Challenges in Sustainability | 2017 | Volume 5 | Issue 1 | Pages 35–42

DOI: 10.12924/cis2017.05010035

ISSN: 2297–6477

Challenges in

Sustainability

Research Article

Methodological Challenges in Sustainability Science: A Call for

Method Plurality, Procedural Rigor and Longitudinal Research

Henrik von Wehrden

1,2,3,4,

*, Christopher Luederitz

3,5

, Julia Leventon

and Sally Russell

Centre of Methods, Leuphana University L

uneburg, L

uneburg, Germany

FuturES Research Center, Leuphana University L

uneburg, L

uneburg, Germany

Center for Global Sustainability and Cultural Transformation, Leuphana University L

uneburg, L

uneburg, Germany

Institute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University L

uneburg, L

uneburg, Germany

SPROUT Lab, Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,

Ontario, Canada

Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University

uneburg, L

uneburg, Germany

Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

* Corresponding author: E-Mail: henrik.von [email protected]; Tel.: +49 41316771571

Submitted: 13 April 2016 | In revised form: 30 September 2016 | Accepted: 2 February 2017 |

Published: 19 March 2017

Abstract:

Sustainability science encompasses a unique ﬁeld that is deﬁned through its purpose, the

problem it addresses, and its solution-oriented agenda. However, this orientation creates signiﬁcant

methodological challenges. In this discussion paper, we conceptualize sustainability problems as wicked

problems to tease out the key challenges that sustainability science is facing if scientists intend to deliver

on its solution-oriented agenda. Building on the available literature, we discuss three aspects that demand

increased attention for advancing sustainability science: 1) methods with higher diversity and complemen-

tarity are needed to increase the chance of deriving solutions to the unique aspects of wicked problems; for

instance, mixed methods approaches are potentially better suited to allow for an approximation of solutions,

since they cover wider arrays of knowledge; 2) methodologies capable of dealing with wicked problems

demand strict procedural and ethical guidelines, in order to ensure their integration potential; for example,

learning from solution implementation in different contexts requires increased comparability between re-

search approaches while carefully addressing issues of legitimacy and credibility; and 3) approaches are

needed that allow for longitudinal research, since wicked problems are continuous and solutions can only

be diagnosed in retrospect; for example, complex dynamics of wicked problems play out across temporal

patterns that are not necessarily aligned with the common timeframe of participatory sustainability research.

Taken together, we call for plurality in methodologies, emphasizing procedural rigor and the necessity of

continuous research to effectively addressing wicked problems as well as methodological challenges in

sustainability science.

Keywords: mixed methods; solution-orientated; transdisciplinarity; wicked problems

 2017 by the authors; licensee Librello, Switzerland. This open access article was published

under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

librello

1. Article Statement and Argument

Sustainability science has gained increased momentum

for dealing with wicked problems [

]. It acknowledges

that cause and effects of complex problems are difﬁcult

to unravel, judgments over potential solutions are value

laden, and tackling the wickedness demands integration of

various knowledge domains [

]. However, often such ob-

servations remain rhetorical arguments and little attention

is given to the implications this has for the practices of a

science dealing with wicked problems. This contribution

aims to increase clarity over the methodological challenges

that sustainability science needs to address to effectively

move forward in dealing with wicked problems.

The methodological challenges of sustainability science

have diverse rooting. Some scholars have emphasized

shortcomings in developing a new community of practices

[

] that share an agreed upon set of principles [

] for gen-

erating knowledge on the interactions between nature and

society. Jerneck et al. [

] noticed the tension between nat-

ural and social science. While natural science strives for

scientiﬁc portrayal with little focus on matters such as justice

and power, social science seeks to understand knowledge

as contextually constructed, often with insufﬁcient com-

prehension of natural science research [

]. In fact, much

like other disciplines (e.g., health science, agricultural sci-

ence) the common ground for sustainability science does

not emerge from shared methods or understandings but

from the problems research addresses and the purpose to

developed solutions [

]. We hope to contribute to this

debate through discussing the methodological challenges

of sustainability science through the problems it addresses.

Accordingly, we focus on the nature of these problems as

urgent and multifaceted rather than on the speciﬁc domains

in which they occur (e.g., climate change, biodiversity loss,

social injustice, etc.) and guide our discussion through the

solution orientation of sustainability science.

