How can science support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability

Abstract

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development stresses the fundamental role science should play in implementing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals endorsed by the global community. But how can and should researchers respond to this societal demand on science? We argue that answering this question requires systematic engagement with the fundamental normative dimensions of the 2030 Agenda and those of the scientific community-and with the implications these dimensions have for research and practice. We suggest that the production of knowledge relevant to sustainable development entails analytic engagement with norms and values through four tasks. First, to unravel and critically reflect on the ethical values involved in sustainability, values should increasingly become an empirical and theoretical object of sustainability research. Second, to ensure that research on social-ecological systems is related to sustainability values, researchers should reflect on and spell out what sustainability values guide their research, taking into account possible interdependencies, synergies, and trade-offs. Third, to find common ground on what sustainability means for specific situations, scientists should engage in deliberative learning processes with societal actors, with a view to jointly reflecting on existing development visions and creating new, contextualized ones. Fourth, this implies that researchers and scientific disciplines must clarify their own ethical and epistemic values, as this defines accountability and shapes identification of problems, research questions, and results. We believe that ignoring these tasks, whether one is in favor or critical of the 2030 Agenda, will undermine the credibility and relevance of scientific contributions for sustainable development.

A Multiscale Transdisciplinary Framework for Advancing the Sustainability Agenda of Mountain Agricultural Systems

“…First, we identified a disconnect between normative orientations for sustainability at different scales (von Wir en-Lehr 2001). The term ''normative orientation'' refers to the value dimension of sustainability, expressing where future development should go (Schneider et al 2019). The term ''scale'' refers to institutional decision-making levels (local, subnational, national, regional, and global).…”

“…The second barrier is inadequate alignment between the knowledge contributions of science and the normative sustainability orientations mentioned for the first barrier (Swilling 2014;Schneider et al 2019). Science often aims to solve disciplinary problems, rather than address societal concerns and challenges for sustainability (German et al 2017), especially those of mountain communities and marginal areas.…”

Quality Criteria to Evaluate Performant and Scope of 2030 Agenda in Metropolitan Areas: Case Study on Strategic Planning of Environmental Municipality Management

“…The 2030A proposes a framework for knowledge-based transformations to sustainable development that reconciles evidence and socio-political deliberations for accelerated action [20,21]: understanding systemic interactions; understanding competing development agendas; understanding transformations in concrete contexts.…”

“…Evaluation plays an essential role in this environmental planning as a scientific instrument that gives quality assurances to the decisions adopted [36]. The 2030A was developed through a largely political rather than a scientific process, the goals and targets-as well as the specific indicators developed to assess progress against these goals and targets-are formulated in a limited and somewhat inconsistent way [20]. The uniqueness of the environmental planning field requires the selection of proven evaluation models, inspired by methodologies validated in practice, built on bottom-up models [37,38] in which bottom-up participation is an essential requirement in a decision paradigm that places citizens at the heart of democratic decision-making processes, from the empowerment provided by the SEE [32] and specifically, the Participatory Action Research (PAR) [15,39] introduced at a time when undertaking an analysis of needs and prioritizing decisions on the…”

“…Researchers, practitioners, decision makers, funders and civil society should work together to achieve universally accessible and mutually beneficial sustainability science [14]. New approaches to science, such as action research [15], mode two knowledge production [16]: transdisciplinary research [17,18] and post-normal science [19] that propose that scientists should engage in deliberative learning processes with societal actors, with a view to jointly reflecting on existing development visions and creating new, contextualized ones [20].…”