Content uploaded by Lennart Olsson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lennart Olsson on Feb 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
SPECIAL FEATURE: ORIGINAL ARTICLE Sustainability science: bridging the gap
between science and society
Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions:
towards an integration of academic development,
institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations
Masaru Yarime •Gregory Trencher •
Takashi Mino •Roland W. Scholz •Lennart Olsson •
Barry Ness •Niki Frantzeskaki •Jan Rotmans
Received: 17 October 2011 / Accepted: 3 January 2012 / Published online: 3 February 2012
ÓSpringer 2012
Abstract The field of sustainability science aims to
understand the complex and dynamic interactions between
natural and human systems in order to transform and develop
these in a sustainable manner. As sustainability problems cut
across diverse academic disciplines, ranging from the natural
sciences to the social sciences and humanities, interdisci-
plinarity has become a central idea to the realm of sustain-
ability science. Yet, for addressing complicated, real-world
sustainability problems, interdisciplinarity per se does not
suffice. Active collaboration with various stakeholders
throughout society—transdisciplinarity—must form another
critical component of sustainability science. In addition to
implementing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in
practice, higher education institutions also need to deal
with the challenges of institutionalization. In this article,
drawing on the experiences of selected higher education
academic programs on sustainability, we discuss academic,
institutional, and societal challenges in sustainability science
and explore the potential of uniting education, research and
societal contributions to form a systematic and integrated
response to the sustainability crisis.
Keywords Higher education institutions
Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity
Institutionalization Stakeholder collaboration
Social experimentation
Academic, institutional, and societal challenges
in sustainability science
Global sustainability concerns long-term constraints on
resources, including, among others, food, water, and energy.
The challenge of sustainability is the reconciliation of soci-
ety’s development goals with the planet’s environmental
limits over the long term (Clark and Dickson 2003). The field
of sustainability science aims to use the understanding of
complex and dynamic interactions between natural and
human systems for transforming and developing these sus-
tainably (Clark and Dickson 2003; Jerneck et al. 2011; Kates
et al. 2001; Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Komiyama et al.
2011; Spangenberg 2011; Wiek et al. 2012a).
Sustainability science faces the critical challenge of
establishing itself as an academic field (Clark 2007;
Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Lang et al. 2012; Talwar
et al. 2011; Wiek et al. 2011a; Yarime 2011c). Major hur-
dles include the development and use of concepts and
methodologies, the transforming of institutional structures
(e.g., incentives and reward systems), the initiation of col-
laboration with stakeholders outside of academia (Yarime
2011c), as well as the development of a coherent set of
sustainability competencies and effective pedagogical
Handled by Arnim Wiek, Arizona State University, USA.
M. Yarime (&)G. Trencher T. Mino
Graduate Program in Sustainability Science (GPSS),
Graduate School of Frontier Science, University of Tokyo,
Kashiwanoha 5-1-5, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
e-mail: yarime@k.u-tokyo.ac.jp
R. W. Scholz
Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Natural and Social
Science Interface (NSSI), ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
L. Olsson B. Ness
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS),
Lund, Sweden
N. Frantzeskaki J. Rotmans
Dutch Research Institute For Transitions,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
123
Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113
DOI 10.1007/s11625-012-0157-5
approaches (Wiek et al. 2011b). As sustainability problems
are complex, it is crucial to integrate knowledge and
information from various academic disciplines, including
natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and human-
ities. However the current trend is that the academic land-
scape of sustainability science often consists of rather
separate clusters of individual disciplines (Kajikawa et al.
2007).To address complex sustainability issues therefore
requires the development and use of interdisciplinary
approaches (Spangenberg 2011). While such academic
concepts and methodologies have been discussed theoreti-
cally in the literature, how they are implemented in the
practice of sustainability science programs has not yet been
examined in detail.
In attempting to further establish sustainability science
in academia, we are also facing the overarching question of
how to deal with the issue of institutionalization (Merton
1973; Meyer et al. 2002; Redner 1987). The process of
institutionalizing a scientific field normally proceeds
through founding educational and research programs,
academic societies and associations, as well as scientific
journals and textbooks (Ben-David 1971). Institutional
structures, reward systems, and behavioral norms are
important elements of institutionalization, providing suffi-
cient incentives as well as legitimacy to conduct knowl-
edge production and implementation in a scientific field
(Dasgupta and David 1994; Stephan 2010). Hence, to make
a transition from the traditional science to sustainability
science, institutional arrangements, including formal and
informal rules and regulations, require necessary adjust-
ments (Blackstock and Carter 2007; Fadeeva et al. 2011;
Talwar et al. 2011; van der Leeuw et al. 2012). These
changes relate to the nature of sustainability research pro-
jects, publications, promotion and tenure, and novel
teaching approaches (Whitmer et al. 2010; Wiek et al.
2011a). To support sustainability science integrating rele-
vant academic fields, institutional arrangements need to be
coordinated consistently across a diverse array of academic
programs, scientific journals, associations and societies,
networks and alliances, workshops and conferences
(Yarime 2011b). Although this issue has been mentioned in
previous studies, actual practices of institutionalization
have yet to be investigated sufficiently.
Of the many challenges to the mainstreaming of sus-
tainability science in higher education institutions, proba-
bly the greatest of all concerns is how to identify and
implement the core mission of the modern research uni-
versity. The dominating model of the modern university is
currently undergoing a period of major transformation.
This transition has been accelerating since the 1980s and
has attracted the attention of numerous scholars, university
administrators, governments, and international organiza-
tions across the world, such as the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Just as
the integration of research into the core activities of the
modern university during the nineteenth century signified
the ‘‘first academic revolution,’’ the capitalization of sci-
entific knowledge in service of the economy has now
resulted in a ‘‘second academic revolution’’ (Etzkowitz
2002; Etzkowitz et al. 1998). Prestigious US research
universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology (MIT) and Stanford University serve as the arche-
type for this new model, referred to as the ‘‘entrepreneurial
university’’ (Etzkowitz 2002; Gibb et al. 2009; Philpott
et al. 2011; Slaughter and Leslie 1997).
In this role, the university utilizes relations with industry
and government in order to contribute to an innovation-
driven regional or national economic growth strategy
(Branscomb et al. 1999). An entrepreneurial university
may also choose to take on such a mission in order to
improve the financial advantage of both itself and its fac-
ulty (Etzkowitz 2002). To achieve this, the institution seeks
to transfer its technology and innovation to existing
industries or technology parks (often via patenting and
licensing), or exploit itself the commercial and economic
development of academic inventions via spin-off firms or
ventures (Owen-Smith and Powell 2004; Owen-Smith et al.
2002). Other channels for the entrepreneurial university’s
contribution to industry and economic growth take place
via collaborative and commissioned research, consulting,
publication of results via journals and conferences, infor-
mal interactions, and supply of human capital in the form
of graduates (Baba et al. 2010; Florida 1999; Mowery et al.
2004; Philpott et al. 2011; Salter et al. 2000). This shift of
the university’s attention towards the needs of industry and
the possibility of pursuing profit via entrepreneurial activ-
ities would become problematic when the idea of contrib-
uting to society becomes synonymous with contributing to
the economy. In fact, much of the literature and policy
recommendations from the OECD regarding the ‘‘regional
engagement’’ of higher education institutions are clearly
emphasizing economic, rather than social or environmen-
tal, contributions (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development 1999,2007).