The nature of sustainability problems is best conceptu-

alized through deﬁning them as wicked problems [

Wicked problems are novel combinations of complex prob-

lems that are only understood after a solution is found [

It is controversial as to whether solutions can actually be

reached or wicked problems are at best mitigated since they

are likely to be continuous and have long-lasting impacts

[

]. Since wicked problems depict real-world challenges,

repeated solution attempts are inconceivable because work-

ing to implement a solution alters a given situation signiﬁ-

cantly, thus demanding a suite of solution attempts [

]. Fur-

thermore, the complexity of wicked problems makes it even

more challenging to develop transferable solutions because

the contextual speciﬁcs of the problem vary, thereby cre-

ating novel combinations of problems features. Additional

complexity is seen in the existence of ‘super-wicked prob-

lems’, an example of which is climate change. Research

on climate change suggests that time to ﬁnd a solution is

running out, and the creators of the problem are also the

same as those with the potential to solve it [

]. While we ac-

knowledge the importance of super-wicked problems (e.g.,

[

]) our goal in this manuscript is not to address them per

se, but rather focus on a more modest goal of exploring how

inter- and trans-disciplinary methodological approaches can

be used to progress the sustainability agenda. Particularly,

because super-wicked problems as a concept does not

signiﬁcantly add to or change the conceptual thinking we

propose in this manuscript, we ﬁnd increased merits in fo-

cusing more narrowly on sustainability as a wicked problem.

Current problems such as climate change, changes

in biosphere integrity, and land use change, share the

key characteristics that deﬁne super-wicked problems [

These problems are typically multifaceted and complex, im-

peding comprehensive understanding and demanding so-

lutions beyond mere panaceas [

]. While problems need

to be urgently addressed, potential solutions need to be

salient, credible, and legitimate to have relevance outside of

science (e.g., for policy [

]) and require novel approaches

because existing knowledge does not address their sys-

temic causes [

–

]. Many of these problems span the

whole globe in their impact but demand recognition of local

context and the integration of stakeholder interests for ap-

proximating viable solutions [

]. For instance, while climate

change occurs on a global scale, the negative impact of cli-

mate change is often observed and felt at the local scale [

Just as with climate change and adaptation to it, solution

attempts to wicked problems leave no room for errors as

only one solution attempt is possible. Yet these problems

are continuous in nature and solutions can therefore only

be approximated on an ongoing path [

]. Besides the prac-

tical challenges presented by wicked problems, they also

require sustainability science to beneﬁt from advances in

other domains [

]. In order to effectively address wicked

problems integration and cooperation between scholars

and practitioners are crucial to establish a solution-oriented

agenda [21] that is use-inspired and addressing real world

place-based problems [22].

The tension between the disciplinary roots of sustainabil-

ity science and its solution-oriented agenda creates method-

ological challenges, among other problems [

]. The ﬁeld

comprises two stands of research, the disciplinary rooted

descriptive-analytical and the solution-oriented transdisci-

plinary science [

]. With regard to the ﬁrst, research com-

prises disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches that fo-

cus primarily on describing and understanding sustainability

problems through descriptive analysis and advanced mod-

eling [

]. This research follows a knowledge-ﬁrst mode for

understanding the root-causes and underlying mechanism,

with its core interest focus on the problem [

]. Transdis-

ciplinary sustainability science encompasses research on

evidence-supported solutions generating actionable knowl-

edge to solve and mitigate context speciﬁc problems [

This research focuses on transition pathways towards so-

lutions, with its core interest laying on the solution(s) itself

[

], yet we acknowledge the complexity of consolidating

a project team [

]. While both strands of research have

their merits for sustainability science [

], the methodologi-

cal gaps between disciplinary and integrated approaches

hamper efﬁcient knowledge production. There is a need

to effectively move from a mere problem analysis to creat-

ing solutions. In addition, there is insufﬁcient exchange of

methodological approaches between different ﬁelds. Thus,

while necessary approaches to generate knowledge might

exists in one ﬁeld, they are unknown in other ﬁelds.

In this discussion paper, we focus on three aspects

where we highlight methodological challenges in sustain-

ability science.

descriptive-analytical research often relies on estab-

lished methods despite diversity and complementary

approaches that are available to address wicked prob-

lems;

ii)

solution-oriented research may potentially lack the re-

quired scientiﬁc rigor in procedures and ethical stan-

dards to account for the unique features of sustain-

ability problems;

iii)

both standards of research have failed to deliver on

their promise to facilitate longitudinal research which

is necessary for wicked problems, as the creation of

solutions does not contain stopping rules, since solu-

tion can only be approximated, but never reached.

Taken together, there is a need to consider diverse per-

spectives and coherent procedural frameworks in order to

enable knowledge generation on a given problem state,

desired futures, and solution implementation.

2. Analysis and Discussion

Solutions to wicked problems require three types of knowl-

edge. The ﬁrst is systemic knowledge that involves di-

agnostic understanding of the underlying dynamics and

conditions. The second is normative knowledge to indi-

cate the direction of change; and the third is transformative

knowledge and solution strategies that effectively transform

the problem at hand. Thus the three-fold knowledge can

be pragmatically differentiated into system, normative and

transformational knowledge [

]. System knowledge refers

to rigorous empirical research on the multi-scalar nature,

facets and complexity of wicked problems. This knowledge

often has a profound disciplinary rooting and is usually

generated through speciﬁc disciplinary lenses and sets of

methods. Normative knowledge relates to norms, values

and objectives that deﬁne how desirable a situation is, and

thus provides a speciﬁc orientation and aim in decision-

making and the development of solution options. Normative

knowledge deals with the human perception of the situation

demanding increased input from the social science and hu-

manities for evaluating and valuing decision stakes. Finally,

transformative knowledge requires development of solu-

tions strategies and instructions to transform the analyzed

problem for making progress towards greater sustainabil-

ity. Transformative knowledge is least often generated and

is typically unique to solution-oriented transdisciplinary re-

search in sustainability science.

