SPECIAL FEATURE: ORIGINAL ARTICLE Sustainability science: bridging the gapbetween science and society

Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions:towards an integration of academic development,institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations

Masaru Yarime • Gregory Trencher •

Takashi Mino • Roland W. Scholz • Lennart Olsson •

Barry Ness • Niki Frantzeskaki • Jan Rotmans

Received: 17 October 2011 / Accepted: 3 January 2012 / Published online: 3 February 2012

� Springer 2012

Abstract The field of sustainability science aims to

understand the complex and dynamic interactions between

natural and human systems in order to transform and develop

these in a sustainable manner. As sustainability problems cut

across diverse academic disciplines, ranging from the natural

sciences to the social sciences and humanities, interdisci-

plinarity has become a central idea to the realm of sustain-

ability science. Yet, for addressing complicated, real-world

sustainability problems, interdisciplinarity per se does not

suffice. Active collaboration with various stakeholders

throughout society—transdisciplinarity—must form another

critical component of sustainability science. In addition to

implementing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in

practice, higher education institutions also need to deal

with the challenges of institutionalization. In this article,

drawing on the experiences of selected higher education

academic programs on sustainability, we discuss academic,

institutional, and societal challenges in sustainability science

and explore the potential of uniting education, research and

societal contributions to form a systematic and integrated

response to the sustainability crisis.

Keywords Higher education institutions �Interdisciplinarity � Transdisciplinarity �Institutionalization � Stakeholder collaboration �Social experimentation

Academic, institutional, and societal challenges

in sustainability science

Global sustainability concerns long-term constraints on

resources, including, among others, food, water, and energy.

The challenge of sustainability is the reconciliation of soci-

ety’s development goals with the planet’s environmental

limits over the long term (Clark and Dickson 2003). The field

of sustainability science aims to use the understanding of

complex and dynamic interactions between natural and

human systems for transforming and developing these sus-

tainably (Clark and Dickson 2003; Jerneck et al. 2011; Kates

et al. 2001; Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Komiyama et al.

2011; Spangenberg 2011; Wiek et al. 2012a).

Sustainability science faces the critical challenge of

establishing itself as an academic field (Clark 2007;

Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Lang et al. 2012; Talwar

et al. 2011; Wiek et al. 2011a; Yarime 2011c). Major hur-

dles include the development and use of concepts and

methodologies, the transforming of institutional structures

(e.g., incentives and reward systems), the initiation of col-

laboration with stakeholders outside of academia (Yarime

2011c), as well as the development of a coherent set of

sustainability competencies and effective pedagogical

Handled by Arnim Wiek, Arizona State University, USA.

M. Yarime (&) � G. Trencher � T. Mino

Graduate Program in Sustainability Science (GPSS),

Graduate School of Frontier Science, University of Tokyo,

Kashiwanoha 5-1-5, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan

e-mail: yarime@k.u-tokyo.ac.jp

R. W. Scholz

Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Natural and Social

Science Interface (NSSI), ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

L. Olsson � B. Ness

Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS),

Lund, Sweden

N. Frantzeskaki � J. Rotmans

Dutch Research Institute For Transitions,

Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam,

Rotterdam, The Netherlands

123

Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113

DOI 10.1007/s11625-012-0157-5

approaches (Wiek et al. 2011b). As sustainability problems

are complex, it is crucial to integrate knowledge and

information from various academic disciplines, including

natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and human-

ities. However the current trend is that the academic land-

scape of sustainability science often consists of rather

separate clusters of individual disciplines (Kajikawa et al.

2007).To address complex sustainability issues therefore

requires the development and use of interdisciplinary

approaches (Spangenberg 2011). While such academic

concepts and methodologies have been discussed theoreti-

cally in the literature, how they are implemented in the

practice of sustainability science programs has not yet been

examined in detail.

In attempting to further establish sustainability science

in academia, we are also facing the overarching question of

how to deal with the issue of institutionalization (Merton

1973; Meyer et al. 2002; Redner 1987). The process of

institutionalizing a scientific field normally proceeds

through founding educational and research programs,

academic societies and associations, as well as scientific

journals and textbooks (Ben-David 1971). Institutional

structures, reward systems, and behavioral norms are

important elements of institutionalization, providing suffi-

cient incentives as well as legitimacy to conduct knowl-

edge production and implementation in a scientific field

(Dasgupta and David 1994; Stephan 2010). Hence, to make

a transition from the traditional science to sustainability

science, institutional arrangements, including formal and

informal rules and regulations, require necessary adjust-

ments (Blackstock and Carter 2007; Fadeeva et al. 2011;

Talwar et al. 2011; van der Leeuw et al. 2012). These

changes relate to the nature of sustainability research pro-

jects, publications, promotion and tenure, and novel

teaching approaches (Whitmer et al. 2010; Wiek et al.

