Complexity, ambiguity, and the boundaries of the future: Toward a reflexive scenario practice in sustainability science

The future of humanity and the biosphere is complex and increasingly uncertain, complicating efforts to understand and address 21st century environmental crises like biodiversity loss and climate change. Transdisciplinary scenario practice offers a promising avenue to make sense of this complexity and uncertainty. Scenarios are often defined as coherent, internally consistent, and plausible descriptions of the potential future trajectories of a system, and transdisciplinarity is an integrative, problem-oriented, and societally embedded research paradigm that aims to generate knowledge about complex and contested problems. However, despite its promise, transdisciplinary scenario practice grapples with persistent ambiguity (i.e., the existence of multiple valid frames), which emerges from the plural values and perspectives of diverse actors involved in knowledge production, resistance to integration via any singular frame offered by an individual discipline, and the inherent complexity of sustainability challenges. The lack of concepts, frameworks, and tools to operationalize ambiguity presents risks to the salience and legitimacy of transdisciplinary scenario practice. Ambiguity renders any scenario process as a partial framing of the future that focuses attention on what is most relevant and is contingent on how it was produced. Reflexivity (i.e., the process of examining how one’s own beliefs, judgments, and practices influence the research) is cited as a crucial capacity for navigating such ambiguity, yet its role in sustainability science, and in scenario practice, remains unclear. Without reflexivity, those developing and using the scenarios are left without the means or motivation to critically reflect on how the scenarios are produced, their underlying assumptions, and their strengths and limitations for different modes of application. Further, the boundaries that delineate what future conditions and values are included and excluded from the scenarios are rendered invisible. This gap influences the salience and legitimacy of the scenarios to real-world sustainability challenges, particularly amid contemporary demands to enrich scenarios with the novel and potentially transformative conditions of the 21st century. This dissertation explores two opportunities to operationalize ambiguity through reflexivity in transdisciplinary scenario practice. First, the field of operational research has a multi-decade history grappling with theoretical and practical aspects of ambiguity through critical systems thinking (CST), offering opportunities for sustainability science. Second, most scenario methods require implicit trade-offs that reduce or ignore aspects of complexity (and thus ambiguity), failing to get the “big picture” roughly right. Semi-quantitative scenario methods like cross-impact balances (CIB) produce internally consistent scenarios by systematically and reflexively integrating diverse drivers of change, thereby reconciling some of these trade-offs and offering a promising yet underutilized scenario method for sustainability science. Paper I aimed to contribute to reflexive scenario practice in sustainability science by making ambiguity explicit and operational using the lens of CST. This investigation generated the Boundaries of the Future framework, a novel synthesis of literatures that characterizes how key boundary judgments (i.e., choices that delineate what is included or excluded from a system) involved in the design of a scenario process influence the scope of future potential (i.e., future conditions and values) reflected in scenario outcomes, and proposes the degree to which this scope of future potential may reflect the dynamics of, and/or conditions for, social-ecological systems (SES) change (i.e., a dominant complexity-based lens that views high-level system behavior as emerging from social-ecological and cross-scale interactions and feedbacks). The most expansive choice under each of the ten boundary judgments in the framework enriches scenarios with the conditions for transformation (i.e., fundamental, systemic shifts away from existing systems; desirable or undesirable; navigated or unintended). The framework can be operationalized as an ex ante or ex post reflexive tool in sustainability research and practice by rendering each of the ten boundary judgments as an explicit site of critical reflection in a scenario process. Doing so can improve the salience and legitimacy of the scenarios, including by enriching scenarios with the potential for transformation. Paper II aimed to explore the potential for semi-quantitative scenario methods to enrich scenario practice for a) the development of ‘big picture’ (i.e., integrative and holistic) scenarios in sustainability science and b) river basins attempting to build resilience to climate change. This objective was addressed through a case study transdisciplinary CIB modelling process in the Red River Basin, a transboundary river basin shared by the United States and Canada. The scenarios explore ‘big picture’ scenarios of a river basin under climate change by characterizing future change as emergent from interactions between diverse efforts to build resilience and a complex, cross-scale SES. The results surface significant complexities and ambiguities surrounding efforts to build resilience in river basins and affirm the potential for the CIB method to generate unique insights about the trajectory of SESs. Reflections on the irreducible ambiguity that persisted through Papers I and II led to the development of Paper III, which aimed to explore how key concepts, frameworks, and lessons from CST may be adapted to help address the challenges presented by ambiguity in sustainability science (i.e., beyond scenario practice). The major contribution of this investigation is an operational definition of ambiguity focused on the subjectivity of system boundaries (i.e., an emergent feature of the simultaneous and interacting boundary processes associated with being, knowing, and intervening in complex systems) and two recommendations for sustainability scientists to operationalize ambiguity as a valuable means of addressing sustainability challenges: 1) adjust the theoretical orientation of sustainability science to consider the potential for and consequences of theoretical incommensurability and discordant pluralism, and 2) nurture the reflexive capacities of transdisciplinary researchers to navigate persistent ambiguity. CST literature and four case study reflections (including the transdisciplinary scenario process from Paper II) were used to develop the novel framework of Reflexive Boundary Critique to guide critical reflection on ambiguity at all stages of the research process. In sum, this dissertation explored opportunities to operationalize ambiguity through reflexivity in transdisciplinary scenario practice, contributing to a rich and growing body of research that addresses the ambiguities inherent to research about complex sustainability challenges. My hope is that this contribution helps sustainability scientists give shape to and embrace ambiguity as a fundamental part of rigorous sustainability science