In the following sections we employ this knowledge ty-

pology in order to facilitate discussion of the methodological

challenges in sustainability science. With regard to wicked

problems we discuss, ﬁrst, the need for diversity in methods,

second, procedural and ethical challenges, and third, the

demand for and necessity of longitudinal research.

3. Diversity of Methods in Times of Wicked Problems

The three types of knowledge—system, normative and

transformative—foreshadow the need for diversity of ap-

proaches to work on wicked problems [

]. In fact, borders

between natural and social sciences are not helpful to holis-

tically understand environmental characteristics and soci-

etal dynamics of wicked problems (systemic knowledge)

[

]. Explicit normativity in judging trade-offs in decision-

making on wicked problems is crucial for orienting actions

toward solutions. This requires methods that capture the

multiplicity of values in order to disentangle the politics of

change and clarifying whose values count (normative knowl-

edge) [

]. Novel approaches and methods are needed

for advancing “evidence-supported strategies that match

the complexity of the problems they address” because the

characteristics of what transformational knowledge entails

and its implementation remains vague [30].

The differentiation into knowledge types illustrates the

difﬁculties in linking results obtained through different

methodological approaches because the application of spe-

ciﬁc methods and generation of knowledge are often sub-

ject to speciﬁc disciplines. A key challenge in the gener-

ation of system knowledge is that few studies apply inter-

and transdisciplinary approaches. However, the use of

boundary objects—which are deﬁned as plastic objects or

concepts that can integrate across different disciplines or

knowledge domains [

]—can bridge perspectives and dis-

ciplines. Prominent examples of this approach include the

application of frameworks such as the Ostrom framework for

diagnosing and analyzing social-ecological systems [32].

Within the realms of wicked problems typical boundary

objects were coined “big hairy audacious goals” [

], which

indicate problems that can help to align and integrate a

diversity of people towards achieving these goals. A classic

example would be a lake that has collapsed and that scien-

tists and stakeholders try to restore. While we acknowledge

the existence of a wide array of methods to approach such

problems, it remains a key challenge to ensure that diverse

approaches are undertaken to generate a foundation for

possible solutions.

Mixed method approaches (which we deﬁne as a com-

bination of different methods, often qualitative and quantita-

tive methods) could allow researchers to generate knowl-

edge across different disciplines. This would, however,

require research teams with competencies in and across

different disciplines [

]. We therefore propose that in order

to approach wicked problems the reﬂection on knowledge

diversity, which we deﬁne as taking advantage of sources

that generate a wide array of knowledge is a key component

in any research project.

Normative knowledge gives rise to questions over which

values are important and how to account for these [

]. In

addition, solution-oriented research on wicked problems

demands increased reﬂexivity. Researchers need to criti-

cally reﬂect on underlying worldviews of proponents that

engage in sustainability transitions, while being sensitive to

co-optation of experimentation and reﬂect on who beneﬁts

from solutions [

]. Besides reﬂexivity, a solution orien-

tated agenda would also beneﬁt from an increase in the

accountability and legitimacy of generated knowledge [18].

A clear understanding of the different possible modes of

exchange and communication needs to be facilitated. This

demands an active integration of stakeholder knowledge in

the research process across different scales [

], enabling

joint problem framing, as well as the co-creation of solutions

[

]. We recognize that for many topics and branches of sci-

ence, a recognition or exploration of normative knowledge

is less prevalent (e.g. [

]). However, system understand-

ing and normative knowledge needs to be effectively linked,

since most systems are managed and dominated by hu-

mans, which is why it is important to account for human

perceptions of system dynamics.

Since existing knowledge has not led to addressing

the systemic causes of wicked problems, transformational

knowledge demands development of new methods that al-

low for generating of evidence-based solutions. This again

is challenging since transformation per se needs also to

be facilitated and the implementation of changes cannot

be made by scientists, but involves a wider array of ac-

tors and recognition of power structures. Methods to sup-

port transformation are, to date, probably the weakest link

within the three types of knowledge (system, normative and

transformative), and we have only begun to explore the

methodological approaches necessary to gain transforma-

tive knowledge and understand and act using such novel

associated approaches [37].

