The Ruffolo Curriculum on Sustainability Science

7/28/2019 The Ruffolo Curriculum on Sustainability Science

1/43

The Ruffolo Curriculum on

Sustainability Science2008 Edition

Krister Andersson, Michael Burns, Marcel Bursztyn,Adam Douglas Henry, Ann Laudati, Kira Matus, and

Elizabeth McNie

CID Graduate Student and Research Fellow WorkingPaper No. 32

December 2008

Copyright 2008 Krister Andersson, Michael Burns, MarcelBursztyn, Adam Douglas Henry, Ann Laudati, Kira Matus,Elizabeth McNie, and the President and Fellows of Harvard

College

at Harvard UniversityCenter for International DevelopmentWorking Papers


2/43

The Ruffolo Curriculum on Sustainability Science

2008 Edition

Krister Andersson, Michael Burns, Marcel Bursztyn, Adam Douglas Henry, Ann Laudati, KiraMatus, Elizabeth McNie

Abstract

The growing attention to sustainability science in recent years underscores the need formore clarification on several key questions that inhibit development within the field. Centralamong these questions are: What is sustainability science, and how is it distinct from sustainabledevelopment or other established disciplines that contribute to sustainability science? What arethe key research questions, and how does one engage in sustainability science? How do we teachsustainability science? This working paper, presented as a graduate-level curriculum insustainability science, represents our attempt to answer these questions. We expect thiscurriculum to grow and evolve as it is applied in different institutional settings, and we inviteusers to participate in future revisions or use this curriculum as a template for their own needs.The general format of the curriculum includes a theoretical core of sustainability science, definedcollectively by narratives and key readings within 11 individual modules. Modules alsoemphasize applications of the theoretical concepts to practical problems of sustainability; wesuggest various applications that may be substituted with preferred applications as needed.

Keywords: sustainability science, environment, development, curriculum, social-ecologicalsystems, coupled human-natural systems

JEL subject codes: A23, Q01, O13, Q56, Q58


3/43


4/43

Editorial Board

Adam Douglas Henry (managing editor), Sustainability Science Program, Harvard Univ.Krister Andersson, Dept. of Political Science, University of Colorado at Boulder

Michael Burns, Sustainability Science Research Programme, Council for Scientific andIndustrial Research in South Africa

Marcel Bursztyn, Centro de Desenvolvimento SustentavelUniversidade de BrasiliaAnn Laudati, College of Natural Resources, Utah State Univ.Kira Matus, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ.Elizabeth McNie, Dept. of Political Science, Purdue Univ.

Publishers

William Clark, Sustainability Science Program, Harvard Univ.Nancy Dickson, Sustainability Science Program, Harvard Univ.


5/43


6/43

1

Preface to the Ruffolo Curriculum

The Ruffolo Curriculum is the product of a seminar organized by research fellows andfaculty within the Sustainability Science Program at Harvard Universitys Center for International

Development. This seminar was meant to be a forum for fellows to discuss key researchquestions within sustainability science and to collectively work to advance the practice ofsustainable developmentthat is, to ensure the long-term well-being of humans withoutjeopardizing the integrity of ecological systems. Of course, dealing with problems ofsustainability requires the synthesis of ideas and methodologies from a wide range of disciplines.We quickly realized that successfully working together depends, first and foremost, on our abilityto speak a common language in which to discuss issues of sustainability. This curriculumrepresents our shared efforts to develop such a language.

We had three main goals in preparing this curriculum. First, this curriculum attempts todefine the field of sustainability science by collecting multiple research traditions into a centraltheoretical core. Our interpretation of this central core is reflected in the narratives that appearin each of the eleven modules that comprise the Ruffolo Curriculum. Second, this curriculum

demonstrates how one engages in sustainability science by providing applications of the coreideas to practical problems of sustainable development. Although these applications are lesswell-developed, each module contains at least a few readings that illustrate how the theoreticalideas presented in each module have been applied to real-world problems. Our third goal is toemphasize that sustainability science requires a conception of knowledge and science thattranscends classical boundaries. We argue that sustainability science requires soliciting diverseexperiences and world viewsthus we encourage teaching sustainability science in a way thatreflects this knowledge integration characteristic by encouraging active dialogue and learning.