Whilst the university’s external collaboration has thus
far tended to focus on economic development with indus-
try, there is a ‘‘third academic revolution’’ at the horizon
that possibly harbors the potential to transform universities
into institutions committed to both academic excellence
and addressing the urgent sustainability issues of our
contemporary age. The prototype of this institution can be
referred to as the ‘‘New American University’’ (Crow
2010). This transformation explicitly subscribes to the
societal guiding principle of sustainable development
and promises to have a significant impact on society’s
sustainability efforts by expanding and deepening
102 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113
123
collaboration and networking with stakeholders in society.
Yet to further promote cross-sector and multi-stakeholder
collaborations for sustainability, we need to ask what type
of joint initiatives and networking contribute to accelerat-
ing local, regional, or global transition processes towards
sustainability, what mechanisms and stakeholder relations
have been put in place to drive existing examples, what
factors contribute to or obstruct their successful imple-
mentation, and finally, what kind of incentives and policies
are required to promote further this type of multi-stake-
holder driven collaborations for sustainability in other
higher education institutions.
In this article, we examine the current practice of
implementing interdisciplinarity into academic programs,
the process of institutionalization, and finally, cross-sector
collaboration aimed at accelerating a shift to sustainability.
We draw from the experiences in selected academic pro-
grams at the University of Tokyo in Japan, the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, Lund Uni-
versity in Sweden, and Erasmus University of Rotterdam in
the Netherlands. Other major academic programs in sus-
tainability, including those at Arizona State University in
the US, Leuphana University in Lu
¨neburg, Germany,
Osaka University in Japan, and Ibaraki University also in
Japan, are described elsewhere (Brundiers et al. 2010; Lang
et al. 2012; Tamura and Uegaki 2012; Uwasu et al. 2009;
Wiek et al. 2011a). Since the contexts of these academic
programs vary greatly, their experiences are not compared
for evaluation, but rather for illustration. Based on what
can be learned from these diverse experiences, we argue
that the aforementioned challenges need to be addressed
simultaneously and not in separation in order to fulfill the
true promise of sustainability science. We also argue fur-
ther that all sustainability science programs would benefit
from mutual learning through collaboration, including
coordination of academic programs, joint summer schools,
presenting of career paths, and the devising of university–
industry exchange schemes for faculty and students.
Calls for incorporating sustainability into higher
education institutions
The concept of sustainability was first introduced to edu-
cation at an international level by the UNESCO-UNEP
International Environmental Education Programme in
1975, jointly administered by the United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and
the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)
(UNESCO 1984). Since then, a number of national and
international declarations directly relating to sustainability
in higher education institutions have been developed
(Wright 2004).
The Talloires Declaration of 1990, the first official
statement made by university presidents, chancellors, and
rectors of a commitment to sustainability in higher edu-
cation, drew up an action plan for incorporating sustain-
ability literacy in teaching, research, operations, and
outreach at colleges and universities (Association of Uni-
versity Leaders for a Sustainable Future 2011). The
Swansea Declaration was adopted at the conclusion of the
Association of Commonwealth Universities’ Fifteenth
Quinquennial Conference in 1993. The Co-operation Pro-
gram in Europe for Research on Nature and Industry
through Coordinated University Studies (COPERNICUS),
which was established by the Conference of European
Rectors (CRE) to promote a better understanding of the
interaction between man and the environment and to col-
laborate on common environmental issues, created the
CRE COPERNICUS Charter for Sustainable Development
in 1994 (Conference of European Rectors 1994). The
COPERNICUS conference held for the World Summit on
Sustainable Development, Rio?10, adopted the Lu
¨neburg
Declaration on Higher Education for Sustainable Devel-
opment in 2001. The Declaration Ubuntu in Education,
Science, and Technology for the Sustainable Development
was adopted in 2002, with the signatories of major aca-
demic institutions such as the United Nations University
(UNU), UNESCO, International Association of Universi-
ties, Third World Academy of Science, African Academy
of Sciences and the Science Council of Asia, as well as the
International Council for Science, World Federation of
Engineering Organizations, Copernicus-Campus, Global
Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership and Uni-
versity Leaders for Sustainable Future. The Barcelona
Declaration, which was settled at the Second International
Conference on Engineering Education in Sustainable
Development in 2004, underlined the importance of sus-
tainable development in all technological education, and
called upon higher education institutions in the engineering
field to progressively translate sustainable development
objectives into concrete actions. The Graz Declaration of
2004, addressing the Bologna Process in particular, made
the call to take appropriate actions toward incorporating the
principle of sustainable development in the establishment
of the European Higher Education Area.
The importance of reorienting existing education pro-
grams to incorporate sustainability-related principles,
knowledge, skills, perspectives, and values has been
emphasized further by the United Nations Decade of Edu-
cation for Sustainable Development 2005–2014 (UNESCO
Education Sector 2005). The overall goal of the decade was
set to integrate the values inherent in sustainable develop-
ment into all aspects of learning, with the aim of bringing
about behavioral changes in view of a more sustainable
and just society for all. Here, education for sustainable
Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 103
123
development is defined as a dynamic concept utilizing all
aspects of public awareness, education, and training to create
and enhance an understanding of the linkages among the
diverse issues of sustainable development, of which the
objective is to develop the knowledge, skills, perspectives,
and values that will empower people of all ages to assume
responsibility for creating and enjoying a sustainable future.
It requires higher education institutions to rethink their
missions and to restructure their courses, research priorities,
community outreach, and campus operations. Integrating
sustainability into all of the major activities of higher edu-
cation institutions presents a tremendous opportunity to
prepare students and the campus community to become more
adept decision makers in an increasingly complex, dynamic,
and uncertain future (Glasser et al. 2005).
These international declarations have gained acceptance
in the higher education community and have subsequently
been endorsed and signed by numerous universities.
Understanding how the concept of sustainability has been
incorporated into these declarations is essential to contex-
tualizing present practices and beliefs in higher education
(Wright 2004). The emerging themes include sustainable
physical operations, sustainable research, public outreach,
inter-university cooperation, partnership with government,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and industry, in
addition to the development of interdisciplinary curricu-
lums and moral obligations (Wright 2002). As these vari-
ous declarations are implemented around the world,
increasing consensus is gathering around the idea that
higher education institutions can play a significant role in
contributing to creating a more sustainable world through
their major functions of education, research, and outreach
(Fadeeva and Mochizuki 2010).
Progress on campuses, however, has been rather slow,
especially considering the high expectation expressed in
the major declarations (Velazquez et al. 2005). The slow
pace in higher education institutions’ movements towards
sustainability has been particularly influenced by the con-
ventional university appraisal systems that do not seriously
consider sustainability perspectives in their evaluation
methodologies. Currently, higher education institutions are
under strong pressure from government requirements for
quality assurance (Fadeeva et al. 2011). In addition,
quantitative data such as the number of academic papers
published or cited is often incorporated into powerful
market-based evaluations that carry the innate risk of
conveying an overly simplistic impression of university
performance. Because assessment and appraisal systems
are increasingly influential in guiding the activities of
higher education institutions, if modified appropriately,
they could be a significant force for transformation towards
a more sustainable direction (Fadeeva and Mochizuki
2010).
