12
be linked with the global sustainability agenda such as the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). In contrast, process management aims at enhancing local values
shared by fixed members, and these values can be identified by a Trans-boundary
Thinking approach. The authors argue combining Holistic Treatment based on systems perspective and Trans-boundary Thinking based on the local perspective of
each case is an essential methodology to incorporate the global sustainability agenda
and the relevance in individual cases. This methodology enables researchers and
stakeholders to develop a more resilient action plan that is ready to accommodate
uncertainty.
Those proposed actions to achieve a sustainable society appear in various forms.
Some of the Transformation channels are registration, policy and administration;
economy, supply chain; and consumption, and technological innovations (shown as
(2) in Fig. 1.1). These channels are further narrowed down to concrete actions to
respond to identified challenges.
After actions are proposed through particular transformation channels, the
framework suggests additional steps to examine how the proposed actions can be
situated within factors in top-down approaches (global/long-term consideration,
integrity of human-natural system) [shown as (3) in Fig. 1.1]. This process not only
makes the linkage with global sustainability agenda (e.g. SDGs) explicit, but also
verifies the transferability of the proposed actions. Following this verification step
by holistic treatment perspective, the proposed actions must also be checked by the
factors in the bottom-up approaches (community-based thinking, local well-being
orientation) [shown as (4) in Fig. 1.1]. These two steps functions simultaneously
and serve as an evaluation part for the entire process and its possible influence at
various scales.
In summary, the framework serves as a guideline for researchers and stakeholders to (i) analyze the complexity of sustainability issues through multiple framings,
(ii) apply holistic treatment and trans-boundary thinking in the process of developing action plans, and (iii) evaluate the proposed actions from the perspectives of
both top-down approaches and bottom-up approaches. In many of the actual cases,
the sustainability issues are already analyzed and action plans are being implemented by the time a theoretical framework is applied. Therefore, the proposed
framework is to be introduced into the process at any time. For example, the framework can be used to evaluate the outputs of conducted actions first, then further
utilized to re-examine the applied framing to understand the complexity to the
addressed issue before the second round of concrete actions is taken. The authors
believe this framework incorporates key elements of framing in sustainability science thus far. This framework, however, must still incorporate the concept of resilience in its goal-setting process and in the uncertainties in the process management,
which have not been discussed in detail in this paper. Sustainability experts must be
trained with knowledge and skills to perform the suggested steps when utilizing this
framework in sustainability research and action projects.
S. Kudo and T. Mino
be linked with the global sustainability agenda such as the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). In contrast, process management aims at enhancing local values
shared by fixed members, and these values can be identified by a Trans-boundary
Thinking approach. The authors argue combining Holistic Treatment based on systems perspective and Trans-boundary Thinking based on the local perspective of
each case is an essential methodology to incorporate the global sustainability agenda
and the relevance in individual cases. This methodology enables researchers and
stakeholders to develop a more resilient action plan that is ready to accommodate
uncertainty.
Those proposed actions to achieve a sustainable society appear in various forms.
Some of the Transformation channels are registration, policy and administration;
economy, supply chain; and consumption, and technological innovations (shown as
(2) in Fig. 1.1). These channels are further narrowed down to concrete actions to
respond to identified challenges.
After actions are proposed through particular transformation channels, the
framework suggests additional steps to examine how the proposed actions can be
situated within factors in top-down approaches (global/long-term consideration,
integrity of human-natural system) [shown as (3) in Fig. 1.1]. This process not only
makes the linkage with global sustainability agenda (e.g. SDGs) explicit, but also
verifies the transferability of the proposed actions. Following this verification step
by holistic treatment perspective, the proposed actions must also be checked by the
factors in the bottom-up approaches (community-based thinking, local well-being
orientation) [shown as (4) in Fig. 1.1]. These two steps functions simultaneously
and serve as an evaluation part for the entire process and its possible influence at
various scales.
In summary, the framework serves as a guideline for researchers and stakeholders to (i) analyze the complexity of sustainability issues through multiple framings,
(ii) apply holistic treatment and trans-boundary thinking in the process of developing action plans, and (iii) evaluate the proposed actions from the perspectives of
both top-down approaches and bottom-up approaches. In many of the actual cases,
the sustainability issues are already analyzed and action plans are being implemented by the time a theoretical framework is applied. Therefore, the proposed
framework is to be introduced into the process at any time. For example, the framework can be used to evaluate the outputs of conducted actions first, then further
utilized to re-examine the applied framing to understand the complexity to the
addressed issue before the second round of concrete actions is taken. The authors
believe this framework incorporates key elements of framing in sustainability science thus far. This framework, however, must still incorporate the concept of resilience in its goal-setting process and in the uncertainties in the process management,
which have not been discussed in detail in this paper. Sustainability experts must be
trained with knowledge and skills to perform the suggested steps when utilizing this
framework in sustainability research and action projects.
S. Kudo and T. Mino