See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352573549

Chapter 1. Sustainability Science: Where and how?

Chapter · June 2021

CITATION READS
1 948

4 authors, including:

Carlos Aguirre-Bastos Osamu Saito

Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
141 PUBLICATIONS   3,385 CITATIONS    229 PUBLICATIONS   4,935 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Science and Innovation for Inclusive Development View project

Tana Delta Ramsar site View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Aguirre-Bastos on 21 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 1. Sustainability Science: Where and how?
Carlos Aguirre-Bastos, Juliana Chaves Chaparro, Osamu Saito, Kazuhiko Takeuchi

1.1.Sustainability Science and its Aproaches

‘During the 21st century, human society faces the daunting yet inspiring task of forging a new
relationship with the natural world’. This new relationship is captured by the concept
‘sustainability’, that implies meeting current human needs while preserving the environment and
natural resources needed by future generations. It is well recognized that ‘Scientific knowledge has
led to remarkable advances that have been of great benefit to humankind, together however, with
environmental degradation social imbalance, and sophisticated weapons.’(IAP, 2000).
Human activities, driven almost exclusively by the pursuit of economic growth, are affecting the
stability of the earth’s systems. These activities represent a complex nonlinear network of multiple
cause-and-effect relationships generating a large number of sustainability challenges, of key
importance among which are: climate change; change in biosphere integrity; ozone depletion;
ocean acidification; biogeochemical flows; land-system change (e.g. deforestation); freshwater
use; atmospheric aerosol loading; and introduction of novel entities (e.g. organic pollutants,
radioactive materials, nanomaterials, and microplastics).
Currently, several of the above planetary boundaries have been crossed, risking a shift to a much
less hospitable state, thereby endangering economic growth and damaging efforts to reduce poverty
and exclusion, and leading to a deterioration of human well-being in many parts of the world
(Steffen et al., 2015; Paus, 2013).
This situation calls for new approaches in science and technology in order to achieve radical
improvements both in policy and practice, reconfiguring the flow of knowledge between people,
organizations and institutions, the interaction between them and establishing a set of incentives
(Schott and Steinmuller, 2017; Crespi and Dutrenit, 2013; Bokova, 2012). Traditional ways can
only deliver at best, incremental progress that will not be sufficient to avoid crossing a threshold,
where damaging consequences may not be slowed or reversed.
The Future Earth (FE) initiative aims to face sustainability challenges by building and connecting
knowledge in order to increase the impact of research, explore new development paths, and find
new ways to accelerate transitions to sustainable development. The UNESCO-SIDA Future Earth
Capacity Project aims to bring developing countries into the FE initiative and global dialogues on
how to define coherent and inclusive research and innovation systems within the Sustainability
Science paradigm.
Sustainability Science can be disciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary; it can be geared
towards the generation of basic knowledge, applied technology or socio-cultural innovation, or
exploring new governance or social and economic models. Sustainability Science is an expression
of both academic freedom and of academic responsibility towards societal issues.
Komiyama and Takeuchi (2006) define Sustainability Science as a new emerging discipline which
adopts ‘a comprehensive, holistic approach to identification of problems and perspectives
involving the sustainability of these global, social, and human systems.’ They also emphasize
‘structuring knowledge for Sustainability Science’ and a ‘transdisciplinary approach’ as key drivers
to promote this new discipline.
Sustainability Science is widely recognized and accepted as a bridge between various disciplines
to address global challenges and, more recently, as a foundation of knowledge for achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)(United Nations, 2015). Over the last decade, the
discipline has emerged as a science for transition and innovation towards a sustainable society and
is widely accepted not only by research communities from various disciplines but also stakeholders
from business sectors (Takeuchi et al., 2017). As per the findings of an Elsevier report on
sustainability science in a global landscape, field research shows a tremendous growth rate of about
7.6% in all Scopus publications from 2009–2013, which is twice the average. Sustainability
Science research outputs attract 30%more citations than the average research paper (Elsevier and
Sci Dev Net, 2015).
The transformation required to face sustainability challenges needs not only the development and
diffusion of a wide range of new knowledge and technologies, alongside broader changes in the
socio-economic landscape (Dutrenit and Sutz, 2014), it also requires a better participation of
traditional and ancestral knowledge that has enhanced indigenous and local communities’ abilities
to cope with present and future global changes (Toledo 2003, Ruiz-Mallen and Corbera, 2013).
These requirements require new ways of knowledge production and decision-making.
Sustainability Science is characterized by its solution-oriented approach, ability to link social and
ecological systems, and inter- and transdisciplinary perspective (Kates et al., 2001; Komiyama and
Takeuchi, 2006).The approach proposed by Sustainability Science can provide appropriate answers
to real world problems as it is transdisciplinary, community-based and participatory. Its main
principle accompanies the proposed co design and coproduction of knowledge (Pohl et al., 2010),
that stems from research collaborations among scientists from different disciplines and non-
academic stakeholders from business, government and civil society.
The implications of this solution-oriented approach are:
• Research on complex sustainability problems requires constructive input from various
communities of knowledge to ensure that the essential knowledge from all relevant
disciplines and actors related to the problem is co-designed and properly incorporated;
• Research on alternative solutions requires knowledge production beyond problem analysis
− for example: goals, norms, visions and valuations systems are needed to provide guidance
for transition and intervention strategies; and
• Collaborative efforts between researchers and non-academic stakeholders promise to
increase legitimacy, ownership and accountability for the problem, as well as options for
solutions (Lang et al., 2012).
1.2. Key Challenges for the Sustainability Science Approach