A variety of systems and tools have been implemented
for sustainability assessment at higher education institutions
since the major declarations were developed in the 1990s
(Shriberg 2002,2004; Yarime and Tanaka 2012). They
exhibit considerable diversity in scope and methodology,
covering a broad range of aspects related to sustainability of
higher education institutions. While a comprehensive
framework helps to incorporate various institutional
dimensions, to achieve far-reaching impacts in the com-
munity of higher education, it is crucial that sustainability
assessment is designed and implemented in an integrated
manner. Assessment systems usually evaluate various
issues such as usage of energy, water, and other materials;
incremental and systemic progress; sustainability education
as a core function, incorporation of teaching, research,
operations, and service; and cross-institutional action
(Shriberg 2002). Most of the existing assessment systems,
however, evaluate the aspects of education, research, and
outreach rather separately, and do not consider integrated
assessment of sustainability at higher education institutions
(Yarime and Tanaka 2012). To encourage higher education
institutions to move more effectively and consistently
towards sustainability, university appraisal systems must
provide a holistic assessment that encompasses academic
programs, institutionalization, and collaboration with
stakeholders.
Practice of implementing academic concepts
and methodologies
Interdisciplinarity as well as diversity in sustainability
science education has been emphasized at the Graduate
Program in Sustainability Science (GPSS) in the Graduate
School of Frontier Sciences of the University of Tokyo
since its start in 2007 (Onuki and Mino 2009). GPSS is
operated jointly by the six departments in the Division of
Environmental Studies, namely, the Departments of Envi-
ronment Systems, Human and Engineered Environmental
Studies, International Studies, Ocean Technology, Policy
and Environment, Natural Environmental Studies, and
Socio-Cultural Environmental Studies. This inter-depart-
mental structure allows the program to offer a compre-
hensive curriculum that covers a variety of disciplines
related to sustainability including natural sciences, social
sciences, and humanities through lectures, exercises, and
thesis projects.
When facing complicated and intermeshed problems in
society, a holistic way of thinking and the ability to see what
factors or strategies contribute to regional or global sus-
tainability is essential. Structured knowledge about various
aspects of sustainability is needed in order to make this
possible. Hence, the course work, while giving students of
104 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113
123
the program necessary knowledge on relevant subjects and
disciplines, also includes courses that provide holistic views
and approaches by allowing them to look into actual cases
and analyze linkages the multitude of issues at stake. These
courses allow students to acquire the basic concepts and
methodologies to understand the complexity and multifac-
eted nature of sustainability. Through a variety of experi-
ences the students learn skills such as systems thinking in
order to examine and evaluate sustainability issues from
integrative perspectives, facilitation and negotiation skills
necessary for consensus building, and sound understanding
and appreciation of cultural diversity.
As sustainability problems are interlinked and therefore
need to be addressed across disciplinary boundaries, one
guiding question for GPSS is, ‘‘How can an academic
program help to develop interdisciplinary ways of thinking,
skills and attitudes in an individual student as well as in a
learning community?’’ To illustrate the complexity of
sustainability issues, the case study approach is extensively
used for a wide range of topics, including the conservation
of Horyuji Temple, the occurrence of the Minamata dis-
ease, the competition between food and energy, forest
management and global sustainability, water resource
management in northwest China, and a future transporta-
tion system in Kamakura City. To consider the case of
Horyuji Temple that has endured more than 1,300 years
and several large earthquakes, the site is used as a means of
exploring resilience from different disciplinary viewpoints.
From an engineering perspective, the earthquake resistant
structure was crucial, consisting of a durable timber con-
struction. From the perspective of social science, the socio-
cultural backgrounds played an important role, including
economic incentives and people’s willingness to maintain
the tradition of the temple. The students then explore how
the physical and social dimensions have gone through
complex interactions with each other over a long time by
integrating different disciplinary vantage points.
In another case study, competition between food and
energy production is discussed from different disciplinary
perspectives. Students are given what is called the
‘‘mainstream strategy’’ where farmers in Southeast Asian
countries such as Thailand are persuaded to shift their
products from food, i.e., rice, to biomass for energy,
assuming this will improve their economic conditions,
reduce fossil fuel consumption, and consequently contrib-
ute to the development of sustainable food and energy
systems in the region. The students then discuss the inter-
linked and trade-off relationships involving food secu-
rity,the global and regional energy balance, benefits and
drawbacks in the local economy, impact on the local
community, and social transformation. To help the students
deepen and broaden their understanding of the complexity
of the sustainability issue, experts and practitioners give
lectures to provide them with holistic and integrated
approaches to food and energy issues. Opportunities are
also arranged for the students to gain experiential learning
through visits to local villages and project sites. The stu-
dents tackle this issue in groups where they develop
communication and leadership whilst employing the con-
cepts and methodologies of relevant disciplines such
as agriculture, economics, sociology, and international
relations.
Throughout these case studies, students are urged to
revision and reformulate the problem at hand, which, in
many cases, is simply one part of a much larger issue that
requires a comprehensive understanding of the whole
structure. As the current academic environment tends to
strengthen fragmentation, rather than connection and inte-
gration of disciplinary perspectives, learning through actual
experiences in the local context is valuable for re-exam-
ining and redefining the problem at hand, and transcending
the initial scope of analytical framework. Interdisciplina-
rity not only combines disciplinary approaches, but also
makes it possible to question the implicit assumptions
made in formulating the original problem. As such, it
prompts the students to detach themselves from familiar
disciplinary views in a manner that nevertheless seeks to
avoid downright rejection or complete transformation of
existing academic viewpoints. Having gone through this
process, the students learn to obtain a new world view,
distinctive from the previous.
In regards to applying the experiences of GPSS to other
sustainability programs, points for consideration could
include encouraging the integration of both students and
teachers from a wide variety of disciplinary and cultural
backgrounds. Some of the implications for educational
programs in general could include the value of student,
teacher and disciplinary diversity, the use of interdisci-
plinary and cross-cultural communications, the need for
basic orientations and training in sustainability science,
identification of commonality rather than an emphasis on
originality, acceptance of plurality rather than an exclusive
focus on objectivity, and finally, synthetic and integrative
rather than analytical states of being (Sipos et al. 2008).
Last but not least, faculty development is a crucial factor
for successful sustainability science education (Wiek et al.
2011a).We need teachers who accept interdisciplinarity
and have skills to make use of students’ disciplinary and
cultural diversity in the education process.
As it is urgent in science and society to address climate
change and other sustainability challenges such as biodi-
versity loss, deforestation, depletion of marine fish stocks,
global ill-health, land degradation, land use change, and
water scarcity, sustainability science is regarded as a source
and aid for social transformations (Jerneck et al. 2011).
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies
Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 105
123
(LUCSUS), a centre for sustainability research, brings
together seven disciplines from four faculties in order to
contribute to the development of the academic field of
sustainability science. At LUCSUS, sustainability science
bridges natural and social sciences to seek creative solu-
tions to such complex challenges. The program incorpo-
rates an academic agenda that advances the methodological
and theoretical understanding of what sustainability sci-
ence can be, how it can be pursued, and to what it can
contribute. LUCSUS coordinates Lund University Inter-
national Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies
and Sustainability Science (LUMES), as well as Lund
University Centre of Excellence for Integration of Social
and Natural Dimensions of Sustainability (LUCID).