This curriculum is not meant to be the final word on sustainability science, but is rather astarting point. We therefore expect the Ruffolo Curriculum to grow and evolve as is it applied indifferent institutional settings, and as we benefit from the input of new talent and fresh ideas. Toaccomplish this, we plan to reproduce this curriculum on a yearly basis, and to maintain an online

library of additional media that may be used as supplemental teaching materials.The Ruffolo Curriculum is named in honor of Giorgio Ruffolo, Italys first minister ofthe environment. In 2007, the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land, and Sea made agenerous gift to the Center for International Development to support the Giorgio RuffoloFellowships in Sustainability Science. This fellowship program provides a forum for scholarsand practitioners from around the world to advance the field of sustainability science, one resultof which was our seminar series and this curriculum project.


7/43


8/43

3

puzzles will require a great deal of prior micro-questioning, and will likely involveresearch efforts that transcend multiple disciplines and employ multiple methodologies.The overarching purpose of this curriculum is to provide guidance on how one can makea practical start in sustainability science by outlining a set of knowledge with which allsustainability scientists should be familiar.

We introduce sustainability science by focusing first on characteristics that webelieve collectively define the field. These characteristics are interwoven throughout theindividual modules, and each carry implications for the way in which various disciplinaryperspectives are employed within sustainability science.

Sustainability science is problem-drivenSustainability science emerged from the recognition that we face severe problems

of ecological degradation and human poverty, and that these problems are inextricablyrelated. This implies that normative goals and questions play a prominent role insustainability science, since at some point we are required to make judgments regardingthe problems to be solved and the tradeoffs that we are willing to make in solving these

problems.But while the issue ofwhich problems we are going to study is a normativequestion, how we study them is a positive question. Because of the critical importance ofthese normative concerns in sustainability science, the best strategy is to explicitlyaddress the normative component of our research questions rather than assume themaway or work to build an artificial separation between the positive and normative aspectof scientific research. We do this by immersing sustainability science in a pool ofcompeting values, rather than avoiding values.

Sustainability science focuses on the interactions between human and natural systemsAlthough sustainability science draws upon many different research traditions, we

focus in particular on how those research traditions help to understand the complexintersections between social and ecological systems. Focused study of individualsystems (e.g., social or ecological) is certainly important, but that is left to other fields ofinquiry.

This means that sustainability science faces the particularly difficult problem ofcreating a common language between scholars who have traditionally studied socialsystems and scholars who have traditionally studied ecological systems.

Building a science of sustainability requires integrating multiple forms of knowledgeIn addition to building a common language between scholars of natural and social

systems, a major goal of sustainability science is to build dialogue and collaborationacross different sectors of the knowledge enterprise, such as academics, practitioners inthe field, and local stakeholder groups. Sustainability science must also accommodatemultiple knowledge systems, from local traditional knowledge to standard reductionistscientific knowledge, even though these systems are traditionally at odds with eachother.


9/43


10/43


11/43


12/43


13/43


14/43

9

Study Questions

1) For what purpose do we conserve nature?

2)

Is there a need to universalize values in a diverse world, and how might this be done?

3) Which are more important: common values or social contracts aimed at sustainabledevelopment?

4) Which principles and values are indispensable, and which are just desirable?

5) Can we expect to tackle environmental challenges without previously (orsimultaneously) facing social challenges (such as hunger, poverty, health andeducation)?

Key Readings

Dietz, T., A. Fitzgerald, and R. Shwom (2005). Environmental Values. Annual Review

of Environment and Resources 30: 335372.

Leiserowitz, A. A., R. W. Kates, and T.M. Parris (2006). Sustainability Values,Attitudes, and Behaviors: A Review of Multinational and Global Trends.Annual Review

ofEnvironment and Resources 31: 413444.

Application Readings: Air Quality

US Environmental Protection Agency (1999). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean AirAct 1990 to 2010. Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy, Washington D.C.