The challenge for the Sustainability Science approach is that scientists and indigenous and local
knowledge holders might be sceptical of the reliability, validity and other epistemological and
methodological aspects of collaborative research. Also, practitioners and other stakeholders might
be sceptical regarding the practical relevance of the results. The differences between traditional
science and Sustainability Science also disrupt the capacities required to conduct research.
In order for this kind of collaborative effort to be successful, it is important to focus on
environmental and social challenges − the so-called ‘wicked problems’, due to their complexity
and interrelational nature −enabling mutual learning processes and fertilization across researchers
from different disciplines, as well as indigenous and local knowledge holders; and aiming to create
knowledge that is solution-oriented, socially robust and transferable to both scientific and societal
practice (Surret al., 2002), with special regard to policy-making (Carden, 2009).
The enhancement of the science-policy-society interface lies in making effective connections
between key stakeholders, including governments, scientific communities, think tanks, the private
sector and civil society actors. This dialogue and cross-fertilization are required to support the
evolution of the sustainability concept, as well as to ensure good science, technology and
innovation STI governance to enable an integrated, inclusive approach to knowledge production
and its effective contribution to address societal needs.
From this viewpoint, Sustainability Science is not just about scientific inquiry. The Sustainability
science paradigm incorporates a concrete normative and ethical context which is instrumental to
the achievement of the Paris Agreement and the UN agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.
Therefore, political and philosophical issues – including the central question: ‘Sustainability of
what?’ – play a key role in the assessment of ‘Sustainability Science’ and in understanding the
sustainability scientist’s role (Clark and Dickson 2003; Willmott, 2014). In this regard, in addition
to scientific considerations, Sustainability Science is essentially a political option to build more
inclusive, knowledge-empowered societies, by which natural processes are preserved so as to
ensure the well-being of civilization.
Given the new principles described above, it is necessary to reassess different issues, and different
questions that come to mind: What are the competences required? What are appropriate quality
standards and criteria for this type of research? What type of interventions are appropriate and by
whom? Who sets the research agendas? What are the characteristics and the role of the researcher
in the new paradigm? These are questions that urgently need to be answered (Göransson et al.,
2016; Wittmayer and Schäpke, 2014).
In the context of different global discussions taking place today, there are additional issues that
need to be discussed in relation to the contribution of Sustainability Science to global
environmental challenges:
• Women and girls make up more than half the world’s population and they are often more
deeply and differently impacted than men and boys by poverty, climate change, food
insecurity, and lack of healthcare. When an enabling gender equality environment is set,
countries, organizations and institutions increase their innovative capacity and
competitiveness. The scientific endeavour benefits from the creativity and vibrancy of the
interaction of different perspectives and expertise. Gender equality encourages new
solutions and expands the scope of research (Göransson et al.,2008 and Huyer, 2015).
Therefore, women’s involvement in scientific and policy spheres is essential to properly
define the world’s sustainability agenda and find innovative solutions.
• Developing countries have particular challenges, inter alia high poverty and inequality and
contextual conditions, including bio cultural diversity, that require analysis and
methodologies adapted to their reality. These factors can greatly influence the set of
valuations/motivations required to generate knowledge and its effective translation into
sustainable solutions. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge the development nuances
 and take advantage of the interactive and evolutionary characteristics of Sustainability
Science to enable fresh insights into the notion of sustainability and to define alternative
and customized development models (Arico, 2014). This will accelerate the necessary
transition from the concept of ‘catching up’, usually attributed to developing countries, to
integrated and inclusive knowledge producers and designers of their own customized
sustainable development paths.
• In developing countries, a large percentage of knowledge is generated around universities.
These institutions are thus of importance, not only for the more obvious issue of capacity-
building, but also for the mobilization of multiple stakeholders in the exchange, production
and dissemination of knowledge. A discussion of their role is thus of great importance.
(Brundenius et al., 2010).
• The majority of publications in Sustainability Science are by high-income countries
(254,629: 76% of all publications in sustainability science in the period 2009−2013). Low-
income countries only produced 2%of the publications in this field, and most of them are
the product of the cooperation with developed countries. This indicates that there is still a
need to strengthen the research infrastructure and scientific cooperation networks of and
among developing countries, in particular low-income countries (Elsevier and Sci Dev Net,
2015), as well as to address context-specific sustainability challenges and provide
comparative tools to develop tailor-made policy advice.
• In particular, and although not yet fully connected the African region appears active in the
global research network in Sustainability Science, mainly with the USA, Canada and West
Europe. South Africa and East African countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda)
that are the regional research hubs. This is of course related to the nature of Sustainability
Science, which requires global collaboration. However, the low publication rate and
minimal internal African/East African cooperation or South-South cooperation is a major
issue in the design of relevant knowledge to guide alternative development paths adapted
to specific regional contextual factors.
• Interactions between distant places are increasingly widespread and influential, often
leading to unexpected outcomes for sustainability (Liu et al., 2013). ‘Telecouplings’, as
they are known, refer to various distant interactions which are increasingly important to
understand present socio-ecological systems. Including telecouplings, interactions between
nature and humankind have become, and will continue to become, more complex and
uncertain, especially under climate change conditions. At the same time, there are new
opportunities enabled by new technologies, such as self-driving transportation systems,
sharing economy, artificial intelligence, digitization, smart buildings and cities, and big data
accumulated by information and communication technology (ICT).
• The integration of different knowledge systems, including indigenous and local (traditional)
knowledge is one of the key challenges for many developing countries. Johnson et al.,
(2016) stressed that ‘productive and reciprocal collaboration between indigenous and
Sustainability Science could create a new vision for sustaining resilient landscapes.’
Strengthening of the science-policy-society interface and coproduction of knowledge, as
well as future scenarios with innovative policy options, should be explored to lead effective
actions for operationalizing and implementing SDGs from local, national and regional to
global scales (Takeuchi et al., 2017).
 • The SDGs consist of 17 goals and 169 related targets. Across the goals, 42 targets focus on
means of implementation, and the final goal (17), is entirely devoted to means of
implementation. However, these implementation targets are largely silent about
interlinkages and interdependencies among goals (Stafford-Smith et al., 2016).Actions or
measures taken to achieve one goal may be mutually reinforcing or contradictory with
respect to achieving other goals. Sustainability Science is expected to provide useful
scientific knowledge to avoid potential trade-offs between different goals and targets, and
to maximize synergy among them (Saito et al., 2017).
• The SDGs’ fundamental philosophy is ‘no one left behind’. How to enhance inclusiveness
through the SDG implementation process is also one of the key challenges for Sustainability
Science when evaluating SDG programmes, particularly when capturing the overarching
concepts applicable across all 17 goals, such as educational dynamics and resilience
(Yonehara et al., 2017).
• The consideration of employment and demographic trends is an important issue when
exploring the contribution of Sustainability Science to global environmental challenges. In
2015, unemployment affected more than 73 million of 1.2 billion youth aged 15−24 years.
By 2030 − the target date for the SDGs − the number of youths are projected to have grown
by 7%, to nearly 1.3 billion. Although the size of the youth population has peaked in all
regions, in Africa the number of youths is growing rapidly. In 2015, the region accounted
for 19%; the estimate for2040 is 42%.Youth can be an extremely positive force in defining
alternative and more sustainable models for development, when access to knowledge and
opportunities exists. If instead, they are unemployed or underemployed in subsistence
agriculture or the informal sector, the growing number of youths will pose a challenge to
the achievement of sustainable development, and could cause social or political
destabilization (Filmer et al., 2014). Education and research systems should pay special
attention to human capacity development and to governance mechanisms that promote
broader participation and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of vulnerable groups
such as youth and women.
1.3. UNESCO’s Contribution to Sustainability Science