LUCID aims at creating completely new and unique syn-
ergies across natural and social sciences in order to develop
new integrated theories and methods for addressing com-
plex sustainability issues. The research is expected to offer
theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions to
the broad and emerging field of sustainability science.
Identifying knowledge structuring as the key focus, a
generic academic platform is organized as a three-dimen-
sional matrix comprising three components, that is, core
themes (scientific understanding, goals, and pathways), cross-
cutting critical and problem-solving approaches, and any
combination of the sustainability challenges above. Four
sustainability challenges, biodiversity loss, climate change,
land use changes, and water scarcity, have been inserted into
the matrix a s an example, and three iss ues have been discussed
for advancing theory and methodology in sustainability sci-
ence: how new synergies across natural and social sciences
can be created; how integrated theories for understanding and
respondingto complex sustainability issuescan bedeveloped;
and how theories and concepts in economics, gender studies,
geography, political science, and sociology can be applied in
sustainability science. The generic academic platform serves
to structure and create new knowledge in sustainability sci-
ence and is a tool for exploring any set of sustainability
challenges. The combined critical and problem-solving
approach is considered crucial for sustainability science.
The Knowledge Network for Sustainability Transitions
(KSI) was established by a Dutch research grant in 2004.
KSI consists of 50 doctoral candidates and 25 post-doctoral
candidates involved in a multitude of themes on sustain-
ability transitions. Post-graduates have interdisciplinary
backgrounds varying among engineering, economics,
social sciences, policy and governance studies, physics,
environmental sciences, health studies, agriculture sci-
ences, technology studies, computer science, and market-
ing. The network involves post-graduates and academics
from universities in the Netherlands and other European
countries. Within KSI, in which the Erasmus University of
Rotterdam was a founding-member, it is considered that
understanding and advancing sustainability science will be
realized by an understanding and researching of sustain-
ability transitions. Sustainability transitions are conceptu-
alized and understood as continuous processes of
fundamental change in cultures, structures, and practices of
complex societal systems towards sustainability (Fran-
tzeskaki and de Haan 2009). In the presence of complex,
wicked problems that bring about a system’s unsustain-
ability, transitions as radical transformative processes are
seen as treatments to alter the system to a more sustainable
state. Understanding the nature and dynamics of such
transformative processes towards sustainability requires
interdisciplinary knowledge and a deep commitment to
sustainability values (Loorbach et al. 2011).
When considering the academic merits of the research
field of sustainability transitions and its contribution to
sustainability science, points for consideration include the
explicit focus on processes that activate sustainability, the
practice of sustainability, and the understanding of pro-
cesses in society that lead to a more sustainable pathway.
The projects given to the post-graduates are based on
existing, on-going, or emerging unsustainability problems
such as the carbon-lock in energy systems in the Nether-
lands and UK, car-dependency in the mobility sector,
industrialization and intensification of agriculture, and
cost-driven health care in the era of climate change pres-
sures and various complex and persistent problems. The
emphasis is on unravelling the processes, drivers, or factors
that have the potential for transforming the system (its deep
structure, processes, and interdependencies therein) as a
treatment to deal with unsustainability.
The KSI network organized winter schools, post-grad-
uate seminars, and master classes to promote and ensure
interdisciplinary education of the post-graduates and
knowledge creation for sustainability and sustainability
transitions. At every post-graduate knowledge creation
activity specialists from different fields, as well as inter-
disciplinary sustainability experts, were invited to give a
lecture and to interact and reflect with the network of
researchers. The academic modus operandi was interdis-
ciplinary action research, involving numerous actors such
as specialists, innovators, communities, industry, and pol-
icy makers. The academic focus of those platforms was to
create a common ground and new knowledge on the gov-
ernance actions, both bottom-up, e.g., social movements,
sustainability innovations, and radical niches, and top-
down, such as institutionalization dynamics, support and
empowerment mechanisms, and governance methodolo-
gies (e.g., transition scenarios, transition experiments,
transition platforms, and transition arenas) that can enable
sustainability transitions in multiple domains (e.g., energy,
mobility, health, agriculture, water, tourism, food, and
waste management).
106 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113
123
Evolutionary process of institutionalization
Institutionalization of academic fields has traditionally
been promoted through establishing educational and
research programs, academic societies and associations, as
well as textbooks and journals. The emergence of chemical
engineering as an academic discipline illustrates the evo-
lutionary nature of institutionalization (Yarime 2011c). In
establishing chemical engineering, a variety of chemical
processes were conceptualized into ‘‘unit operations’’ such
as drying, distillation, separation, extraction, evaporation,
absorption, and adsorption (Rosenberg 1998). Based on
this intellectual foundation, the School of Chemical Engi-
neering Practice was established at MIT, which led to the
establishment of an independent academic department. The
publication of a standard textbook, Principles of Chemical
Engineering, followed a few years later. The conceptuali-
zation of unit operations effectively functioned as a
‘‘focusing device’’ in elaborating the purposes of education
and research in chemical engineering. The concepts, tools,
and methodologies developed in academia were applied to
actual problems that the industry faced in the production of
chemicals. The knowledge and experiences obtained
through this process, in turn, were fed back into education
and research at universities for further improvement and
refinement of academic foundations. The co-evolutionary
process of developing concepts and methodologies in
academia and utilizing them for solving problems in
industry functioned effectively through institutionalization
in establishing chemical engineering.
In sustainability science it is particularly important that
diverse types of scientific knowledge are integrated effec-
tively (Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Komiyama et al.
2011; Wiek et al. 2012b). There are, however, institutional
barriers and obstacles discouraging such knowledge inte-
gration in academia (Maurer 2006; van der Leeuw et al.
2012). Faculty members at universities are under increas-
ing pressure to publish articles in scientific journals in their
own specialties, without much incentive to collaborate with
researchers working in different academic fields. For
tackling crosscutting sustainability problems, scientific
collaboration is essential to assemble the necessary types of
knowledge and expertise (Shrum et al. 2007); it is thus
important to identify and elaborate the problems and
challenges to overcome in order to promote collaboration
across different academic fields. As a recent bibliometric
analysis of collaborations for sustainability revealed, the
creation, transmission, and sharing of knowledge on sus-
tainability tends to be confined within geographical clus-
ters, with specialization in each country and bilateral
collaboration (Yarime et al. 2010). Since each country has
its own particular focus among the academic fields, the
existence of geographical clusters poses a serious obstacle
to collecting, exchanging, and integrating diverse types of
knowledge, crucial to the establishment of the interdisci-
plinary field of sustainability science. Appropriate institu-
tional arrangements are therefore required in order to create
more effective integration.
Several initiatives have already been launched to set up
global schemes for academic collaboration on sustainabil-
ity science. Among the new types of organizational and
institutional arrangements is the Alliance for Global Sus-
tainability (AGS), of which the members include the four
scientific and technological universities, the University of
Tokyo, MIT, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
and Chalmers University of Technology, in addition to
their associated partners. Created in 1997, the AGS brought
together hundreds of university scientists, engineers, and
social scientists to address the complex issues that lie at the
intersection of environmental, economic, and social goals.