2011a). To support sustainability science integrating rele-

vant academic fields, institutional arrangements need to be

coordinated consistently across a diverse array of academic

programs, scientific journals, associations and societies,

networks and alliances, workshops and conferences

(Yarime 2011b). Although this issue has been mentioned in

previous studies, actual practices of institutionalization

have yet to be investigated sufficiently.

Of the many challenges to the mainstreaming of sus-

tainability science in higher education institutions, proba-

bly the greatest of all concerns is how to identify and

implement the core mission of the modern research uni-

versity. The dominating model of the modern university is

currently undergoing a period of major transformation.

This transition has been accelerating since the 1980s and

has attracted the attention of numerous scholars, university

administrators, governments, and international organiza-

tions across the world, such as the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Just as

the integration of research into the core activities of the

modern university during the nineteenth century signified

the ‘‘first academic revolution,’’ the capitalization of sci-

entific knowledge in service of the economy has now

resulted in a ‘‘second academic revolution’’ (Etzkowitz

2002; Etzkowitz et al. 1998). Prestigious US research

universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-

nology (MIT) and Stanford University serve as the arche-

type for this new model, referred to as the ‘‘entrepreneurial

university’’ (Etzkowitz 2002; Gibb et al. 2009; Philpott

et al. 2011; Slaughter and Leslie 1997).

In this role, the university utilizes relations with industry

and government in order to contribute to an innovation-

driven regional or national economic growth strategy

(Branscomb et al. 1999). An entrepreneurial university

may also choose to take on such a mission in order to

improve the financial advantage of both itself and its fac-

ulty (Etzkowitz 2002). To achieve this, the institution seeks

to transfer its technology and innovation to existing

industries or technology parks (often via patenting and

licensing), or exploit itself the commercial and economic

development of academic inventions via spin-off firms or

ventures (Owen-Smith and Powell 2004; Owen-Smith et al.

2002). Other channels for the entrepreneurial university’s

contribution to industry and economic growth take place

via collaborative and commissioned research, consulting,

publication of results via journals and conferences, infor-

mal interactions, and supply of human capital in the form

of graduates (Baba et al. 2010; Florida 1999; Mowery et al.

2004; Philpott et al. 2011; Salter et al. 2000). This shift of

the university’s attention towards the needs of industry and

the possibility of pursuing profit via entrepreneurial activ-

ities would become problematic when the idea of contrib-

uting to society becomes synonymous with contributing to

the economy. In fact, much of the literature and policy

recommendations from the OECD regarding the ‘‘regional

engagement’’ of higher education institutions are clearly

emphasizing economic, rather than social or environmen-

tal, contributions (Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development 1999, 2007).

Whilst the university’s external collaboration has thus

far tended to focus on economic development with indus-

try, there is a ‘‘third academic revolution’’ at the horizon

that possibly harbors the potential to transform universities

into institutions committed to both academic excellence

and addressing the urgent sustainability issues of our

contemporary age. The prototype of this institution can be

referred to as the ‘‘New American University’’ (Crow

2010). This transformation explicitly subscribes to the

societal guiding principle of sustainable development

and promises to have a significant impact on society’s

sustainability efforts by expanding and deepening

102 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113

123

collaboration and networking with stakeholders in society.

Yet to further promote cross-sector and multi-stakeholder

collaborations for sustainability, we need to ask what type

of joint initiatives and networking contribute to accelerat-

ing local, regional, or global transition processes towards

sustainability, what mechanisms and stakeholder relations

have been put in place to drive existing examples, what

factors contribute to or obstruct their successful imple-

mentation, and finally, what kind of incentives and policies

are required to promote further this type of multi-stake-

holder driven collaborations for sustainability in other

higher education institutions.

In this article, we examine the current practice of

implementing interdisciplinarity into academic programs,

the process of institutionalization, and finally, cross-sector

collaboration aimed at accelerating a shift to sustainability.