Wicked problems demand higher diversity and comple-

mentarity in methodologies to allow generating evidence

across the three knowledge types, which we propose is still

widely lacking to date. As such, wicked problems might

as mentioned serve as boundary objects to integrate dif-

ferent disciplines, raising awareness of the resources and

approaches needed to approximate solutions. In order to

serve as boundary objects, wicked problems would need

to be sufﬁciently understandable to all stakeholders [

]

because the recognition of a wicked problem can also be

variable within a system [

]. While a concrete goal can

aid to integrate diverse stakeholders, many wicked prob-

lems are more complex and harder to communicate and

explain. Challenges such as the refugee crisis, resource

depletion, or loss of biodiversity can be seen with this logic

as wicked problems. All these problems are essentially

novel, continuous, and demand the approximation of solu-

tions. For instance, a large body of knowledge exists on

climate change, yet mitigation (preventing climate change),

and adaptation (implementing solutions for the impacts of

climate change), remain as challenges [40].

The generation of transformational knowledge should

therefore consider a diversity of methods [

] beside the

development of novel methods (see above). This does not

mean that system and normative knowledge do not demand

recognition of available methods, however a stronger coher-

ence and experience of knowledge generation is already

at hand. While knowledge produced through disciplinary

lenses is the necessary ﬁrst step in better understanding

wicked problems, it does not translate itself into the solu-

tions to address them [

]. To effectively address wicked

problems sustainability science needs to identify and clar-

ify speciﬁc sets of methods that are considered suitable

for: 1) generating different knowledge types; 2) facilitating

pragmatic selection of appropriate methods to generate

knowledge; and 3) allowing for increased coherency in fu-

ture research.

The core criteria to identify suitable methods is that

they help to approximate solutions, even if only indirectly.

In addition, this needs to be integrated against research

availability. It is clearly beyond the scope of this paper

to provide criteria that help to identify suitable methods,

given that solution attempts for wicked problems cannot

be pre-defined following a simple checklist, yet this paper

suggests some initial approaches. However, we suggest

that mixed method approaches are hardly explored to date

in the literature compared to the majority of papers that rely

on single-method approaches.

Regarding the diversity of knowledge, claims for gener-

ating gains through interdisciplinary reach back decades

[

], and knowledge from outside of academia is also in-

creasingly demanded [

]. Knowledge diversity as such

can thus be mapped out both within academia (i.e. be-

tween different disciplines), as well as inside and outside

of academia. System thinking presents a classic approach

to the integration of diverse knowledge, for instance by

focusing on resources [

]. In order to realize a transforma-

tional agenda, modes of governance of the systems that

need sustainability solutions [

–

] and interaction need to

change [

], even going beyond established societal goals

and transdisciplinary paradigms [50].

The question on sufﬁciency of results obtained from dif-

ferent methods can naturally not be easily answered due

to the nature of wicked problems. Yet recent frameworks

suggest that novel approaches may trigger our thinking

of shorter pathways to solutions, while also considering

the diversity of system, target, and transformational knowl-

edge. A typical example is the leverage points approach

proposed by Donella Meadows [

], which suggested the

existence of different intervention types to tilt systems to-

wards a more sustainable state. This represents in many

aspects a solution orientated framework that may allow to

approach typical problems from e.g. resilience theory. While

resilience proposes shifts in systems from one state to an-

other [

], leverage points may serve as “counter levers” to

create solutions away from undesirable states of the sys-

tem. Accordingly, we propose that such frameworks such

as leverage points may demand further consolidation (e.g.

transdisciplinarity [

]), while recognizing the wide array of

methods at hand [

]. Yet in the context of wicked problems

it is especially unclear which combination of methods may

allow an approximation towards solutions.

4. A Need for Rigor in Procedure and Ethics in Times

of Wicked Problems

The development of solutions to wicked problems demands

methodological procedures and ethical considerations to

facilitate a structured approach for researching effective

solutions. It would be beneﬁcial to integrate and learn from

other disciplines while advancing sustainability procedures

and research ethics. Besides procedural guidelines that

clearly structure and exemplify how to select and adopt suit-

able methods for testing solutions to wicked problems, the

experimentation with real-world transformation demands

explicit ethical considerations.

Procedural guidelines for solution-oriented research in

sustainability science needs to facilitate the development of

methodologies that are explicitly oriented towards designing

and testing solutions for wicked problems [

]. Wiek and

Lang [

] outlined such a methodology with the transforma-

tional sustainability research framework. Reﬂecting on their

proposal we distill the core features to inform procedural

guidelines in sustainability science:

Orienting the research by defining questions and goals;

Designing the research: selecting frameworks and

methods; and

Testing solution options: evaluating efﬁciency and

effectiveness.

By dividing the orientation, design and evaluation of

research into these steps, we argue that necessary ethi-

cal constraints can be made more transparent, and thus

explicitly considered within research projects. We agree

that more reﬂection on the necessary ethical rigor would

be needed in future research, yet propose the suggestions

mentioned by Wiek and Lang [

] as a vital starting point

to integrate these approaches with the necessary reﬂection

within the research process.