These challenges are addressed by improving scientific
understanding of sustainability issues, developing tech-
nology and policy tools to help societies reconcile eco-
logical and economic concerns, and educating a new
generation of leaders committed to meeting the goals of
sustainable development. Research teams have been
formed with faculty, students, and senior research staff
coming from across their respective institutes to work on
critical issues in the areas of energy and climate, mobility,
urban systems, water and agriculture, cleaner technologies,
and policy and communications. Since the first set of AGS-
sponsored research projects was launched in 1997, the
AGS has worked with leaders from global businesses and
industries, governments, and NGOs worldwide to provide
innovative and practical solutions to real and urgent envi-
ronmental problems around the world.
Based on this experience, another alliance on research
and education on sustainability science, the Integrated
Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S), was
initiated by the University of Tokyo in 2005 with other
leading universities in Japan, including Kyoto University,
Osaka University, Hokkaido University, and Ibaraki Uni-
versity, together with prominent research institutes. By
2011, IR3S had become a network of 11 participating and
cooperating institutions. With the aim of serving as a
research and educational platform for sustainability sci-
ence, IR3S organizes lectures, workshops, and conferences
that bring together researchers, academics, students, gov-
ernment officials, and policy makers to exchange infor-
mation and discuss sustainability issues. IR3S has also
launched the academic journal Sustainability Science
(Springer) with the UNU. As it takes time for a new journal
to gain recognition, the creation of a section in a prominent
journal could be a promotional option too. This led to a
section devoted to sustainability science in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science in the US (Clark 2007).
Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 107
123
These and similar journals play a significant role in insti-
tutionalization by providing opportunities to demonstrate
as well as accumulate academic findings and achievements.
As another effort for institutionalization, the Interna-
tional Network for Sustainability Science (INSS) was
created in 2009 as a global platform for linking academic
networks to share knowledge on the present status of, and
diverse approaches to sustainable development. The goals
of the INSS are to link research networks together, to
provide society with a new kind of science, to educate a
new generation of sustainability stakeholders, and to take
the lead in social change and innovation for sustainability.
IR3S is one of the founding networks of the INSS as the
organizer of the first meeting of the International Confer-
ence on Sustainability Science (ICSS), which now serves
as the primary meeting of INSS. In the first ICSS, held in
February 2009 in Tokyo, a workshop was organized to
provide an international forum to exchange, share, and
discuss a wide range of ideas, concepts, and methodologies
in developing doctoral programs on sustainability science
and to explore opportunities for mutual collaboration in
institutionalizing the academic field of sustainability sci-
ence. Leading experts working in the field of sustainability
science were invited to learn from experiences gained
through existing and prospective doctoral programs on
sustainability science at different universities and research
institutes around the world. Participants in this conference
included the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University, the School of Sustainability at Arizona State
University, the Lund Centre for Sustainability Studies at
Lund University in Sweden, the International Centre for
Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development at
Maastricht University in the Netherlands, the Sustainability
Institute at Stellenbosch University, and the Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa. The
second ICSS was held at the Sapienza University of Rome
in Italy in June 2010 (Wiek et al. 2012a), and the third
ICSS will be organized by Arizona State University in
February 2012 (van der Leeuw et al. 2012).
Collaboration within the scientific community has also
been promoted through other networking activities. The
Forum on Science and Innovation for Sustainable Devel-
opment, for example, has been hosted by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for
information exchange on publications, programs, projects,
researchers, and institutions in sustainability science. The
Sustainability Transitions network (KSI) in the Netherlands
was also promoted through the establishment of a research
community that comprises a European and worldwide
network of researchers, constituting the Sustainability
Transitions Research Network (STRN). The STRN net-
work has published numerous papers and special issues, a
book series on sustainability transitions through an
academic publisher, and recently established their own
academic journal entitled Environmental Innovations and
Sustainability Innovations (Elsevier). Within this research
community, lectures and post-graduate courses and pro-
grams on sustainability transitions are currently being both
planned and implemented. The future challenge for sus-
tainability science and sustainability transitions is for new
courses, post-graduate programs, and knowledge creation
activities to consider equally important the focus on sus-
tainability values and on interdisciplinarity when aiming at
knowledge creation for sustainability. These emerging
institutional arrangements will have significant implica-
tions for promoting sustainability science, which requires
the production, communication, and integration of diverse
types of knowledge and expertise.
Incentive structures and frameworks are particularly
important in encouraging cooperation and collaboration
among researchers in different departments. This would
require some radical changes in the criteria for evaluating
the performance of faculty members. Promotion and tenure
systems need to be adjusted not only in a single place, but
also in a wide range of universities and research institutes
for promoting extensive mobility, developing long-term
career paths, and incentivizing transformational research in
collaboration with stakeholders. It is very important to
create and maintain institutional arrangements that allow
for effective feedback from a variety of stakeholders in
society. Involving stakeholders who do not necessarily
share the same backgrounds or motivations as academia,
however, might pose difficulties in producing rigorous
scientific results in the traditional sense (Lang et al. 2012;
Yarime 2011c). The process of collaborating with stake-
holders thus needs to be credited appropriately in evalu-
ating educational and research activities on sustainability.
Students of academic programs in sustainability science
will explore their career paths after graduation. Thus,
through creating promising opportunities for young people
not only in academia but also in industry, business, and the
public sector, sustainability science will be able to cement
itself more deeply in society over the long term.
Collaboration and networking with stakeholders
in society
In the global emergence of the so-called ‘‘new economy’’
or ‘‘knowledge-based economy’’ it is scientific knowledge
and innovation—no longer mere physical resources—that
form the most important assets for economic growth and
international competitiveness (Etzkowitz and Webster
1995; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). In this new paradigm,
intellectual property plays a central role, and governments,
universities and industry cooperate on an unprecedented
108 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113
123
scale in order to bring about technology-driven growth
(Etzkowitz 2002). In the US, university–industry collabo-
rations have become characterized by patenting activities, a
process that has been fueled by a wider shift in federal
policy regarding intellectual property, coupled with the
growth of the biotechnology industry within which the
university also played a pivotal role (Mowery et al. 2004).
This has created a historically unparalleled opportunity for
academic research results to be converted into financial
gains through licensing deals and spin-off firm creation,
particularly in the life sciences, pharmaceutics, and infor-
mation and telecommunication technology. The economic
success of technology transfer activities at MIT and Stan-
ford University have culminated into an entrepreneurial
model that now constitutes the exemplary model of a
modern research university engaged in social and techno-
logical development (Etzkowitz 2002).
However, it is equally important to acknowledge the
negative effects of an excessive focus on patenting and
entrepreneurialism upon academic science and university
conduct. One of the most often cited concerns relates to the
openness of public science and the ‘‘scientific commons.’’
As universities and academic scientists respond to
increasing pressures to patent inventions and assert more
and more intellectual property rights over scientific
knowledge, valuable information is snatched from the
‘‘general tool kit’’ of scientific understanding and tech-
niques (Nelson 2004). This trend, it is argued, may in fact
prove to have a negative effect on innovation and on the
economy (David 2003; Heller and Eisenberg 1998; Nelson
2004). Other anxieties that have been raised against aca-
demic capitalism include conflicts of interest and the
market intrusion upon scientific objectiveness (Bok 2003;
Editorial 2001), ‘‘profiteering’’ as university technology
transfer programs prioritize revenue making over ensuring
the widest possible usage of inventions (Thursby et al.