We draw from the experiences in selected academic pro-

grams at the University of Tokyo in Japan, the Swiss

Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, Lund Uni-

versity in Sweden, and Erasmus University of Rotterdam in

the Netherlands. Other major academic programs in sus-

tainability, including those at Arizona State University in

the US, Leuphana University in Luneburg, Germany,

Osaka University in Japan, and Ibaraki University also in

Japan, are described elsewhere (Brundiers et al. 2010; Lang

et al. 2012; Tamura and Uegaki 2012; Uwasu et al. 2009;

Wiek et al. 2011a). Since the contexts of these academic

programs vary greatly, their experiences are not compared

for evaluation, but rather for illustration. Based on what

can be learned from these diverse experiences, we argue

that the aforementioned challenges need to be addressed

simultaneously and not in separation in order to fulfill the

true promise of sustainability science. We also argue fur-

ther that all sustainability science programs would benefit

from mutual learning through collaboration, including

coordination of academic programs, joint summer schools,

presenting of career paths, and the devising of university–

industry exchange schemes for faculty and students.

Calls for incorporating sustainability into higher

education institutions

The concept of sustainability was first introduced to edu-

cation at an international level by the UNESCO-UNEP

International Environmental Education Programme in

1975, jointly administered by the United Nations Educa-

tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and

the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)

(UNESCO 1984). Since then, a number of national and

international declarations directly relating to sustainability

in higher education institutions have been developed

(Wright 2004).

The Talloires Declaration of 1990, the first official

statement made by university presidents, chancellors, and

rectors of a commitment to sustainability in higher edu-

cation, drew up an action plan for incorporating sustain-

ability literacy in teaching, research, operations, and

outreach at colleges and universities (Association of Uni-

versity Leaders for a Sustainable Future 2011). The

Swansea Declaration was adopted at the conclusion of the

Association of Commonwealth Universities’ Fifteenth

Quinquennial Conference in 1993. The Co-operation Pro-

gram in Europe for Research on Nature and Industry

through Coordinated University Studies (COPERNICUS),

which was established by the Conference of European

Rectors (CRE) to promote a better understanding of the

interaction between man and the environment and to col-

laborate on common environmental issues, created the

CRE COPERNICUS Charter for Sustainable Development

in 1994 (Conference of European Rectors 1994). The

COPERNICUS conference held for the World Summit on

Sustainable Development, Rio?10, adopted the Luneburg

Declaration on Higher Education for Sustainable Devel-

opment in 2001. The Declaration Ubuntu in Education,

Science, and Technology for the Sustainable Development

was adopted in 2002, with the signatories of major aca-

demic institutions such as the United Nations University

(UNU), UNESCO, International Association of Universi-

ties, Third World Academy of Science, African Academy

of Sciences and the Science Council of Asia, as well as the

International Council for Science, World Federation of

Engineering Organizations, Copernicus-Campus, Global

Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership and Uni-

versity Leaders for Sustainable Future. The Barcelona

Declaration, which was settled at the Second International

Conference on Engineering Education in Sustainable

Development in 2004, underlined the importance of sus-

tainable development in all technological education, and

called upon higher education institutions in the engineering

field to progressively translate sustainable development

objectives into concrete actions. The Graz Declaration of

2004, addressing the Bologna Process in particular, made

the call to take appropriate actions toward incorporating the

principle of sustainable development in the establishment

of the European Higher Education Area.

The importance of reorienting existing education pro-

grams to incorporate sustainability-related principles,

knowledge, skills, perspectives, and values has been

emphasized further by the United Nations Decade of Edu-

cation for Sustainable Development 2005–2014 (UNESCO

Education Sector 2005). The overall goal of the decade was

set to integrate the values inherent in sustainable develop-

ment into all aspects of learning, with the aim of bringing

about behavioral changes in view of a more sustainable

and just society for all. Here, education for sustainable

Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 103

123

development is defined as a dynamic concept utilizing all

aspects of public awareness, education, and training to create

and enhance an understanding of the linkages among the

diverse issues of sustainable development, of which the

objective is to develop the knowledge, skills, perspectives,

and values that will empower people of all ages to assume

responsibility for creating and enjoying a sustainable future.

It requires higher education institutions to rethink their

missions and to restructure their courses, research priorities,

community outreach, and campus operations. Integrating

sustainability into all of the major activities of higher edu-

cation institutions presents a tremendous opportunity to

prepare students and the campus community to become more

adept decision makers in an increasingly complex, dynamic,

and uncertain future (Glasser et al. 2005).

These international declarations have gained acceptance

in the higher education community and have subsequently

been endorsed and signed by numerous universities.