Matus, K., T. Yang, S. Paltsev, J. Reilly, and K-M Nam (2008). Toward IntegratedAssessment of Environmental Change: Air Pollution Health Effects in the USA.Climatic Change 88: 5992.

Supplementary Readings

Curry, P. (2006). Ecological Ethics. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Dietz, T. (2001). Thinking about Environmental Conflicts. In Lisa M. Kadous (Ed.).Celebrating Scholarship. Fairfax, Virginia: College of Arts and Sciences, George MasonUniversity.


15/43


16/43


17/43


18/43


19/43


20/43


21/43

16

pragmatic 4-step process or framework for analyzing resilience in social-ecologicalsystems as a basis for managing system resilience. The first step involves theparticipatory construction of a conceptual model of the system, incorporating insights thatexplain how the system got to be what it is. Step 2 involves a scenario-type process ofenvisioning some plausible system futures, contrasting some extreme examples. Step 3

comprises a resilience analysis based on simple models of the systems dynamics, whichcan be used to explore attributes that affect resilience (latitude, resistance, precariousness,etc.). Step 4 involves stakeholder evaluation of the process and outcomes in terms ofpolicy and management implications.

OFarrell, P., D. Le Maitre, C. Gelderblom, D. Bonora, T. Hoffman, and B. Reyers.(2008). Applying a Resilience Framework in the Pursuit of Sustainable Land-use in theLittle Karoo, South Africa. In M. Burns and A. Weaver (Eds). Exploring sustainabilityscience: A southern African perspective. Stellenbosch, South Africa, AFRICAN SUNMeDIA.

Synopsis: The authors describe the rangeland management policies in South Africassemi arid Little Karoopolicies that have singularly focused on the short termachievement of maximum yields from ecosystems. Locked into this production paradigm,social-ecological system resilience is shown to have been progressively compromised bya series of external shocksdroughts, floods, constraints in supply of financial capital, etcetera. Analysis of the system response to these shocks using a resilience framework,which incorporates scientific as well as local community knowledge, clearly reveals atrend towards system decay. Scenarios are used to inform adaptive management options,and one of these describes a situation in which a broad economic base is established inthe region - an alternative to the prevailing narrow agricultural option. This is shown tooffers possibilities for the social-ecological system to more easily absorb and respond toenvironmental and economic shocks of the type that have historically compromised itsresilience.

Walker, B., and D. Salt. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and Peoplein a Changing World. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Synopsis: This is an accessible entre into complex ecological and social interactions,from an ecologists perspective. It presents 5 case studies.

Supplemental Readings

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.Annual Review ofEcological Systems 4:123.

Synopsis: A seminal foundational publication on resilience theory (focused onecosystems).


22/43


23/43


24/43


25/43


26/43


27/43


28/43

23

47(2): 175205.

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162(3859): 12431248.

Hooghe, L., and G. Marks (2003). Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of

Multilevel Governance.American Political Science Review 97(2): 233243.

Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi (2003). Governance Matters III:Governance Indicators for 19962002. Working Paper, Washington DC: The WorldBank. Accessible online at:www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata2002/.

Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007). Beyond Panaceas in Water Institutions.Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 104(39): 1520015205.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Olowu, D., and J. S. Wunsch (1990). The Failure of the Centralized State: Institutionsand Self-Governance in Africa. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata2002/http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata2002/http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata2002/http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata2002/


29/43

24

Module 7

Introduction to the Analysis of Governance

Adam Douglas Henry

Governance arrangements have the potential to both promote and hindersustainable outcomesthus it is crucial to better understand the complex relationshipsbetween governance, human behavior, and sustainability. This requires theoretical toolsto systematically analyze governance systems. Such tools allow us to better understandthe circumstances under which governance may act as a hinge to promote sustainableoutcomes.

This module emphasizes two key messages. First, governance systems areextremely complex and cannot be understood without the aid of a simplifying framework.Second, it is usually beneficial to apply multiple theoretical frameworks to understandthese systems. Different frameworks are often useful for explaining differentphenomena, and the application of multiple theoretical perspectives to understand asingle problem often yields more than the sum of the parts.