2001; Thursby and Thursby 2002), and finally, the negative
effects of corporate-like competition upon the traditional
culture of academic science, which has always been com-
mitted to open sharing and collaboration (David 2003;
Mowery et al. 2004; Nelson 2004).
From a sustainability perspective, it should be empha-
sized that the entrepreneurial model and conventional
technology transfer practices would not necessarily be
appropriate for promoting larger socio-technical innova-
tion, particularly outside the life sciences, nor are they
focused on the sustainable development of the local and
regional communities. Rather, the entrepreneurial para-
digm is fixated on spurring business as usual economic
growth and not always on addressing pressing social or
environmental issues. For a university seeking to apply its
expertise and sources of innovation to the goal of building
a sustainable society, the existing mode of university–
industry collaboration requires a careful re-examination
(Orecchini et al. 2012). The present model needs to be
reformed so that academia will engage with a variety of
stakeholders in society through interactions in jointly cre-
ating and implementing relevant expertise (Alvial-Palavi-
cino and Yarime 2011; Yarime 2011a). The focus of the
new model should then be on spurring green innovation
and social entrepreneurialism in the community and
enabling multi-stakeholder collaborations aimed at solving
complicated and interconnected sustainability issues.
In an attempt to establish an alternative model of
innovation and cross-sector collaboration, various research
communities at the University of Tokyo have come toge-
ther to engage in a process that is referred to as ‘‘social
experimentation for sustainability.’’ The traditional defini-
tion of social experimentation applies to social welfare
experiments designed to test government policy interven-
tions in a process that must be both generalizable and
replicable (Greenberg and Shroder 2004). At the University
of Tokyo, a broader interpretation of social experimenta-
tion from the context of sustainability is proposed: that is, a
multi-stakeholder intervention on society to demonstrate
the impacts or results of a particular policy or technology
for sustainability. This expanded definition would be useful
in describing a series of multi-stakeholder driven demon-
strations and pilot projects currently being implemented by
the university in view of accelerating a local transition to
sustainable development.
The ‘‘Urban Reformation Program for the Realization of
a Bright Low Carbon Society’’ was initiated in 2010 at the
Kashiwa campus of the University of Tokyo (University of
Tokyo 2011). The overall aim of the project is to design the
blueprint for a low-carbon, elderly citizen-friendly com-
munity in the local vicinity of Kashiwa and to demonstrate
its feasibility via a comprehensive series of social experi-
ments. Both basic and applied research is being conducted
by six groups: energy (development of solar heating and
air-conditioning), senior mobility (trial of super compact
electric vehicles), clinical plant science (senior citizen
education project to alleviate crop diseases), agriculture
and landscape planning (promotion of local agriculture and
bio-mass production), city planning (unification of project
and housing and services for the elderly), and lastly,
information systems (unification and information manage-
ment). The partners for this project include the University
of Tokyo, local government authorities, a think tank, local
enterprises, NPOs, and citizen groups. With regard to the
functions of the partners, the City of Kashiwa and Chiba
Prefecture grant access to data and knowledge, and assis-
tance with legal and political matters. The think tank
Mitsubishi Research Institute provides consulting and
support for strategic decision-making. Private companies
supply technical assistance and facilities, with non-profit
Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 109
123
organizations and citizen groups facilitating citizen par-
ticipation and providing local knowledge.
Concerning the drivers and barriers for this project, an
established history of collaboration and cooperation
between the university and city government, coupled with a
desire to increase the scale of these exchanges, has played a
large role. Furthermore, the future-oriented vision and prior
commitment to low-carbon development of Kashiwa City
has also proved to be a driving force, not forgetting that
interest and support from local residents and other key
stakeholders is high, especially compared to other cities.
Last, but not least, significant five-year funding has also
been secured from the national government. On the other
hand, difficulties sometimes arise from the differing
visions, values, and approaches of the various research
groups involved, and collaboration and information sharing
between these separate research communities is at times
challenging. Moreover, there is also a degree of uncertainty
regarding expected results, and the long-term sustainability
of the project, a trend not unlike that observed in other
transformational sustainability science projects around the
world (Wiek et al. 2012b).
Aside from its research significance, the Urban Refor-
mation Program for the Realization of a Bright Low Car-
bon Society also has valuable implications for
sustainability education. Throughout the project, students
from various graduate programs at the University of Tokyo
actively participate in the diverse social experiments of
each research group. By doing so, they learn transdisci-
plinary approaches to addressing interwoven problems
requiring both technical solutions and policy innovations.
As various types of stakeholders in society are involved in
the social experiments, students can also learn how to
communicate effectively with people and organizations
that do not necessarily share or understand academic ter-
minologies and curiosities (Brundiers and Wiek 2011;
Rowe 2007). This educational role is then extended to the
community and to all stakeholders involved, all of who
may monitor and appropriate results via annual public
conferences and academic journals such as Sustainability
Science. Although this model of social experimentation for
sustainability is still in its initial stages and therefore
encountering many difficulties and obstacles, we would
nevertheless like to highlight its significance as an attempt
to address the complexity of sustainability issues by inte-
grating education, research, and contributions to society
through collaboration and networking with external
stakeholders.
The Natural and Social Science Interface of the Institute
for Environmental Decisions at ETH Zurich organizes
collaboration between academia and society through
transdisciplinary case studies in support of sustainability
transitions (Scholz and Marks 2001). Society faces many
ill-defined, messy, complex, and long-term sustainability
problems, which require learning for socially robust solu-
tions and orientations. The definition, representation, and
transformation of these problems ask for theory–practice
interaction and mutual learning. Transdisciplinarity means
switching from science for society to science with society
and is regarded as the methodology of sustainable transi-
tion (Lang et al. 2012). The transdisciplinary case studies
deal with sustainable transitions of rural and urban systems,
companies, or industries, and policy processes (e.g., deci-
sion processes on nuclear waste disposals). Here, trans-
disciplinarity is considered to be essentially different from
interdisciplinarity. While interdisciplinarity fuses methods
and concepts from different scientific disciplines, trans-
disciplinarity goes beyond sciences, organizes processes of
mutual learning among science and society, and innovates
conventional patterns of knowledge exchange. Thus,
transdisciplinarity integrates experiential knowledge and
values about real-world problems provided by practitioners
and stakeholders with scientific knowledge about systems
provided by researchers. It is also characterized by a joint
process initiated by non-academia, including government,
industry, public, and NGOs, or scientists on an ‘‘ill-
defined,’’ societally relevant, real-world problem that
includes challenging scientific questions; joint leadership
on equal footing for the process and project; joint problem
definition including system boundaries; joint responsibility
but taking different and complementary roles; a method-
based collaborative research methodology, including
deliberation and negotiation processes with stakeholders;
and the construction of robust orientations and/or solutions
to the problem.