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was created in
1945 to promote a culture of peace −an essential condition for sustainable development. UNESCO
recognizes that sustainable development should respond in an integrated manner to the complex
challenges of today and is capitalizing on its interdisciplinary expertise and intersectoral mandate
to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, with a special focus on developing countries
and the African region. UNESCO’s operational strategy for Priority Africa is aligned with the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, which in turn fully integrates the 2063 Agenda of the
African Union. Moreover, UNESCO’s operational strategy for Priority Africa is in line with
Africa’s official position for the 2030 Agenda, namely the Common African Position (CAP), which
focuses on six pillars: (i) structural economic transformation and inclusive growth; (ii) science,
technology and innovation; (iii) people-centred development; (iv) environmental sustainability,
natural resources management and disaster risk management; (v) peace and security; and (vi)
finance and partnerships, which are all part of the SDGs. This strategic alignment will enable
UNESCO to increase the scope of its action in and for Africa, and to improve the commitment of
its sectors, institutes and specialized networks, as well as the mobilization of external actors,
including strategic and financial partners. As Africa is a global priority for UNESCO, the
programme related to education, science, culture, communication and information (further detailed
in the brochure) will be implemented with a special focus on African countries. UNESCO’s ability
to work with a wide range of stakeholders in Africa will be an important comparative advantage
for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, which promotes South-South and North-South-
cooperation, both regionally and internationally.
Another global priority for the organization is gender equality and the empowerment of women
and girls. Therefore, gender equality is mainstreamed in all UNESCO programmes to support the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda. This includes promoting girls’ and women’s education;
promoting women in science and science governance, especially at decision-making levels and in
relation to water management; promoting safe access for girls and women to drinking water and
adequate sanitation; promoting women as agents of social transformation; promoting the full
participation of women in cultural life, promoting women in the media and the empowerment of
women through ICTs. UNESCO is also combating violence against women in all its forms,
including school-related gender-based violence and gender-based violence in emergencies. All
these areas contribute to the implementation of SDG 5. UNESCO also supports countries in
mainstreaming gender equality across all the SDGs, including through the collection of sex-
disaggregated data. It also provides guidance on advancing gender equality and the empowerment
of women in all UNESCO’s fields of competence. In this context, UNESCO is strengthening its
multistakeholder partnerships with other UN entities, as well as national and local partners,
including civil society, the private sector and academia, to support implementation of the 2030
Agenda.
As the specialist UN agency for Science, Engineering, Technology and Innovation (SETI)
cooperation, UNESCO is very well-positioned with its unique network of multistakeholders to
promote Sustainability Science. Figure 1 provides an overview of the contributions of UNESCO
to sustainable development.
Figure 1 Contributions of UNESCO to sustainable development.

Source: UNESCO, 2017b

UNESCO has taken the lead in broadening the application of the Sustainability Science approach
to progress the outcomes of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development,
held in Rio de Janeiro. Its Member States have identified the need to continue mobilizing the full
spectrum of sciences to advance Sustainability Science, in order to address complex and interlinked
global challenges in a transdisciplinary way, and to promote the development of related capacities
(UNESCO, 2013a). UNESCO’s Medium-Term Strategy 2014−2021 includes the mainstreaming
of the Sustainability Science approach within UNESCO’s own programme and its 195 Member
and 10 Associated Member States’ development agendas. However, and possibly because of its
own diversity, there is still a lack of institutional mechanisms to advance the mainstreaming of
Sustainability Science, especially for higher education and research, as well as for the promotion
of effective dialogues between research, policy and society.
In October 2015,UNESCO, with the support of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology, initiated the project ‘Broadening the Application of the
Sustainability Science Approach in order to identify good practices and develop policy guidelines
to help Member States develop the education and STI policy instruments required to harness
Sustainability Science’s potential to meet the SDGs. The first two international symposia organized
(Paris 2016, Kuala Lumpur 2016) gathered scientists, policy-makers and other relevant experts to
explore ways to strengthen the science-policy-society interface and apply the Sustainability
Science approach, taking into consideration region specificities. The Guidelines on Sustainability
Science for Research and Higher Education were adopted by UNESCO Member States in
June2017 and contain policy advice on developing normative and structural frameworks for
Sustainability Science, in order to enable the mobilization/interaction of national actors, including
indigenous and local knowledge-holders and practitioners.
Along the same lines, and at the national level, UNESCO, with the support of the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), initiated a project to develop and mobilize
the capacities of developing countries to participate in the Future Earth Initiative. The project
provided a forum for multistakeholder discussion on how to foster integrated, collaborative and
action-oriented research to address interdependent and complex sustainability challenges in six
pilot countries: Bolivia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda.
On the basis of the country capacity assessments co-produced in the project, national stakeholders
discussed as a priority national sustainability STI agendas and proposed concrete policy
instruments that were validated in the form of National Capacity Building Actions Plans. This
publication is one of the project outputs and should serve to advance understanding of the sub-
Saharan African region’s contextual factors, and the learning of lessons in implementing the
Guidelines for Sustainability Science in the continent.
UNESCO aims to ensure the contribution of the full spectrum of science, technology and
innovation to sustainable development, inter alia, through:
• Fostering the development of inclusive transdisciplinary STI systems, through the
development of institutional capacities to design, implement and evaluate STI policies and
policy instruments, including the Global Observatory of STI policy instruments;
• Promoting the development and appropriation of technologies that encourage innovation
and youth employment in the production sector, including at grassroots level;
• Providing technical support for the development of institutional and individual capacities
in STI and for its exchange through participation in international and global platforms;
• Strengthening the science-policy interface, including through the process of scientific
assessments in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), freshwater, the
oceans (IOC), disaster risk reduction, and through co-designed research activities in the
area of global change and sustainable development (Future Earth);
• Providing adapted regulatory and ethical frameworks to address science governance and
science-society interface challenges interalia supporting the monitoring and
implementation of UNESCO’s2017 Recommendation on Science and Scientific
Researchers that supersedes its1974 Recommendation on the Status of Scientific
Researchers;
• Supporting participatory approaches for the mutual engagement of science and society,
with a particular view to promoting the equitable involvement and inclusion of women and
youth and other vulnerable groups, such as indigenous peoples;
• Promoting transdisciplinary science education curricula and innovative thinking for
sustainable development;
• Developing decision-making tools for enhancing the resilience of Member States to deal
with climate change and natural hazards, in particular in least developed countries (LDCs)
 and Small Islands Developing States (SIDS);
• Enhancing future-oriented social science and humanities research on social transformations
and intercultural dialogue to strengthen national social science policies and international
scientific cooperation;
• Promoting ethics in science and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and providing
forums for discussion on new challenges through dedicated ethical national committees and
RRI global networks and databases;
• Promoting global scientific advice to UN and national authorities and promoting science
diplomacy for peace building;
• Collecting and analysing education and SETI indicators and global trends reports on natural
and social sciences and engineering, gender disaggregated, for policy guidance; and
• Supporting scientific excellence and exchange through open access policies and a network
of specialized research institutes, category II centres and Chairs around sustainability
challenges.
UNESCO leads and relies on delivery mechanisms in the form of international and
intergovernmental scientific programmes to:
• Promote knowledge and capacity for protecting and sustainably managing the ocean and
coasts;
• Promote global cooperation in the ecological sciences and geological sciences, including
through the use of UNESCO designated sites as learning places for sustainable
development;
• Promote the conservation of bio cultural diversity and the multiple valuations of
biodiversity and ecosystem services;
• Improve risk reduction, early warning of natural hazards and disaster preparedness and
resilience;
• Foster and strengthen freshwater security and cooperation to exchange and produce
knowledge for an improved management of transboundary basins;
• Assist Member States in addressing the social dimensions of peaceful and sustainable
development, in particular through the advancement of a society for all in which the benefits
of human progress would extend to the most vulnerable segments of society and would
contribute to sustainable development, social justice and peace through social
transformations founded on ethical and human rights-based approaches; and
• Improve the relevance of education in the face of global sustainability challenges and
promote Education for Sustainable Development as a catalyst and enabler for sustainable
development
1.4. Aim and Scope of the Book