The ﬁrst step ‘orienting the research’ refers to the identi-

ﬁcation of the research objectives [

]. This involves clar-

ifying the questions the research aims to answer as well

as setting its goals. In addition, one needs to identify the

wicked problem that is subject to the research and explicate

its wickedness and sustainability relevance. This also helps

to situate the research in relation to system, normative and

transformational knowledge.

The second step ‘designing the research’ refers to

selection of appropriate frameworks and suitable meth-

ods as well as detailing their application. This involves

reflection on the limitations and virtues of the selected

framework(s) with regards to the research objectives and

clarification of potential biases. However, with regard to

the aforementioned need for method plurality we empha-

size the need for triangulation and explicit consideration

of participatory setting for collecting data.

The third step ‘testing solution options’ refers to the ap-

plication of generated knowledge to the identiﬁed wicked

problem. This involves an experiential approach includ-

ing base-line assessment, implementation of solutions and

evaluation of observed effects [

]. The use of experimen-

tal settings provide an advantage in that solutions can be

tested in small-scale settings that allow for evaluation of

the effectiveness of solutions without changing the entire

constellation of the investigated wicked problem. However,

sustainability science needs to engage in an explicit reﬂec-

tion of the ethical dilemmas and consequences that this

might pose, also to consider resource designation within

research to focus on speciﬁc problems.

Ethical considerations of solution-oriented research in

sustainability science need to account for the unique fea-

tures of sustainability problems [

]. To date no clear pro-

cedure exists, which gives reason for concern, as research

involves not only investigation in systems including people,

but also aims to transform these systems towards sustain-

ability. There may be trade-offs, winners and losers, and

unexpected impacts to both the social and physical realms

of the sustainability problem. Within other branches of

science—most prominently medicine—clear and strict eth-

ical guidelines are available, and ethical committees and

checklists are often part of the research process. In sus-

tainability science, ethical considerations are most often

driven by the vigor of the disciplines included in a certain

research project, yet we are not aware of any procedure

that documents research projects in sustainability science

under ethical concerns. We argue that such guidelines are

crucial in the case of wicked problems, since in these cases,

solutions can only be identiﬁed in retrospect.

Sustainability science emerged out of different disci-

plines, which is one reason why it is so difﬁcult to establish a

coherent ethical standard. Since researchers investigate a

wide cultural and societal diversity of normative dimensions,

and are often even embedded into the research process,

documentation and evaluation are crucial [

]. Transforma-

tion towards sustainability can follow different trajectories,

which are subject to politics of change. Since wicked prob-

lems can only have one solution approximation, numerous

other trajectories are potentially less effective or can create

unintended negative impacts. In order to make the research

process as valid as possible from an ethical standpoint, eth-

ical guidelines would be beneﬁcial to ensure documentation

and transparency of the research.

Prominent examples for the need of ethical consider-

ations are the currently emerging real-world labs [

]. In

these ‘living labs’ complex dynamics are investigated and

manipulated, however, little documented consideration is

given to the ethical implications of such approaches nor

does consensus exist over the guidelines for such reﬂec-

tions. One could consider the well-known concept of ‘in-

formed consent’ as suitable for such approaches where

the goal and procedure is clearly communicated to partic-

ipants, who are asked to agree to the research process

prior to participation. The concept of informed consent is

however potentially controversial in sustainability science,

since identiﬁcation of participants and affected stakeholders

is variable if not difﬁcult [

], particularly given the multi-

ple spatial and temporal scales that many sustainability

problems span across over. Another concept well known

in medical research is “double blind studies”, where both

participants and scientists do not know receives a treatment

and who a placebo. However, such procedures can hardly

be introduced to sustainability science, the crafting of action-

able knowledge relies on co-production [

]. This makes

a strict planning and reviewing of research approaches

necessary in sustainability science.

Another example in relation to living labs is the ques-

tion of different levels of system manipulation [

]. While,

for instance, some neighborhoods in a city are trans-

formed [

], others might remain unchanged to allow

for a comparison. While this certainly has merits from

a statistical perspective, it may be a reason for serious

concern from an ethical perspective, i.e. considering the

rights of the people involved in the research. One way of

overcoming this issue could be to offer to facilitate trans-

formation after the conclusion of the research, following

the three-step procedural guidance outlined above. In this

way, those participants who were initially part of a control

group receive the treatment once the research component

is complete. On the other hand, resources are unlikely

abundant enough to solve each and every single problem

in sustainability science, and most definitely not every

local case. Such an approach how intervention in one

local system may influence a larger-scale system over a

longer time period. Therefore, in order to allow for a more

formalized evaluation of research processes, we call for

increased attention on the ethical considerations involved

in the approximation of solutions to wicked problems. Re-

cently founded institutions such as the Intergovernmental

Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services (IPBES), attempt to acknowledge this concern

[

]. The IPBES is the intergovernmental body which

assesses the state of biodiversity and of the ecosystem

services it provides to society, in response to requests

from decision makers (http://www.ipbes.net). The IPBES

builds strongly on a transparent and coherent communica-

tion and a constant revision of their agenda. We propose

that accompanying research approaches should be in-

creasingly used by researchers and institutions, thereby

allowing for an evaluation of research based on compara-

ble ethical standards.