Teaching goals in transdisciplinary case studies go
beyond project-based instruction. It is therefore important
to organize a joint problem definition with legitimized
decision makers, to organize mutual learning by commu-
nication and collaboration with case agents, to contribute to
case development, and to reflect potentials and limits of
transdisciplinarity. Students learn how to master com-
plexity, that is, understand and define relevant aspects of
the case utilizing the knowledge of case experts, and define
future states, options, and scenarios. Students learn how to
integrate knowledge through embedded case study methods
(Scholz and Tietje 2002). It is important to use tools to
facilitate group processes and to reflect on and optimize
group processes (Stauffacher et al. 2006). The methodol-
ogy follows six steps of defining a guiding question, facing
the case, performing system analysis, developing scenarios,
performing multi-criteria analysis, and developing robust
orientations (Scholz et al. 2006). Through this process, the
acquisition of various competencies are expected, includ-
ing learning to research ill-defined, societally relevant,
complex real-world problems, and dealing with methods of
110 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113
123
integrating/relating disciplines (e.g., psychological and
physical variables), systems (e.g., variables from human/
social and environmental/natural systems), interest (e.g.,
stakeholder perspectives and values), modes of thought
(e.g., experiential vs. analytical knowledge), and cultures.
Students start from real-world problems and collaborate in
groups, also with stakeholders from outside academia.
Transdisciplinarity can be considered the engineering task
of the twenty-first century. In other words, students learn that
sustainable solutions require more than mere technological
solutions. The key of transdisciplinarity is a close collabo-
ration between praxis/practitioners and university/scientists,
keeping distinct societal roles. Students can profit from being
involved in a transdisciplinary case study on multiple levels,
bridging the science-society gap, and methodologically
sound approaches to complex, ill-defined, and intermingled
problems. The ETH program is currently in a transition
towards transdisciplinary processes based on the human-
environment system framework. The idea is that complex
human-environment interactions may only be understood if
scientific rigor is linked to profound experiential, real-world
system knowledge. Transdisciplinary processes are consid-
ered as the means to generate and utilize this knowledge.
Furthermore, the idea of a sustainability college is expected to
institutionalize life-long learning, which is necessary for
developing sustainability and for systematically incorporat-
ing the rich and deep knowledge in making progress towards
sustainability (Scholz and Marks 2001).
Towards an integration of education, research
and societal contribution for sustainability
Higher education institutions are increasingly expected to
play a key role in generating concrete solutions and strat-
egies to tackle the dynamic, complex factors fueling the
sustainability crisis. To fulfill this expectation, it is essen-
tial that education, research, and societal contributions are
seamlessly integrated into a combined response that is then
promoted and reinforced in the process of institutionali-
zation. To this end, utilizing universities as a platform for
social experimentation through collaboration and net-
working among academia, industry, and the public sector
will enable contributions to learning and innovation for
sustainability. The experience and expertise of the private
sector are a particularly crucial ingredient when imple-
menting multi-stakeholder collaborations with the public
sector aimed at triggering institutional reforms favoring
innovation for sustainability.
With the diversity of experiences at academic programs
in various higher education institutions, opportunities need
to be seized for mutual learning and collaboration on
education, research, and outreach activities in sustainability
science. Students, fellows, and researchers can be
exchanged among different universities, possibly with
portable scholarships and fellowships. Coordination of
academic programs through bilateral/multilateral schemes
can also be pursued. Joint workshops or summer schools
for doctoral and young researchers will be a valuable
opportunity to exchange and learn from different approa-
ches to conducting rigorous research in this diverse field.
Career paths for graduates and researchers need to be
explored, with interviews, surveys, and continued dia-
logues with industry and government. Schemes for
exchanging students and faculty members in university
with employees and researchers in industry need to be
explored. Finally, coordinated efforts for effective outreach
to decision makers and stakeholders in international com-
munities are also expected to contribute to fostering sus-
tainability at the global level.
Acknowledgment The authors thank the handling editor and three
anonymous reviewers for their very constructive comments and
suggestions.
References
Alvial-Palavicino C, Yarime M (2011) Sharing and shaping percep-
tions: dialogues with expertise in the deployment of renewable
energy technologies. In: Cotton M, Motta BH (eds) Engaging
with environmental justice: governance, education and citizen-
ship. Inter-Disciplinary Press, Oxford, pp 189–200
Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (2011)
Talloires declaration. Association of University Leaders for a
Sustainable Future, Washington, DC
Baba Y, Yarime M, Shichijo N (2010) Sources of success in advanced
materials innovation: the role of ‘core researchers’ in university–
industry collaboration in Japan. Int J Innov Manag 14(2):201–219
Ben-David J (1971) The scientist’s role in society: a comparative
study. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2007) Operationalising sustainability
science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot
projects. Geogr J 173(4):343–357
Bok D (2003) Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization
of higher education. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Branscomb LM, Kodama F, Florida R (eds) (1999) Industrializing
knowledge: university–industry linkages in Japan and the United
States. MIT Press, Cambridge
Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world
sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov High
Educ 36(2):107–124
Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning
opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real
world. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):308–324
Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl
Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging
research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8059–8061
Conference of European Rectors (1994) COPERNICUS—the univer-
sity charter for sustainable development. Conference of Euro-
pean Rectors (CRE), Geneva, Switzerland
Crow M (2010) Organizing teaching and research to address the grand
challenges of sustainable development. Bioscience 60(7):488–489
Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 111
123
Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science.
Res Policy 23:487–521
David PA (2003) The economic logic of ‘open science’ and the
balance between private property rights and the public domain in
scientific data and information: a primer. In: Esanu JM, Uhlir PF
(eds) The role of scientific and technical data and information in
the public domain: proceeding of a symposium. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Editorial (2001) Is the university-industrial complex out of control?
Nature 409(6817):119
Etzkowitz H (2002) MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science.
Routledge, London
Etzkowitz H, Webster A (1995) Science as intellectual property. In:
Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of
science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 480–505
Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Healey P (eds) (1998) Capitalizing
knowledge: new intersections of industry and academia. State
University of New York, Albany
Fadeeva Z, Mochizuki Y (2010) Higher education for today and
tomorrow: university appraisal for diversity, innovation and
change towards sustainable development. Sustain Sci 5:249–256
Fadeeva Z, Galkute L, Lotz-Sisitka H, Abdul Razak D, Chaco
´nM,
Yarime M, Mohamedbhai G (2011) University appraisal for
diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable develop-
ment? Can it be done? In: Global University Network for
Innovation (GUNI) (ed) Higher education in the world 4: higher
education committed to sustainability—from understanding to
action. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 308–313
Florida R (1999) The role of the university: leveraging talent, not
technology. Issues Sci Technol 15(4) (online)
Frantzeskaki N, de Haan H (2009) Transitions: two steps from theory
to policy. Futures 41(9):593–606
Gibb A, Haskins G, Robertson I (2009) Leading entrepreneurial
university: meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of
higher education institutions. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship (NCGE), United Kingdom
Glasser H, Calder W, Fadeeva Z (2005) Definition: research in higher
education for sustainability. Document prepared for the Halifax
Consultation, Halifax, NS
Greenberg D, Shroder M (2004) The digest of social experiments, 3rd
edn. The Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC
Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The
anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701
Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler
T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lo
¨vbrand E, Persson J (2011)
Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:69–82
Kajikawa Y, Ohno J, Takeda Y, Matsushima K, Komiyama H (2007)
Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an
analysis of the citation network. Sustain Sci 2:221–231
Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I,
McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux
S, Gallopin GC, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jager J, Jodha NS,
Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B,
O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science
292(5517):641–642
Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a
new discipline. Sustain Sci 1(1):1–6
Komiyama H, Takeuchi K, Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) (2011)
Sustainability science: a multidisciplinary approach. United
Nations University Press, Tokyo
Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P,
Swilling M, Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in
sustainability science—practice, principles and challenges. Sus-
tain Sci 7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Thissen WH (2011) A transition
research perspective on governance for sustainability. In: Jaeger
CC, Ta
`bara JD, Jaeger J (eds) European research on sustainable
development. Transformative science approaches for sustain-
ability, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–90
Maurer SM (2006) Inside the anticommons: academic scientists’
struggle to build a commercially self-supporting human muta-
tions database, 1999–2001. Res Policy 35:839–853
Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science: theoretical and
empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Meyer JW, Ramirez FO, Schofer E, Drori GS (2002) Science in the
modern world polity: institutionalization and globalization,
revised edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2004) Ivory
tower and industrial innovation: university–industry technology
transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States.