Within the Sustainability Science principles and framework, this book addresses some of the
questions and issues posed above, aiming to analyse what is being done and identify the constraints
faced by African countries in implementing the Sustainability Science approach, in order to draw
up policy recommendations for the region.
After providing a general overview of sustainability challenges and research efforts in Africa, this
book describes the steps that five sub-Saharan African countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda,
Tanzania and Uganda) are taking to develop and strengthen Sustainability Science. This set of
countries includes four out of the five (excluding South Africa) Sustainability Science regional
research hubs (Elsevier and Sci Dev Net, 2015).Although limited, research and innovation
capacities exist and the different experiences that have been analysed show that contributions to
solving sustainability challenges can have a broad impact at the national, regional and global level
if an improved understanding is reached and more focused policy and instruments are co-designed
and properly implemented.
While describing the countries’ efforts to develop Sustainability Science, this book will not
necessarily discuss in detail the key overall issue of policy-based evidence, but will contribute to
the extensive discussion on these issues in developing contexts (Göransson et al., 2016).
The selection of countries corresponds on the one hand to those African countries that were
included in the UNESCO-Sida Agreement but also, and more importantly, because it concentrates
on the less-studied four regional research hubs and Rwanda − where UNESCO had done a previous
mapping of R&D capacities (UNESCO, 2015), so that the comparison provides a good framework
for analysis of the African region’s research contribution to facing sustainability problems.
1.5. The Target Countries

The African Economic Outlook (AfDB, 2016) points out that in 2015, the continent continued
showing a strong economic performance, with GDP real growth at 3.6%. It was the world’s second-
fastest growing regional economy after East Asia. The sub-Saharan region (excluding South
Africa) grew faster than the continental average, at 4.2%, with East Africa the strongest at 6.3%.
On the other hand, The World Bank (World Bank, 2017), while recognizing that growth suffered
a sharp deceleration in 2016due to changing international economic conditions and severe
draughts, also points out that the sub-Saharan region shows resilience and that it will continue
growing in 2017,although at a more modest rate of 2.6%.In general, the forecast for the next two
years shows also positive signs, depending on the improved recovery of the world economy and a
return to higher commodity prices. The World Bank Report also recognizes that a key domestic
risk is the lack of implementation of reforms that are needed to maintain durable macroeconomic
stability and sustained growth.
The observed economic growth in the countries chosen for the study, as can be seen from Table 1,
can be attributed not only to favourable international conditions but also to prudent macroeconomic
policies. In general terms, the economic performance of this group of countries has been
outstanding. All have shown growth rates above 5%and up to 10%for a decade. Such growth has
been underpinned by heavy public sector-led investments in sectors such as infrastructure and
services. Further, amid conditions of improved intraregional trade, the positive demographic
dividend shows opportunities to maintain a resilient economy in the mid-term.
 Table 1. Demography and size of the economy1
Population Surface area Population density Purchasing power parity gross Gros domestic product
per capita per capita
(millions) (km2 ‘000s) (people per km2) ($ billions) ($) (% growth) (% growth)
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Ethiopia 99.9 1104.3 100 162.4 1630 10.4 7.6

Kenya 47.2 580.4 83 141.1 2990 5.7 3
Rwanda 11.6 26.3 471 20.7 1780 8.9 6.2
Tanzania 53.9 947.3 61 136.4 2610 7 3.7
Uganda 40.1 241.6 200 71.2 1770 5 1.6
World 7355.2 134325.1 57 115210.6 15664 2.7 1.5
Sub-Saharan Africa 1005.6 24291.1 43 3609.4 3589 3 0.3
Low income 641.9 14471.5 48 1027.9 1601 4.6 1.8
Lower-middle income 2970 23351.5 128 19096.6 6430 5.4 3.9
Upper-middle income 2560.4 59651.5 44 40607.1 15860 3.3 2.6
High income 1182.9 36850.7 34 54686.9 46230 2.2 1.6

Source: World Bank database (Accessed on 07.97.2017)

In spite of the observed economic growth and positive trends, stronger policies are needed to
overcome existing obstacles to produce a more sustained social transformation of sub-Saharan
Africa, the poorest region in the world and the second in inequalities after Latin America.
According to the SDG Index and Dashboard Report (Sachs et al., 2017), food security, health,
education and access to basic infrastructure are still big challenges, despite the tremendous progress
made in many of these areas under the Millennium Development Goals.
The broader SDGs bring out additional challenges for sub-Saharan Africa that require urgent
action. Apart from high inequality, these include sustainable urban development (SDG 11) and
peace, security and strong institutions (SDG 16). Countries in the region fare much better on
sustainable consumption and production (SDG 12), climate change (SDG 13) and terrestrial
ecosystems (SDG 15), underscoring that richer countries are responsible for a disproportionate
share of environmental pressure relating to these goals. The remaining red scores on Goal 17
highlight that sub-Saharan Africa has significant potential in mobilizing domestic revenue
collection (AU, 2017).
Table 2 provides the basic indicators for the Human Development Index (combining health,
education and income indicators), where it can be observed that all countries have in effect
improved the value of the Index but still remain in the lower positions in the world and regional
ranking. In this later case the average value for the Sub Saharan region is 0.523.

Table 2. Evolution of the Human Development Index (Out of 188 countries)

1
Lower Middle Income Country: Kenya; Low Income: Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda
 Evolution of the Human Development Index Rank Change GINI
2015 in rank
1990 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ethiopia … 0.283 0.411 0.422 0.427 0.435 0.441 0.448 174 1 33.2

Kenya 0.473 0.447 0.530 0.536 0.542 0.546 0.550 0.555 146 -1 48.5

Rwanda 0.244 0.332 0.464 0.475 0.485 0.488 0.493 0.498 159 4 50.4

Tanzania 0.370 0.391 0.498 0.504 0.513 0.512 0.519 0.531 151 1 37.8

Uganda 0.309 0.396 0.477 0.477 0.478 0.483 0.488 0.493 163 -3 41.0

Very high 0.791 0.836 0.876 0.881 0.884 0.887 0.890 0.892
HD

High HD 0.574 0.637 0.716 0.721 0.728 0.736 0.744 0.746

Medium 0.465 0.525 0.598 0.606 0.613 0.620 0.626 0.631

HD

Low HD 0.356 0.388 0.476 0.481 0.486 0.490 0.494 0.497

Sub Sahara average 2015 0.523

Source: UNDP, 2016
Environmental challenges also pose critical challenges to economic growth and improved social
conditions in the region. The Environmental Performance Index (Hsu et al., 2016) provides a
measure on how well countries perform on high-priority environmental issues in two broad policy
areas: protection of human health from environmental harm and protection of ecosystems
(ecosystem vitality). Within these two policy objectives, the EPI has scored country performance
in nine areas, comprising 20 indicators. Table 3 provides the ranking for the countries in this study,
having all countries improved their scores in the last ten years.
Table 1. Ranking in the Environmental Performance Index
(Score 0 to 100) (178 countries)
10year
Rank in 2016 Country Score
change%
123 Kenya 62.49 25.36
132 Tanzania 58.34 31.19
135 Uganda 57.56 22.13
147 Rwanda 50.34 6.09
163 Ethiopia 45.83 14.75

