36
experiments or (urban) living labs (Nevens et al. 2013; Evans and Karvonen 2014;
Baccarne et al. 2016; Buhr et al. 2016). However, before efforts to address targeted
sustainability challenges can take place, it is common for a robust and preferably
unified understanding—or framing—of problem areas to occur (Ness et al. 2010).
How different actors carry this out can vary greatly. A number of conceptualization
approaches have been developed, or adopted from other disciplines and fields, for
the purpose of better comprehending coupled socio-ecological systems. They have
been developed around the perspective of shared boundary concepts (e.g. resilience,
vulnerability, ecosystem services), common objects (e.g. maps), a common theoretical perspective, or defined (sustainable) development priorities (Cash et al. 2003;
Clark et al. 2016).
3.1.1 Education for Sustainability
For framings to be salient and robust, proficiencies to derive common problem conceptualizations must be developed amongst scholars, facilitators, and other actors.
One important forum for fostering these skills is in university sustainability education programs. Although skills training in this area traditionally has been beyond the
scope of most educational programs, where the focus is usually on descriptive/analytical modes of performing research, a number of sustainability programs have
recently been established—or redeveloped—under the umbrella of transformative
education (Schneidewind et al. 2016). The curricula in these programs respond to
priorities that participants are not only able to analyze sustainability problems and
suggest solutions; the education also empowers them to become agents of (sustainable) change, to predict and prepare for new challenges, and to create new opportunities to infuse sustainability into societal processes at different scales and levels.
Focus and student proficiency development of these areas has been devised with an
explicit focus on multiple and often competing comprehensions in sustainability
problem areas as well as where solutions can be directed and experimented with. To
operationalize these, a number of the programs have been augmented to include
student development of key competencies for future researchers and sustainability
practitioners (Wiek et al. 2012; Wiek and Kay 2015; Burns 2015). One prominent
set of competencies developed by Wiek et al. (2011) include systems thinking, strategic, anticipatory, normative and interpersonal abilities. Focusing on these five
areas creates opportunities for students to gain proficiencies and expertise in areas
such as future visioning and scenarios, systems analysis, ethics, risk, and group
facilitation to name just a few.
One useful educational forum to foster the competency development—especially concerning framing—is group work. Group work allows many students to
gain an understanding that they almost certainly would not have developed individually, fostering reflexivity amongst participants where broader worldviews are
exchanged, reflected on, challenged, and compromised on within the hopeful safespace of trust and understanding amongst participants. Furthermore, the activities
B. Ness
experiments or (urban) living labs (Nevens et al. 2013; Evans and Karvonen 2014;
Baccarne et al. 2016; Buhr et al. 2016). However, before efforts to address targeted
sustainability challenges can take place, it is common for a robust and preferably
unified understanding—or framing—of problem areas to occur (Ness et al. 2010).
How different actors carry this out can vary greatly. A number of conceptualization
approaches have been developed, or adopted from other disciplines and fields, for
the purpose of better comprehending coupled socio-ecological systems. They have
been developed around the perspective of shared boundary concepts (e.g. resilience,
vulnerability, ecosystem services), common objects (e.g. maps), a common theoretical perspective, or defined (sustainable) development priorities (Cash et al. 2003;
Clark et al. 2016).
3.1.1 Education for Sustainability
For framings to be salient and robust, proficiencies to derive common problem conceptualizations must be developed amongst scholars, facilitators, and other actors.
One important forum for fostering these skills is in university sustainability education programs. Although skills training in this area traditionally has been beyond the
scope of most educational programs, where the focus is usually on descriptive/analytical modes of performing research, a number of sustainability programs have
recently been established—or redeveloped—under the umbrella of transformative
education (Schneidewind et al. 2016). The curricula in these programs respond to
priorities that participants are not only able to analyze sustainability problems and
suggest solutions; the education also empowers them to become agents of (sustainable) change, to predict and prepare for new challenges, and to create new opportunities to infuse sustainability into societal processes at different scales and levels.
Focus and student proficiency development of these areas has been devised with an
explicit focus on multiple and often competing comprehensions in sustainability
problem areas as well as where solutions can be directed and experimented with. To
operationalize these, a number of the programs have been augmented to include
student development of key competencies for future researchers and sustainability
practitioners (Wiek et al. 2012; Wiek and Kay 2015; Burns 2015). One prominent
set of competencies developed by Wiek et al. (2011) include systems thinking, strategic, anticipatory, normative and interpersonal abilities. Focusing on these five
areas creates opportunities for students to gain proficiencies and expertise in areas
such as future visioning and scenarios, systems analysis, ethics, risk, and group
facilitation to name just a few.
One useful educational forum to foster the competency development—especially concerning framing—is group work. Group work allows many students to
gain an understanding that they almost certainly would not have developed individually, fostering reflexivity amongst participants where broader worldviews are
exchanged, reflected on, challenged, and compromised on within the hopeful safespace of trust and understanding amongst participants. Furthermore, the activities
B. Ness