Stanford University Press, Stanford
Nelson RR (2004) The market economy, and the scientific commons.
Res Policy 33:455–471
Onuki M, Mino T (2009) Sustainability education and a new master’s
degree, the master of sustainability science: the graduate
program in sustainability science (GPSS) at the University of
Tokyo. Sustain Sci 4:55–59
Orecchini F, Valitutti V, Vitali G (2012) Industry and academia for a
transition towards sustainability: advancing sustainability sci-
ence through university-business collaborations. Sustain Sci
7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0151-3
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999)
The response of higher education institutions to regional needs.
OECD Publishing, Paris
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007)
Higher education and regions: globally competitive, locally
engaged. OECD Publishing, Paris
Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels
and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnol-
ogy community. Organ Sci 15(1):5–21
Owen-Smith J, Riccaboni M, Pammolli F, Powell WW (2002) A
comparison of US and European university–industry relations in
the life sciences. Manag Sci 48(1):24–43
Philpott K, Dooley L, O’Reilly C, Lupton G (2011) The entrepre-
neurial university: examining the underlying academic tensions.
Technovation 31(4):161–170
Redner H (1987) The institutionalization of science: a critical
synthesis. Soc Epistemol 1(1):37–59
Rosenberg N (1998) Chemical engineering as a general purpose
technology. In: Helpman E (ed) General purpose technologies
and economic growth. MIT Press, Cambridge
Rowe D (2007) Education for a sustainable future. Science 317(5836):
323–324
Salter A, D’Este P, Pavitt K, Scott A, Martin B, Geuna A, Nightingale P,
Patel P (2000) Talent, not technology:the impact of publicly funded
research on innovation in the UK. SPRU, University of Sussex
Scholz RW, Marks D (2001) Learning about transdisciplinarity:
where are we? Where have we been? Where should we go? In:
Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Ha
¨berli R, Bill A, Scholz
RW, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving
among science, technology, and society. Birkha
¨user Verlag AG,
Basel, pp 236–252
Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods:
integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thou-
sand Oaks
Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006)
Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability
learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain High
Educ 7(3):226–251
Shriberg M (2002) Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in
higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for
practice and theory. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):254–270
112 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113
123
Shriberg M (2004) Assessing sustainability: criteria, tools, and
implications. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education
and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and
practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 7–20
Shrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I (eds) (2007) Structures of scientific
collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge
Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative
sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J
Sustain High Educ 9(1):68–86
Slaughter S, Leslie LL (1997) Academic capitalism: politics, policies,
and the entrepreneurial university. John Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore
Slaughter S, Rhoades G (2004) Academic capitalism and the new
economy: markets, state and higher education. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis
and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287
Stauffacher M, Walter AI, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2006)
Learning to research environmental problems from a functional
socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary
case study approach. Int J Sustain High Educ 7(3):252–275
Stephan PE (2010) The economics of science. In: Hall BH, Rosenberg
N (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation, vol 1. North-
Holland, Amsterdam
Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in
sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390
Tamura M, Uegaki T (2012) A development of educational model for
sustainability science: challenges in the mind-skills-knowledge
education at Ibaraki University. Sustain Sci. doi:10.1007/s11625-
011-0156-y
Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower?
Sources of growth in university licensing. Manag Sci
48(1):90–104
Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics
and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major US
universities. J Technol Transf 26(1–2):59–72
UNESCO (1984) Activities of the UNESCO-UNEP International
Environmental Education Programm (1975–1983). United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris
UNESCO Education Sector (2005) United Nations Decade of
Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014): interna-
tional implementation scheme. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Paris
University of Tokyo (2011) Urban reformation program for realiza-
tion of bright low carbon society. http://low-carbon.k.u-tokyo.
ac.jp/en/index.html
Uwasu M, Yabar H, Kara K, Shimoda Y, Saijo T (2009) Educational
initiative of Osaka University in sustainability science: mobiliz-
ing science and technology towards sustainability. Sustain Sci
4(1):45–53
van der Leeuw S, Wiek A, Harlow J, Buizer J (2012) How much time
do we have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science.
Sustain Sci 7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0153-1
Velazquez L, Munguia N, Sanchez M (2005) Deterring sustainability
in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which
influence sustainability in higher education institutions. Int J
Sustain High Educ 6(5):383–391
Whitmer A, Ogden L, Lawton J, Sturner P, Groffman PM, Schneider
L, Hart D, Halpern B, Schlesinger W, Raciti S, Bettez N, Ortega
S, Rustad L, Pickett STA, Killilea M (2010) The engaged
university: providing a platform for research that transforms
society. Front Ecol Environ 8(6):314–321
Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman C, Banas Mills S (2011a) Moving
forward on competence in sustainability research and problem
solving. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 53(March–April):3–13
Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011b) Key competencies in
sustainability: a reference framework for academic program
development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218
Wiek A, Farioli F, Fukushi K, Yarime M (2012a) Sustainability
science—bridging the gap between science and society. Sustain
Sci 7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0154-0
Wiek A, Ness B, Brand F, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012b) From
complex systems analysis to transformational change: A com-
parative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci
7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y
Wright T (2002) Definitions and frameworks for environmental
sustainability in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ
3(3):203–220
Wright T (2004) The evolution of sustainability declaration in higher
education. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education
and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and
practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 7–20
Yarime M (2011a) Case description of sanyo electric solar LED
lantern in Kenya: growing inclusive markets. United Nations
Development Programme, New York
Yarime M (2011b) Challenges and opportunities in sustainability
science: a perspective based on research and educational
experiences. In: Global University Network for Innovation
(GUNI) (ed) Higher education in the world 4: higher education
committed to sustainability—from understanding to action.
Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 254–258
Yarime M (2011c) Exploring sustainability science: knowledge,
institutions, and innovation. In: Komiyama H, Takeuchi K,
Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) Sustainability science: a multidis-
ciplinary approach. United Nations University Press, Tokyo
Yarime M, Tanaka Y (2012) The issues and methodologies in
sustainability assessment tools for higher educational institu-
tions: a review of recent trends and future challenges. J Educ
Sustain Dev (forthcoming)
Yarime M, Takeda Y, Kajikawa Y (2010) Towards institutional
analysis of sustainability science: a quantitative examination of
the patterns of research collaboration. Sustain Sci 5(1):115–124
Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 113
123