Simplification is crucial because governance systems typically involve manyhundreds of actors, operating in multiple capacities at different scales of government, allmarshalling a variety of resources to achieve their goals. Given some phenomenon to beexplainedsuch as why policy responses to global environmental problems often lagbehind the state of the sciencethe typical number of variables to be considered isstaggering. It is therefore necessary to simplify analysis. This is done by applying one ormore theoretical frameworks that help to guide inquiry; these frameworks specify the

actors to be included in an analysis, their roles and motivations, and allow us to predictthe eventual relationships between governance arrangements and sustainability.

As an application of the analysis of governance, this module presents twopromising candidate frameworks that may be used to analyze complex governancesystems and their impact on sustainability. These include the Advocacy CoalitionFramework (ACF) and a recent variant of the Institutional Analysis and Development(IAD) framework, both of which have been extensively applied to understanding issuesof environmental policy and natural resources management. Applying these twoframeworks to analyze a single system can illuminate unique but important aspects ofgovernance for sustainability.

Key Readings

Sabatier, P. (1999). The Need for Better Theories. Pp. 317. In P. Sabatier (Ed.).Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.

Ostrom, E. (2007). A Diagnostic Approach for Going Beyond Panaceas.Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 1518115187.


30/43


31/43


32/43


33/43


34/43


35/43


36/43

31

Module 9

Transdisciplinarity

Michael Burns

Fragmentation is a metaphor to describe fractures in human-environmentrelationships, but also applies to the tendency within science to understand the world inits myriad separate parts. Nicolescu (2002: 34) describes this phenomenon of knowledgefragmentation as the disciplinary big bang, where new scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines are established at an exponential rate. This tendency arises from the principlethat different cognitive challenges are addressed most efficiently through separatedisciplines (Morin 2007). This is perhaps not unexpected given Foucaults (1974)

explanation of the extent to which codes of human culture on the one hand (such as thosethat determine values), and scientific theory and philosophical interpretation on the other,lead humans to order things in fragmented ways (Rapport 2000).

Although this tendency towards disjunction in knowledge production is no doubtproductive, it provides an insufficient basis for understanding the complex systemicchallenges of sustainable development. None of these challenges are contained withinthe boundaries of a single discipline (Daily and Ehrlich 1999; Lawrence and Depres2004; Max-Neef 2005). The challenges of sustainable development can only beapproached through the integration of knowledge between and beyond disciplines, and itis in response to this requirement that the concept oftransdisciplinarity has emerged.

Describing transdisciplinarity, Max-Neef (2005) presents what he refers to as thecontinuum of the discipline. This continuum encompasses the isolated specialization of

disciplinary research, the weak integration that occurs through multidisciplinary researchand the high degree of cooperation and/or integration achieved through interdisciplinaryresearch. Max-Neef (2005) describes cooperative interdisciplinary research as beingdetermined by the coordination that is effected from a higher research level on researchcontributions generated at a lower level, thereby giving these latter contributions adefined purpose. Medicine, for example, becomes interdisciplinary as it draws fromlower level disciplines of biology, chemistry, psychology, et cetera. However,cooperation achieved through interdisciplinary research provides no guarantee that theknowledge that is produced will respond to the needs of knowledge users (e.g. policymakers), will be interpreted correctly or will be put to practical effect in advancingsustainable development. It is in this context that the requirement for transdisciplinarity

arises (Max-Neef 2005; Hadorn et al. 2006).Lawrence and Depres (2004) describe transdisciplinarity as responding to four

essential requirements: acknowledgement of the complexity of human-environment relationships, which defy

understanding using traditional scientific approaches, a sensitivity to epistemologies that may differ from rational utilitarian valuation of

human-environment relationships, avoiding fragmentation of knowledge and expertise, and


37/43


38/43


39/43


40/43


41/43


42/43


43/43

The Ruffolo Curriculum on Sustainability Science

Documents