Source: Hsu et al. 2016

The above-mentioned observed growth has yet to impact more strongly on the competitiveness of
the countries. As shown in Table 4, the Global Competitiveness Index shows weak capacities, but
also shows slight improvements from previous years.
Table 4. Global Competitiveness Index Ranking (2016 – 2017)
(Score 0 to10) (138 countries)
Rank Country Score Previous rank

52 Rwanda 4.41 58

96 Kenya 3.90 99

109 Ethiopia 3.77 109

113 Uganda 3.69 115

116 Tanzania 3.67 120

Source: WEF, 2016

Along the same lines, the African Innovation Outlook (AIO) (NEPAD, 2014), shows the
weaknesses of the existing STI systems in most of the countries in their respective region. In the
case of Africa, the former study indicates that most countries have had STI policies in place for
some time and several are in the process of developing or reviewing them. UNESCO, through its
Global Observatory of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (GO- SPIN), is now developing
a detailed and structured mapping of the existing research and innovation systems in order to
facilitate decision-making. In the case of the set of countries comprising the present study, a
mapping has already been published for Rwanda (UNESCO, 2015).
With regard to the discussions that will be presented in this book, the AIO appeals to policy-makers
to distinguish science and technology from innovation, as they are governed by different systems,
and argues that it is the link between them that makes the innovation system work. The results of
the innovations surveys conducted under the African Science Technology and Innovation
Indicators initiative (ASTII) also indicate that more firms innovate than carry out research,
reinforcing the argument for specific policy instruments to address STI.
The Global Innovation Index 2016 (Cornell et al., 2016) also provides a picture as to the state of
research and innovation in the countries, confirming the existing weaknesses that were previously
mentioned. Table 5 shows the ranking of the countries in this study. It is noted that at least two of
the countries (Kenya and Rwanda) occupy a significant rank in their region.
Table 5. Ranking of countries in the Global Innovation Index
(Score 0- 100) (128 countries)

World rank Country Score Regional rank

80 Kenya 30.36 3
83 Rwanda 29.96 4
99 Uganda 27.14 9
105 Tanzania 26.35 11
110 Ethiopia 24.83 14

Source: Cornell University et al. (2016)