Assessing the value of resource recovery and reuse: social, environmental and economic costs and benefits for value creation and human well-being

To understand the full value of Resource Recovery and Reuse (RRR), a systematic assessment approach that balances complexity with practicality is required. This report highlights the methods available for quantifying and valuing social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of RRR, focusing on Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) as the primary framework. Rather than prescribing a standardized technique for conducting CBA for RRR, this report presents broad frameworks and several examples that can be catered to individual contexts. This results in a suggested eight-step process accompanied with suggested assessment techniques which have to be tailored to the type of question the assessment is meant to answer and related system boundaries

Assessing the value of resource recovery and reuse: social, environmental and economic costs and benefits for value creation and human well-being

To understand the full value of Resource Recovery and Reuse (RRR), a systematic assessment approach that balances complexity with practicality is required. This report highlights the methods available for quantifying and valuing social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of RRR, focusing on Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) as the primary framework. Rather than prescribing a standardized technique for conducting CBA for RRR, this report presents broad frameworks and several examples that can be catered to individual contexts. This results in a suggested eight-step process accompanied with suggested assessment techniques which have to be tailored to the type of question the assessment is meant to answer and related system boundaries

Financing resource recovery and reuse in developing and emerging economies: enabling environment, financing sources and cost recovery

Resource recovery and reuse (RRR) of domestic and agro-industrial waste has the potential to contribute to a number of financial, socioeconomic and environmental benefits. However, despite these benefits and an increasing political will, there remain significant barriers to build the required up-front capital which is discouraging private sector engagement. A systematic analysis and understanding of the enabling environment, public and private funding sources, risk-sharing mechanisms and pathways for cost recovery can help to identify opportunities to improve the viability of RRR solutions. This report looks at regulations and policies that remove disincentives for RRR, public and private funding sources for capital and operational costs, risk mitigation options through blending and structuring finance, and options for operational cost recovery

LED's Buy Greener: Shedding Light on Sustainable Procurement

In last decade, the lighting industry significantly changed with the development of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and their corresponding penetration of the market. The new technology increases energy efficiency and longevity compared to other types of lamps. As a result, LEDs can improve the sustainability performance of cities and towns, contributing to the mitigation of climate change and cutting costs over the long term. This report reviews LED procurement from multiple perspectives, formulated as a guide to help public and private stakeholders make more effective and sustainable decisions when buying lighting products. This publication is the collective work of students involved in the Masters of Environmental Science, Policy and Management (MESPOM) programme, currently enrolled at International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE). The research has been performed for the European Union Inter-reg Lighting Metropolis Project, which involves institutions, designers and producers, and municipalities in the Öresund (or Greater Copenhagen) Region of Denmark and Sweden. The first two chapters of the report dive into the initial and final stages of the life cycle of LEDs. These chapters connect the impacts and risks of raw material extraction and supply chains to lighting procurement, and provide recommendations for the integration of end-of-life considerations into the procurement process. Chapter three analyses various national policies that contribute to promoting LEDs in public procurement. Chapter four examines the drivers and barriers for implementing innovative business models through the mapping various actors and their relationships. Finally, chapter five explores the decision-making process and the drivers and barriers of municipalities when procuring lighting solutions. Together, these five chapters provide a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve decision making for sustainable lighting solutions

