may be coupled via functional relationships or processes g Pathways of development: temporal changes in patterns of observed or predicted covariation in nature and society h Governance: the arrangements by which any collectivity, from the local to the global, seeks to manage its common affairs (Ruggie 2014) i Actors: entities with agency—the ability to choose or decide; they include people, communities, firms, other organizations, and states, but also some nonhuman organisms and their assemblages (see also our definition for power) j Institutions: the rules, norms, rights, culture, and widely shared beliefs that shape the behavior of social actors in their relationships with one another and with nature k Power: the ability of actors to deploy their agency in ways that affect the beliefs or actions of other actors l Complex adaptive systems (CAS): relationships among diverse elements that give rise to novelty and dynamics that feed back on those elements and relationships, resulting in a continually evolving system m Heterogeneity: characteristics of actors and other elements that are distinctive and cannot be understood in terms of averages (also referred to as individuality or diversity) n Polycentric: systems with multiple sources of partial authority and semiautonomous decision- making that interact to create multi-level governance arrangements o Regimes: sets of dominant relationships (both natural and social) that give rise to characteristic dynamics and development pathways p Threshold: condition at which small changes can have big effects, leading to qualitatively different pathways of development; closely related to tipping point and catastrophic bifurcation q Action situations: contexts of nature–society interactions in which particular actors, operating in particular institutional structures, make choices about using particular resources to achieve their particular goals r Capital assets: resource stocks—both natural and anthropogenic—on which society draws for its well-being (see Table 2)

ARER 45 (2020) Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis Clark & Harley

s Productive base: the total set of resource stocks or capital assets on which society draws for its well-being t (In)equity: a normative concept referring to the qualities of justness, fairness, and impartiality u (In)equality: a positive or descriptive concept referring to the distribution of assets or freedoms among actors v Incumbency: relationships among actors and institutions through which power differentials shape, stabilize, and reinforce existing regimes and their associated development pathways w Adaptation: response to potentially disruptive change that seeks to limit damage or seize opportunities for improvement to a development pathway within a regime (contrast with transformations, resilience) x Risk: the prospect of loss or gain under uncertainty of something thought to be of value, often incorporating estimates on the likelihood of a change and consequences if the change occurs y Vulnerability: the likelihood that a particular subpopulation will lack or lose access to the resources they need to secure their well-being in the face of disruptions z Resilience: a system’s ability to utilize the “breathing room” provided by its robustness to disturbance to fundamentally change how it uses resources under the new conditions (see also adaptation, transformations) aa Innovation: the interplay of actors, institutions, goals, and resources through which new artifacts and practices are invented, selected, adapted, adopted, and brought into widespread use bb Disruptions: shocks, surprises, innovation, and the unfolding unknown cc Adaptation pathways: dynamical, and typically path-dependent, sequences of adaptations in which early adaptations influence the conditions that call for later adaptations dd Hysteresis: the tendency of a system change to be irreversible even when forces that caused the change are reversed ee Transformations: shifts from one regime and its associated development pathways to another; also called transitions (contrast with adaptation) ff Multi-level perspective (MLP): a hierarchical framework for analyzing innovation in sociotechnical systems gg Imaginaries: collectively held visions of good or attainable futures that serve to envision the possible and motivate action toward new development pathways hh Co-production: knowledge and society continually shaping each other in a dynamic, path- dependent process ii Safe spaces: institutional arrangements that encourage experimentation and the timely acknowledgment of error jj Boundary work: process through which research communities organize their relations with new science, other sources of knowledge, and the worlds of action and policy-making kk Fit: emphasizes the importance of matching governance arrangements to the characteristics of the action situation being governed ll Logics of appropriateness: the idea that action is often driven by norms of behavior rather than by rules and regulations alone; asks “what does a person such as I do in a situation such as this?” (March and Olsen 2011) mm Public Trust Doctrine (PTD): holds that governments have a legal duty to hold certain natural resources in trust on behalf of present and future citizens nn Reflexive governance: governance arrangements that promote the ability to question one’s own core commitments