1.6. Structure and Content of the Book

This book is structured as follows. Chapter 2, prepared by Yaw Agyeman Boafo, Rodolfo Dam
Lam, Denabo Billo Juju and Osamu Saito, presents a general overview of the academic landscape
of Sustainability Science research in Africa and summarizes the challenges and knowledge gaps
for sustainable development in Africa. The chapter sets out to examine the current trends and
patterns of sustainability research and how they can contribute to addressing sustainable
development challenges facing Africa, through an extensive literature review, a meta-analysis of
academic literature and key reports on SDGs. Specifically, the chapter aims to achieve the
following objectives:
• Analyse the current state and direction of scientific research and academic studies on
sustainable development and sustainability in Africa;
• Identify and discuss the main challenges facing Africa’s sustainable development within
the framework of SDGs; and
• Discuss the role of Sustainability Science in order to achieve the implementation and
actualization of the SDGs in Africa.
Based on the academic landscape and the analysis of SDG research in Africa, it is apparent that
three SDGs − poverty (SDG1), gender equality (SDG5) and climate action (SDG13) − account for
50%of the entire literature landscape over the last 10 years. Literature addressing more than one
SDG is increasing. Although currently, these studies represent less than 20%of the total published
literature, they show a positive trend, growing faster compared to the 6% of the literature landscape.
According to the African Report on the Sustainable Development Goals (AU, 2017), African
priorities include: 1) cross-cutting issues such as maintaining peace and security, governance and
institutions, financing, capacity-building and technology transfer, and 2) sub regional priorities.
The chapter also summarizes details of Africa’s development priorities and challenges, categorized
into the social, economic and environment aspects currently impeding the achievement of these
goals.
The results of SDG inter-linkage analysis in Africa show that both the strongest linkages and largest
coverage lie within goals related to poverty (SDG 1), gender equality (SDG 5) and climate action
(SDG 13), while the weakest linkages and smallest theme coverage lie within goals related to
affordable and clean energy (SDG 7) and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12).
Chapter 3 to Chapter 7 constitute the five country studies. Chapter 3 for Ethiopia was prepared by
Alma Lopez Aviles, Seyoum Leta and Wubalem Tadesse; Chapter 4 for Kenya was prepared by
Elsie Onsongo, Emmanuel Mutisya and Christopher Shisanya; Chapter 5 for Rwanda, was
prepared by Theoneste Ntakirutimana, Carlos Aguirre-Bastos and Leon Rugema Mugabo; Chapter
6 for Tanzania was prepared by Athman Mgumia, Karoli Nicholas Njau, Flower E. Msuya and
Francis B. Njau; and Chapter 7 for Uganda was prepared by Maxwell Otim Onapa, Steven Sebbale
and Carlos Aguirre-Bastos. Chapter 8 − Conclusions − was prepared by Juliana Chaves-Chaparro,
Salvatore Aricò and Carlos Aguirre-Bastos.
Chapter 3 describes the situation in Ethiopia, where the revised National Science, Technology and
Innovation Policy − operational since 2010 − places innovation coproduction in a central role in
order to build competitiveness and turn Ethiopia into a middle-income country by 2025. The Policy
stresses that ‘the integration and cooperation among various stakeholders will be of paramount
importance to realize its objectives’. To pursue this goal and solve the sustainability challenges
faced by Ethiopia, it is necessary to broaden the understanding of innovation, not only as engine
for economic growth, but also as a driver for societal well-being and environmental sustainability.
The Chapter studies how the engagement of multiple stakeholders shapes the innovation process.
The case of Ethiopia provides the tools to explore the collective nature of innovation, stressing that
it is a co evolutionary process, resulting from the alignment of technical, social, institutional and
organizational dimensions. Thus, the chapter develops insights into coping with inherent tensions
across these dimensions that affect the complex innovation process. Such insights include: ideas
about demand articulation, institutional support, knowledge and network brokering and capacity-
building to improve the innovation process management.
Within the above context, the Chapter proposes a framework formulating stakeholder engagement
in mapping out specific issues, outlining problems, conflicts to sustainable resource use and
preservation; the identification of stakeholders and development needs assessment. This Chapter
provides a case study/example of the proposed framework: “the Akaki River integrated catchment
management plan” (based on proposal formulated with the stakeholder engagement events prior
and during formulation of the proposal, and afterwards).
Because of the importance of enterprise involvement in sustainability challenges, the study on
Ethiopia analyses the involvement of the private sector through investors and small businesses
creation. Here the co-evolution of innovation and private sector involvement is discussed as well
as governance aspects and the role of regulation for the engagement of the sector.
The discussion is then followed by the identification of a set of actors and indicators of innovation
and sustainability. Two case studies support this part of the discussion: “Tannery waste conversion
into biogas and reusable water” and “Kabena River Restauration Project”. In both cases the role of
the national innovation systems actors can be identified.
The Chapter concludes with a substantive analysis on innovation as an engine for economic growth
and societal wellbeing, including a review of knowledge transfer and community engagement,
social impacts lined to innovation, society’s role in demanding articulation, and a set of proposals
for aligning environmental, technical, institutional, organizational and social dimensions.
Chapter 4 analyses the case of Kenya, a country endeavouring to transition into an industrialized
country, where sustainable development is increasingly becoming an area of focus. Following
Kenya’s adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want, and
the development blueprint known as Vision 2030, local consensus is emerging on the need to adopt
long-term perspectives as an appropriate framework for promoting sustainable development, and
involving multiple stakeholders in that endeavour.
The chapter argues that, in considering new strategies to tackle the challenge of governance,
Sustainability Science offers a potentially novel approach, providing a variety of pathways for
mobilizing existing diverse knowledge systems to generate contextually relevant knowledge in
order to address local sustainability challenges. The authors show that, to a large extent, formal
science has received much attention from policy-makers and practitioners alike. On the contrary,
experiential knowledge from the informal sector and from traditional knowledge systems are
relatively overlooked and undervalued and interaction within and across the existing knowledge
systems is relatively weak. The authors assert that further progress towards understanding and
tackling ‘wicked problems’ in the local and global context could be achieved by recognizing
complementarities across these knowledge systems, while providing new insights for Sustainability
Science.
The chapter examines the status of Sustainability Science in Kenya by looking at social, economic
and environmental sustainability challenges, and highlights legislation, policies and strategies
developed to address these challenges. The chapter further discusses the institutional challenges of
implementing these policies.
The chapter then maps Kenya’s STI policy framework and the underlying national innovation
system, and identifies gaps in the system that are inhibiting its potential to address sustainable
development. A key gap is that of underdeveloped cooperation within and among existing
knowledge systems − across industry systems, between firms, universities and research institutions,
and between formal or ‘Western’ science and indigenous knowledge systems, and even between
different locally-specific indigenous knowledge systems.
The authors identify instances where cooperation is being fostered through policy instruments and
ad hoc projects, and highlight three illustrative case studies in which a co designed collaborative
interdisciplinary approach to research and innovation was adopted: frugal innovation in weather
prediction, education for sustainable development in Africa, and organic agriculture. The chapter
concludes by providing some recommendations for policy, research and innovation for sustainable
development.
Chapter 5presents the case of Tanzania, which is one of a handful of African countries that have
enjoyed continuous political stability since independence in 1961, and which is providing a more
enabling economic context, along with recent anti-corruption measures. It is also shown that
despite the observed economic growth, there are some weaknesses in the social situation, although
it is recognized that there has been some success in its poverty reduction strategy and other social
reforms.
Several of the economic and social problems in Tanzania come about from environmental
challenges that are still to be faced. The country is aware of such challenges, understanding at the
same time that problems related to economic and social issues − for example, population growth −
also have a large impact on sustainability. The National Environmental Policy identifies six major
sustainability problems: 1) loss of wildlife habitats and biodiversity; 2) deforestation; 3) land
degradation; 4) deterioration of aquatic systems; 5) lack of accessible, good quality water; and 6)
environmental pollution. These are discussed in some detail in the course of the chapter, along with
the commitment of the government of Tanzania in addressing sustainability problems, as
demonstrated by various initiatives.
This chapter also amply discusses the situation of the national research and innovation system, and
policies adopted for its operation. Of particular importance has been the adoption in 1996 of the