Rigor in the application of methods in sustainability sci-

ence is challenging, since the diversity of methods is rooted

in many different knowledge domains, schools of thinking,

and disciplines. Sustainability science is therefore in the

unique position to integrate ethical rigor based on diverse

experience. While this is surely beneﬁcial, it is vital to focus

on solutions, which can be integrated with scientiﬁc rigor.

In this sense, not only should our research be focused on

sustainability, but it also needs to be made under sustain-

ability standards. It is beyond the scope of this paper to

discuss these standards, yet we can state that resource

availability has to be balanced against the given solution

approximation. While we agree that novel methods can be

beneﬁcial [

], we would also underline that a diversity of

methods is already at hand, yet most methods are restricted

to their given epistemological and disciplinary background

and reasoning. Opening up these barriers would surely be

beneﬁcial, since diverse sampling and analysis approaches

are vital, as this would theoretically increase the possibility

of approximating a viable solution.

5. Long-Term Research in Times of Wicked Problems

Due to the continuous nature of wicked problems, solu-

tions may be approximated and can only be identiﬁed in

retrospect, which is why research methodologies need to

allow for longitudinal research and data analyses. While

we acknowledge that due to their continuous nature wicked

problems may not necessarily be solved and may only be

dampened, we also suggest that the implementation of

solutions might cause adverse effects that were not ini-

tially considered. In addition, many wicked problems are

characterized by dynamics that only become visible though

decade-long observation, such as rangeland management

[

]. Researchers need to embrace reﬂexivity in order to

alter and adapt the research process. This is especially

challenging when it comes to mixed method approaches,

as the different grain between approaches (i.e. quantitative

and qualitative) is difﬁcult to match.

Among the most advanced approaches in sustainabil-

ity science is certainly systems thinking, which taps into a

wide and diverse set of data and methods [

]. While to

date a large array of research has already applied systems

thinking, we propose that this does not often contain mixed

method approaches and often focuses too narrowly on gain-

ing increased understanding of wicked problems thereby

neglecting normative and transformational knowledge. In

addition, these approaches rarely employ methods that ac-

tually allow for reﬂexivity. It is evident that implementing a

continuous evaluation of the research process and outputs

to identify the effectiveness of interventions is vital when

considering wicked problems [

]. Numerous disciplinary

methods are speciﬁcally designed to implement longitudinal

analyses (e.g. clinical trials in medicine or greenhouse ex-

periments in biology), while long-term approaches are also

common in social sciences and urban research [

]. Match-

ing both quantitative and qualitative methods in a mixed

method framework is time consuming, and applying a wider

canon of methods demands typically more resources. Yet

most research projects have a much shorter funding period

than what is needed to respond to sustainability problems.

Projects with a backcasting approach would for instance

be able to implement the approximation towards solutions

of wicked problems into a sustainability science agenda.

This would allow for a clear visioning process, and then

enable researcher to approximate solutions, ideally based

on mixed method approaches.

6. Outlook

Wicked problems are at the heart of sustainability, as many

of them prominently defy justice, since the negative impact

is highest in regions that contribute less to the creation of

the problem. Yet while the notion of wicked problems has

existed for a long time, the rise of sustainability science in

the last two decades has triggered a stronger engagement

in research approaching the concept of wicked problems.

We propose that by embedding the framework of wicked

problems more thoroughly into sustainable science, we can

create a stronger argumentation to:

engage a diverse set of methods, including mixed meth-

ods to guide research on wicked problems and demand

procedural rigor for orienting and designing sustainabil-

ity research as well as testing solution options;

a clear documentation of research is needed to facilitate

the vital ethical considerations and to increase research

transparency and legitimacy that in turn allows for retro-

spective analysis of wicked problems; and finally,

a long-term research approach is vital to enable this

retrospect perspective and to make it possible to en-

gage in the whole timeline of a wicked problem.

Sustainability science is only just starting to develop an

agenda on how these three challenges can be integrated

and ﬁnally solved. There is already a huge portfolio of

methods available, yet many of these are not sufﬁciently

used outside of their given knowledge domain. Also, sus-

tainability research needs to stronger shift towards solution

orientation producing normative knowledge and especially

transformative knowledge. With research integration and

application becoming more complex, ethical procedures

need to be developed, tested and applied. Only by doing

this will we be able to generate transferable knowledge and

facilitate long-term research, societal changes and shifts

typically span across longer time scales. Initial accounts

of diverse and integrated articles [

] and textbooks be-

come increasingly available [

], paving the road for the

next generation of researchers [30].

References and Notes

[1]

Levin K, Cashore B, Bernstein S, Auld G. Overcoming the tragedy

of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to amelio-

rate global climate change. Policy Sciences. 2012;45(2):123–152.

doi:0.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.