Resilience - towards an interdisciplinary definition using information theory

The term “resilience” has risen in popularity following a series of natural disasters, the impacts of climate change, and the Covid-19 pandemic. However, different disciplines use the term in widely different ways, resulting in confusion regarding how the term is used and difficulties operationalising the underlying concept. Drawing on an overview of eleven disciplines, our paper offers a guiding framework to navigate this ambiguity by suggesting a novel typology of resilience using an information-theoretic approach. Specifically, we define resilience by borrowing an existing definition of individuals as sub-systems within multi-scale systems that exhibit temporal integrity amidst interactions with the environment. We quantify resilience as the ability of individuals to maintain fitness in the face of endogenous and exogenous disturbances. In particular, we distinguish between four different types of resilience: (i) preservation of structure and function, which we call “strong robustness”; (ii) preservation of function but change in structure (“weak robustness”); (iii) change in both structure and function (“strong adaptability”); and (iv) change in function but preservation in structure (“weak adaptability”). Our typology offers an approach for navigating these different types and demonstrates how resilience can be operationalised across disciplines

Understanding the role of biodiversity in the climate, food, water, energy, transport and health nexus in Europe

Biodiversity underpins the functioning of ecosystems and the diverse benefits that nature provides to people, yet is being lost at an unprecedented rate. To halt or reverse biodiversity loss, it is critical to understand the complex interdependencies between biodiversity and key drivers and sectors to inform the development of holistic policies and actions. We conducted a literature review on the interlinkages between biodiversity and climate change, food, water, energy, transport and health (“the biodiversity nexus”). Evidence extracted from 194 peer-reviewed articles was analysed to assess how biodiversity is being influenced by and is influencing the other nexus elements. Out of the 354 interlinkages between biodiversity and the other nexus elements, 53 % were negative, 29 % were positive and 18 % contained both positive and negative influences. The majority of studies provide evidence of the negative influence of other nexus elements on biodiversity, highlighting the substantial damage being inflicted on nature from human activities. The main types of negative impacts were land or water use/change, land or water degradation, climate change, and direct species fatalities through collisions with infrastructure. Alternatively, evidence of biodiversity having a negative influence on the other nexus elements was limited to the effects of invasive alien species and vector-borne diseases. Furthermore, a range of studies provided evidence of how biodiversity and the other nexus elements can have positive influences on each other through practices that promote co-benefits. These included biodiversity-friendly management in relevant sectors, protection and restoration of ecosystems and species that provide essential ecosystem services, green and blue infrastructure including nature-based solutions, and sustainable and healthy diets that mitigate climate change. The review highlighted the complexity and context-dependency of interlinkages within the biodiversity nexus, but clearly demonstrates the importance of biodiversity in underpinning resilient ecosystems and human well-being in ensuring a sustainable future for people and the planet.</p

Financing High Performance Climate Adaptation in Agriculture: Climate Bonds for Multi-Functional Water Harvesting Infrastructure on the Canadian Prairies

International capital markets are responding to the global challenge of climate change, including through the use of labeled green and climate bonds earmarked for infrastructure projects associated with de-carbonization and to a lesser extent, projects that increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. The potential to apply emerging climate bond certification standards to agricultural water management projects in major food production regions is examined with respect to a specific example of multi-functional distributed water harvesting on the Canadian Prairies, where climate impacts are projected to be high. The diverse range of co-benefits is examined using an ecosystem service lens, and they contribute to the overall value proposition of the infrastructure bond. Certification of a distributed water harvesting infrastructure bond under the Climate Bond Standard water criteria is feasible given climate bond issue precedents. The use of ecosystem service co-benefits as additional investment criteria are recommended as relevant bond certification standards continue to evolve

Integrated approaches needed to address declining freshwater storage

This blog post summarises the online seminar, NEXUS Gains Talk 4