national S&T policies, later superseded by a Master Plan adopted in 2002, and refined in 2010.
The latter contains a ‘Science, Technology and Innovation’ policy, geared towards providing a
framework through which the linkage, coordination and harmonization of existing and new
mechanisms will support other policies and initiatives to achieve the national vision of a middle-
income country by the year 2025.
Despite the efforts made during recent years, it is noted that the national research and innovation
system of Tanzania is fragmented, and thus has difficulties in responding to the set national policy
or S&T objectives as defined in the respective policies. In general, public investment is still low,
there are a lack of support for private sector involvement in research, and inadequate mechanisms
for technology transfer and the commercialization of research results. In addition, the human
resource base is small and PhD-holders at universities have very few funds available to concentrate
on research.
The chapter also describes the different efforts that have been made by the national research and
innovation system to deal with sustainability problems. It reviews two success stories for co-
designed collaborative interdisciplinary sustainability research. The first case is the Chololo
Ecovillage project, an initiative with a focus on helping the most vulnerable developing
communities to more effectively address the challenges associated with climate change. The
second is a project dedicated to the ‘Sustainable Management of Waste’, that resulted in an
innovative process whereby agro waste undergoes a series of treatments, resulting in a biogas,
organic fertilizer and clean water for reuse.
Chapter 6analyses the case of Rwanda, a country facing a number of sustainability challenges,
resulting from its increasingly dependent exploitation of natural resources. Biodiversity is being
lost or compromised with the disappearance, conversion, fragmentation, pollution or degradation
of its natural flora, fauna, and land and water resources. The discussion shows that Rwanda has
made important inroads towards sustainable development to face these challenges, due to the
establishment of policies and strategies that have created and enabled an environment conducive
to the acceleration of social and economic reforms. It also highlights that Rwanda is becoming a
hub for Sustainable Science in Africa through the adoption of several research and technology
initiatives, in cooperation with more developed countries.
This chapter goes into some detail in order to highlight the country´s efforts towards adopting a
number of sustainability-related policies and regulations, including the Rwanda Environmental
Policy that was established in 2003. This norm defined the governance mechanisms for managing
environmental issues. It created the Rwanda Environment Management Authority and established
committees responsible for environmental protection at decentralized levels, i.e. province, district
and town. Alongside this, promotion of the green economy is a key foundation to its sustainable
development. The Green Economy is enshrined in the National Green Growth and Climate Change
Resilience Strategy.
This chapter describes home-grown initiatives that have positively impacted on sustainability.
Three case studies are described. The first, Umuganda, a traditional Rwandan practice and cultural
value of working together to solve problems in a shorter time than it would take for an individual
to solve them. Umuganda embodies the ideas of mutual assistance, mutual social responsibility,
social obligation, self-help and traditional strategies for development.
The second case study is that of a community-based health system that covers 9.6 million people.
It is paid according to household’s ubudehe category. The goal of community-based health
insurance is to provide Rwandans with equitable and universal access to quality health care.
The third case study is the Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme, a flagship programme of the
National Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (2008−2012), which has a
specific focus to accelerate poverty eradication, rural growth and social protection. The main goal
of the programme is to eradicate extreme poverty by 2020, from its present level of around 24%.
It is clear, from the discussion around STI policies, home-grown initiatives and traditional values,
that besides strengthening and amplifying social development programmes, research needs to be
invigorated to respond also to the needs of policy makers and to emerging challenges requiring
more innovation and the development of Sustainability Science. In fact, the impact of the home-
grown initiatives currently being developed could be greatly enhanced within a more ambitious
research and innovation system. This can be done partly by policy instruments promoting more
inclusive and interdisciplinary STI settings.
Chapter 7 discusses the case of Uganda, examining the extent to which the country has been able
to advance its STI agenda and leverage it in the context of Sustainability Science. The analysis
made in this chapter involved an extensive literature review, solicitation of expert opinion and the
synthesis of existing knowledge on STI and Sustainability Science. It also analysed Uganda’s STI
policy as a tool that can be used to address sustainability challenges. In so doing, it discussed the
post-independent STI landscape in Africa as a basis for the emergence of STI policy and policy
environment in the country, in particular the SETI policies designed by the different sectors.
Uganda has put in place an STI policy with the goal of strengthening national capability to generate,
transfer and apply technologies, and to ensure the sustainable utilization of natural resources for
the realization of Uganda’s development objectives. The analysis shows, however, that policies
still follow a linear model of innovation that focuses on STI actors working in a relational manner
of knowledge transfer, without recognizing the complex interactions that exist between these actors
within the national STI system. Also, in addition suffering from a lack of proper coordination
geared towards improved and sustainable outcomes, it is noted that the STI policy implementation
is beset by weak intersectoral linkages, limited opportunities for firm-level technology absorption
and limited sharing of STI learning across the sectors.
The analysis made also shows that, although Uganda has made significant strides towards socio-
economic development, the country still lags behind, as illustrated by the low Human Development
Index, placing the country in the low human development category. Uganda is also still saddled
with a number of sustainability challenges, such as a high population growth rate (which stands at
3.3%per annum), poverty, food and nutrition insecurity as well land degradation, deforestation,
biodiversity loss and climate change. It is further reported that Uganda’s development framework
− Vision 2040, an overarching development framework, is responsive to sustainability and
sustainable development.
In an effort to relate innovation efforts in Uganda towards sustainability, three case studies are
presented that illustrate the nexus between indigenous knowledge and research addressing
sustainability challenges, supported by home-grown funding mechanisms. Based on these analyses,
the paper concludes that it is possible for Uganda to harness local knowledge that can promote
sustainability science in Uganda.
Chapter 8presents the conclusions from a broad analysis of the five country studies, and puts
forward a set of common transformation factors and recommendations that should allow the co-
design of new approaches to the African mainstreaming of Sustainability Science through the
formulation and implementation of education, research and innovation policies, in line with
UNESCO guidelines and the UNESCO Recommendations on Science and Scientific Researchers.
In doing so, there is a clear recognition of the importance of capacity-building and intraregional
cooperation in harnessing the potential of Sustainability Science to co design and coproduce the
knowledge and solutions required to address the regional − and global − sustainable development
agendas.
References
African Development Bank (AfDB), OECD, UNDP. 2016. African Economic Outlook 2016:
Sustainable Cities and Structural Transformation. Paris, OECD.
Aguirre-Bastos, C., Aliaga-Lordeman, J.,Garrón-Védia, I. and Rubín de Célis Cedro, R.2016.
National innovation system in Bolivia: Making research and innovation matter.
B.Göransson, C. Brundenius and C. Aguirre-Bastos (Eds). Innovation Systems for
Development: Making Research and Innovation Matter. Northampton (UK), Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Aricò, S. 2014. The contribution of the sciences, technology and innovation to sustainable
development. The application of sustainability science from the perspective of UNESCO’s
experience, Sustainability Science, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 453−62.
AU. 2017. African Sustainable Development Report: Tracking Progress in Agenda 2063 and
Sustainable Development Goals, African Union, Economic Commission for Africa,
African Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme, Addis Ababa.
Bokova, I. 2012. An integrating policy approach in science, technology and innovation for
sustainable development: a UNESCO idea in action. S. Dutta (ed.), The Global Innovation
Index 2012.Fontainebleau (France), INSEAD and WIPO.
Brundenius, C. and Göransson, B.2010. The role of the three missions of universities: A synthesis.
B. Göransson and C. Brundenius (Eds), Universities in Transition - The Changing Role and
Challenges for Academic Institutions. New York, Springer, pp. 3−10.
Brundenius, C., Lundvall, B.-A. and Sutz, J.2009a.Universities in systems of innovation in
developing countries. Towards developmental university systems. C. Chaminade, K.J.
Joseph, B-Å. Lundvall and J. Vang (Eds). Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing
Countries. London, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brundenius, C., Lundvall, B.-A.and Sutz, J. 2009b.Towards inclusive systems of innovation and
developmental universities. H. Eggins (ed.).Sharing Research Agendas on Knowledge
Systems. Occasional Paper No.10. Paris, UNESCO.