[2]

Salas-Zapata WA, R

ıos-Osorio LA, Cardona-Arias JA. Method-

ological characteristics of sustainability science: a systematic re-

view. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2016;pp. 1–14.

doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9801-z.

[3]

Seager T, Selinger E, Wiek A. Sustainable Engineering Science for

Resolving Wicked Problems. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental

Ethics. 2012;25(4):467–484. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2.

[4]

Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J. Evolution and structure of sustain-

ability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-

ences of the United States of America. 2011;108(49):19540–19545.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1102712108.

[5]

Rapport DJ. Sustainability science: an ecohealth perspective. Sustain-

ability Science. 2006;2(1):77–84. doi:10.1007/s11625-006-0016-3.

[6]

Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E,

et al. Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science.

2010;6(1):69–82. doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x.

[7]

Lave R, Wilson MW, Barron ES, Biermann C, Carey MA, Du-

vall CS, et al. Intervention: Critical physical geography. The

Canadian Geographer/Le G

eographe Canadien. 2013;58(1):1–10.

doi:10.1111/cag.12061.

[8]

Spangenberg JH. Sustainability science: a review, an analy-

sis and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation.

2011;38(3):275–287. doi:10.1017/S0376892911000270.

[9]

Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, Brand FS, Farioli F. From com-

plex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative

appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustainability Science.

2012;7:5–24. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y.

[10]

Churchman CW. Wicked Problems. Management Science.

1967;14(4).

[11]

Xiang WN. Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological sys-

tems: Awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landscape and Ur-

ban Planning. 2013;110:1–4. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.006.

[12]

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.

Policy Sciences. 1973;4(2):155–169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730.

[13]

Checkland P, Poulter J, Williams T, Hitchins DK, Hoverstadt P, Pidd

M, et al. Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked

problems. Chichester, UK: Wiley Publishing; 2006.

[14]

Brundiers K, Wiek AI. Educating Students in Real-world Sustainability

Research: Vision and Implementation. Innovative Higher Education.

2011;36(2):107–124. doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9161-9.

[15]

Ostrom E. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the United States of America. 2007;104(39):15181–15187.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0702288104.

[16]

Batie SS. Wicked problems and applied economics. Amer-

ican Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2008;90(5):1176–1191.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01202.x.

[17]

Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier

U, et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio.

2016;46(1):30–39. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.

[18]

Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH,

et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceed-

ings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2003;100(14):8086–8091.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100.

[19]

van der Leeuw S, Wiek A, Harlow J, Buizer J. How much time do we

have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science. Sustainability

Science. 2012;7:115–120. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0153-1.

[20]

Clark WC. Sustainability science: A room of its own. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

2007;104(6):1737–1738. doi:10.1073/pnas.0611291104.

[21]

Kauffman J, Arico S. New directions in sustainability science:

promoting integration and cooperation. Sustainability Science.

2014;9(4):413–418. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0259-3.

[22]

Kates R. Readings in Sustainability Science and Technology. Cam-

bridge, MA, USA: Center for International Development, Harvard

University; 2010.

[23]

Wiek A, Lang DJ. Transformational sustainability research method-

ology. Sustainability Science—An Introduction. New York, NY, USA:

Springer; 2016.

[24]

Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D,

et al. The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented

research agenda. Sustainability Science. 2014;9(2):239–246.

doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6.

[25]

Norris PE, O’Rourke M, Mayer AS, Halvorsen KE. Managing

the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-

ecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2016;154:115–

122. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.008.

[26]

Wiek A. Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowl-

edge generation—Experiences from transdisciplinary case study

research. Gaia—Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society.

2007;16(1):52–57.

[27]

Termeer C, Dewulf A, Breeman G. Governance of Wicked Climate

Adaptation Problems. In: Knieling J, Leal Filho W, editors. Climate

Change Governance. Springer, Heidelberg; 2013. pp. 27–39.

[28]

Kates RW. What kind of a science is sustainability sci-

ence? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the United States of America. 2011;108(49):19449–19450.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1116097108.

[29]

Anderson MW, Teisl MF, Noblet CL. Whose values count: is a theory

of social choice for sustainability science possible? Sustainability

Science. 2015;11(3):373–383. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0345-1.

[30]

Wiek A, Kay B. Learning while transforming: solution-oriented

learning for urban sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. Cur-

rent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2015;16:29–36.

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.001.

[31]

Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgartner S, Fischer J, Hanspach

J, Hardtle W, et al. Ecosystem services as a boundary ob-

ject for sustainability. Ecological Economics. 2014;103:29–37.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012.

[32]

Partelow S. Key steps for operationalizing social-ecological

system framework research in small-scale ﬁsheries: A heuris-

tic conceptual approach. Marine Policy. 2015;51:507–511.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.005.

[33]

Collins J, Porras JI. Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary

Companies. Harper Business; 1994.

[34]

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P,

et al. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice,

principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science. 2012;7:25–43.

doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.