Carden, F. 2004. Issues in assessing the policy influence of research. International Social Science
Journal, Vol. 56, No. 179, pp. 135−51.
Carden, F. 2009.Knowledge to Policy: Making the Most of Development Research. New Delhi,
SAGE Publications Pvt Ltd.
Clark, W. and Dickson, N. 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (14):
8059–8061.
Cornell University, INSEAD and WIPO. 2016. Global Innovation Index 2016.Ithaca,
Fontainebleau and Geneva, WIPO
Court, J. and Young, J.2006.Bridging research and policy in international development: An
analytical and practical framework. Development in Practice, Vol.16, No. 1.
Crespi, G. and G. Dutrenit. 2013. Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development:
the Latin America Experience. Heidelberg (Germany), Springer International Publishing.
Dosi, G., Llerna, P.and Labini, M. S.2005.Science-Technology-Industry Links and the ‘European
Paradox’ – Some Notes on the Dynamics of S&T Research in Europe.LEM Working
Papers, Series 2005/02. Pisa (Italy), Laboratory of Economics and Management.
Dutrenit, G. and Sutz, J. 2014.National Innovation Systems, Social Inclusion and Development:
the Latin American Experience. Northampton (UK), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ejermo, O. and Kander, A.2006.The Swedish Paradox. CIRCLE Working Paper Series,
2006/01.Lund (Sweden), Lund University.
Elsevier and Sci Dev Net.2015.Sustainability Science in a Global Landscape. Retrieved from
https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/research-initiatives/sustainability-2015
Filmer.D. and Fox, L. with K. Brooks, A. Goyal, T. Mengistae, P. Premand, D. Ringold, S. Sharma,
and S. Zorya. 2014. Youth un-employment in Sub Saharan Africa, A co publication of the
Agence Française de Développement and the World Bank,
Global Forum for Health Research (GFHR).2004.The 10/90 Report on Health Research
2003−2004.Geneva, Global Forum for Health Research.
Göransson, B. and Brundenius, C. (Eds).2010.Universities in Transition − The Changing Role and
Challenges for Academic Institutions. New York, Springer.
Göransson, B., Toumaala, R. and Ågren, J.2008.Women Scientists in Gender-Specific
Technological R&D. http://www.fpi.lu.se/en/research/wosister
Göransson, B., Brundenius, C. and Aguirre-Bastos, C. (Eds).2016.Innovation Systems for
Development: Making Research and Innovation Matter. Northampton (UK), Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Hsu, A., Emerson, J., Levy, M., de Sherbinin, A., Johnson, L., Malik, O., Schwartz, J. and Jaiteh,
M.2016.The 2016 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT, Yale Centre for
Environmental Law and Policy. Available at: www.epi.yale.edu.
Huyer, S.2015.Is the Gender Gap Narrowing in Science and Engineering? Available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf%5Cnhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org
/images/0023/002354/235407e.pdf.
Hy, R.J., Venhaus, M. and Sims, R.G. 1995.Academics in service to the legislature: Legislative
utilization of college and university faculty and staff. Public Administration Review, Vol.
55, No. 5, pp. 468−74.
IAP.2000.Statement on Transition to Sustainability, Tokyo, InterAcademy Panel (now
InterAcademy Partnership).
IDRC. 2002. Closing the Loop - Communication for change at IDRC. Available at:
https://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/21181/1/117024.pdf
Jacobsson, S. and Granberg, A.2006. Myth and reality- A scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the
Swedish science policy debate, Science and Public Policy, June.
Jefferys, M., Troy, K., Slawik, N., and Lightfoot, E.2007.Issues in Bridging the Divide between
Policymakers and Researchers. Minnesota, MN, University of Minnesota. Available at
http://cascw.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BridgingDivide-PolicyResearch.pdf
Johnson, T.J, Howitt, R., Cajete, G. Berkes, F., Paulani Louis, R. and Kliskey, A. 2016. Weaving
Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods, Sustainability Science
January 2016, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–11
Komiyama H., Takeuchi, K.2006. Sustainability science: Building a new discipline.Sustainability
Science, Vol.1, pp. 1−6.
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., Thomas, C. J.2012.
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges.
Sustainability Science, Vol. 7(S1), pp.25–43. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x [Accessed March 28, 2017].
Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., DeFries, R. et al. 2013. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled
world, Ecology and Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 26.
Lundvall, B.A., Joseph, K.J., Chaminade, C. and Vang, J. 2009.Innovation systems and developing
countries – an introduction. A. Lundvall, K. J. Joseph, C. Chaminade and J. Vang (eds),
Innovation Systems and Developing Countries − Building Domestic Capabilities in a
Global Setting. Cheltenham (UK), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mazzucato, M. 2013.The Entrepreneurial State. Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths.
London, Anthem Press.
Moravcsik, Michael. 1966. Some practical suggestions for the improvement of science in
developing countries. Minerva, Vol. 4, pp. 381−90.
NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA).2014, African Innovation Outlook
2014.Pretoria, NPCA.
Paus, E. 2013. Getting development right. E. Paus (ed.), Getting Development Right. New York,
Palgrave Macmillan.
Pellini, A., Anderson, J.H, Huong Thi Lan Tran and Irvine, R. 2012.Assessing the Policy Influence
of Research: A case study of governance research in Viet Nam. Overseas Development
Institute, Background Notes. https://www.odi.org/publications/6597-assessing-policy-
influence-governance-research-viet-nam-vdr-2010
Piketty, T.2014.Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S.,Schneider, F., Speranza, C. I., Kiteme,
B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E.,HadornG. H. and Wiesmann, U.2010. Researchers’ roles in
knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland,
Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 37, No. 4), pp. 267–81.
Ruiz-Mallén, I. and Corbera, E.2013. Community-based conservation and traditional ecological
knowledge: implications for social-ecological resilience. Ecology and Society, Vol. 18, No.
4, p. 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05867-180412
Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Durand-Delacre, D. and Teksoz, K. 2017. SDG Index and
Dashboards Report 2017. New York, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN).
http://www.sdgindex.org/assets/files/2017/2017-SDG-Index-and-Dashboards-Report--
full.pdf
Saito, O., Managi, S., Kanie, N., Kauffman, J. and Takeuchi, K. 2017. Sustainability science and
implementing the sustainable development goals, Sustainability Science, Vol. 12, No. 6. pp.
907−10. DOI 10.1007/s11625-017-0486-5
Schott, J. and Steinmueller, E. (2017). Framing Innovation Policy for Transformative Change:
Innovation Policy 3.0; (www.johanschot.com/publications)
Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B.,
Shrivastava, P., Leach, M. and O’Connell, D. 2017. Integration: the key to implementing the
Sustainable Development Goals.Sustainability Science, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 911−19.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs,
R.,Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M.,
Persson, L., Veerabhdran Ramanathan, Reyers, B., Sörlin, S.2015. Planetary boundaries:
Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, Vol. 347, No. 6223, p.1259855.
Available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.abstract (Accessed
January 16, 2015).
Surr, M.A, Barnett, A., Duncan, A. and Spreight, M.2002.Research for Poverty Reduction. DFID
Research Policy Paper. London, DFID.
SPP. 2009.Science and Public Policy, Vol. 36, No. 2. Special issue on the Third Mission of
Universities
Start, D. and Hovland, I. 2004.Tools for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers. London,
Overseas Development Institute.
Takeuchi, K., Saito, O., Lahoti, S. and Gondor, D. 2017. Growing Up: 10 years of publishing
sustainability science research, Sustainability Science, Vol. 12, No. 6, DOI
10.1007/s11625-017-0484-7
Toledo Manzur, V.M. 2003.Community conservation and ethno ecology: The three dimensions of
local-level maintenance. L. Porter-Bolland, I. Ruiz- Mallén, C. Camacho-Benavides,
S.McCandless(eds),Community Action for Conservation Mexican Experiences. New York,
Springer
 UNDP. 2016. Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone, United
Nations Development Programme, New York
UNESCO. 2013a. Symposium on Sustainability Science: Promoting integration and cooperation,
19 September.
UNESCO. 2013b. UNESCO Executive Board Document 192 EX/16, part IV version.8 August.
UNESCO. 2015. Mapping research and innovation in the Republic of Rwanda. A. Lemarchand
and A. Tash (Eds), GO-SPIN Country Profiles in Science, Technology and Innovation
Policy, Vol. 4. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2017a. Guidelines on Sustainability Science in Research and Education, Paris,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002606/260600E.pdf
UNESCO. 2017b.Moving toward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Paris,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002477/247785e.pdf
United Nations. 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication.
Accessed 14 Oct. 2017
Willmott, H. 2014. Science, governance and self-understanding: From anthropocentricism to
ecocentrism? Critical Policy Studies, 8(1), pp. 22–40. doi:10.1080/19460171.2014.883858.
Wittmayer, J.M. and Schäpke, N.2014. Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in
sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.483–96. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4/fulltext.html.
World Bank. 2017. Global Economic Prospects: A Fragile Recovery. World Bank Group Flagship
Report, June. Washington D.C., World Bank.
World Economic Forum.2016.World Competitiveness Report, Geneva
Yonehara, A., Saito, O., Hayashi, K., Nagao M., Yanagisawa, R. and Matsuyama, K. 2017. The
role of evaluation for achieving the SDGs. Sustainability Science, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp.
969−73. DOI 10.1007/s11625-017-0479-4.

View publication stats