[35]

Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurvvaerdere T. A pragmatist ap-

proach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From com-

plex systems theory to reﬂexive science. Futures. 2015;65:45–56.

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002.

[36]

Hospes O, van der Valk O, van der Mheen-Sluijer J. Parallel Develop-

ment of Five Partnerships to Promote Sustainable Soy in Brazil: So-

lution or Part of Wicked Problems? International Food and Agribusi-

ness Management Review. 2012;15(B):39–62.

[37]

Luederitz C, Sch

apke N, Wiek A, Lang DJ, Bergmann M, Bos JJ,

et al. Learning through evaluation – A tentative evaluative scheme for

sustainability transition experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production.

2016;doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005.

[38]

Zijp MC, Posthuma L, Wintersen A, Devilee J, Swartjes FA. Deﬁni-

tion and use of Solution-focused Sustainability Assessment: A novel

approach to generate, explore and decide on sustainable solutions

for wicked problems. Environment International. 2016;91:319–331.

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.006.

[39]

Patterson JJ. Exploring Local Responses to a Wicked Problem: Con-

text, Collective Action, and Outcomes in Catchments in Subtropical

Australia. Society & Natural Resources. 2016;29(10):1198–1213.

doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1132353.

[40]

Brink E, Aalders T, Adam D, Feller R, Henselek Y, Hoffmann A, et al.

Cascades of green: A review of ecosystem-based adaptation in urban

areas. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions.

2016;36:111–123. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.003.

[41]

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, et al. A re-

view of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological

Economics. 2013;92:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008.

[42]

Robinson TN, Sirard JR. Preventing childhood obesity - A solution-

oriented research paradigm. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine. 2005;28(2):194–201. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.030.

[43]

Klein JT. Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and

interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press; 1996.

[44]

Ostrom E. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability

of Social-Ecological Systems. Science. 2009;325(5939):419–422.

doi:10.1126/science.1172133.

[45]

Baird J, Plummer R, Bodin O. Collaborative governance for cli-

mate change adaptation in Canada: experimenting with adaptive

co-management. Regional Environmental Change. 2016;16(3):747–

758. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0790-5.

[46]

ainen TJ. Governance Solutions for Wicked Problems:

Metropolitan Innovation Ecosystems as Frontrunners to Sustainable

Well-Being. Technology Innovation Management Review. 2015;pp.

31–41. Available from: https://timreview.ca/article/935.

[47]

Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Breeman G, Stiller SJ. Governance Capa-

bilities for Dealing Wisely With Wicked Problems. Administration &

Society. 2015;47(6):680–710. doi:10.1177/0095399712469195.

[48]

Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, Vink M, van Vliet

M. Coping with the wicked problem of climate adaptation across

scales: The Five R Governance Capabilities. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 2016;154:11–19. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.007.

[49]

Breeman G, Dijkman J, Termeer C. Enhancing food security through

a multi-stakeholder process: the global agenda for sustainable live-

stock. Food Security. 2015;7(2):425–435. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-

0430-4.

[50]

Brown VA. Utopian thinking and the collective mind:

Beyond transdisciplinarity. Futures. 2015;65:209–216.

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.004.

[51]

Meadows DH. Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system.

Hartland, VT: Sustainability Institute; 1999.

[52]

Folke C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective

for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmen-

tal Change-Human and Policy Dimensions. 2006;16(3):253–267.

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

[53]

Leventon J, Fleskens L, Claringbould H, Schwilch G, Hessel R.

An applied methodology for stakeholder identiﬁcation in transdis-

ciplinary research. Sustainability Science. 2016;11(5):763–775.

doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0385-1.

[54]

Evans J, Jones R, Karvonen A, Millard L, Wendler J. Living labs and

co-production: university campuses as platforms for sustainability sci-

ence. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2015;16:1–6.

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.005.

[55]

Buhr K, Federley M, Karlsson A. Urban Living Labs for Sustainability

in Suburbs in Need of Modernization and Social Uplift. Technology

Innovation Management Review. 2016;pp. 27–34. Available from:

https://timreview.ca/article/958.

[56]

Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Von Wehrden H. A systematic review of

guiding principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development

[Journal Article]. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2013;118:40–52.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.002.

[57]

Brooks TM, Lamoreux JF, Soberon J. IPBES not equal

IPCC. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2014;29(10):543–545.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.08.004.

[58]

Larigauderie A. Pollinator assessment: IPBES responds on conﬂicts

of interest. Nature. 2015;517(7534):271. doi:10.1038/517271e.

[59]

Brunson MW. The Elusive Promise of Social-Ecological Approaches

to Rangeland Management. Rangeland Ecology & Management.

2012;65(6):632–637. doi:10.2111/Rem-D-11-00117.1.

[60]

Vigano P. Extreme Cities and Bad Places. International Journal of

Disaster Risk Science. 2012;3(1):3–10. doi:10.1007/s13753-012-

0002-6.