Understanding how the concept of sustainability has been

incorporated into these declarations is essential to contex-

tualizing present practices and beliefs in higher education

(Wright 2004). The emerging themes include sustainable

physical operations, sustainable research, public outreach,

inter-university cooperation, partnership with government,

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and industry, in

addition to the development of interdisciplinary curricu-

lums and moral obligations (Wright 2002). As these vari-

ous declarations are implemented around the world,

increasing consensus is gathering around the idea that

higher education institutions can play a significant role in

contributing to creating a more sustainable world through

their major functions of education, research, and outreach

(Fadeeva and Mochizuki 2010).

Progress on campuses, however, has been rather slow,

especially considering the high expectation expressed in

the major declarations (Velazquez et al. 2005). The slow

pace in higher education institutions’ movements towards

sustainability has been particularly influenced by the con-

ventional university appraisal systems that do not seriously

consider sustainability perspectives in their evaluation

methodologies. Currently, higher education institutions are

under strong pressure from government requirements for

quality assurance (Fadeeva et al. 2011). In addition,

quantitative data such as the number of academic papers

published or cited is often incorporated into powerful

market-based evaluations that carry the innate risk of

conveying an overly simplistic impression of university

performance. Because assessment and appraisal systems

are increasingly influential in guiding the activities of

higher education institutions, if modified appropriately,

they could be a significant force for transformation towards

a more sustainable direction (Fadeeva and Mochizuki

2010).

A variety of systems and tools have been implemented

for sustainability assessment at higher education institutions

since the major declarations were developed in the 1990s

(Shriberg 2002, 2004; Yarime and Tanaka 2012). They

exhibit considerable diversity in scope and methodology,

covering a broad range of aspects related to sustainability of

higher education institutions. While a comprehensive

framework helps to incorporate various institutional

dimensions, to achieve far-reaching impacts in the com-

munity of higher education, it is crucial that sustainability

assessment is designed and implemented in an integrated

manner. Assessment systems usually evaluate various

issues such as usage of energy, water, and other materials;

incremental and systemic progress; sustainability education

as a core function, incorporation of teaching, research,

operations, and service; and cross-institutional action

(Shriberg 2002). Most of the existing assessment systems,

however, evaluate the aspects of education, research, and

outreach rather separately, and do not consider integrated

assessment of sustainability at higher education institutions

(Yarime and Tanaka 2012). To encourage higher education

institutions to move more effectively and consistently

towards sustainability, university appraisal systems must

provide a holistic assessment that encompasses academic

programs, institutionalization, and collaboration with

stakeholders.

Practice of implementing academic concepts

and methodologies

Interdisciplinarity as well as diversity in sustainability

science education has been emphasized at the Graduate

Program in Sustainability Science (GPSS) in the Graduate

School of Frontier Sciences of the University of Tokyo

since its start in 2007 (Onuki and Mino 2009). GPSS is

operated jointly by the six departments in the Division of

Environmental Studies, namely, the Departments of Envi-

ronment Systems, Human and Engineered Environmental

Studies, International Studies, Ocean Technology, Policy

and Environment, Natural Environmental Studies, and

Socio-Cultural Environmental Studies. This inter-depart-

mental structure allows the program to offer a compre-

hensive curriculum that covers a variety of disciplines

related to sustainability including natural sciences, social

sciences, and humanities through lectures, exercises, and

thesis projects.

When facing complicated and intermeshed problems in

society, a holistic way of thinking and the ability to see what

factors or strategies contribute to regional or global sus-

tainability is essential. Structured knowledge about various

aspects of sustainability is needed in order to make this

possible. Hence, the course work, while giving students of

104 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113

123

the program necessary knowledge on relevant subjects and

disciplines, also includes courses that provide holistic views

and approaches by allowing them to look into actual cases

and analyze linkages the multitude of issues at stake. These

courses allow students to acquire the basic concepts and

methodologies to understand the complexity and multifac-

eted nature of sustainability. Through a variety of experi-

ences the students learn skills such as systems thinking in

order to examine and evaluate sustainability issues from

integrative perspectives, facilitation and negotiation skills

necessary for consensus building, and sound understanding

and appreciation of cultural diversity.

As sustainability problems are interlinked and therefore

need to be addressed across disciplinary boundaries, one

guiding question for GPSS is, ‘‘How can an academic

program help to develop interdisciplinary ways of thinking,

skills and attitudes in an individual student as well as in a

learning community?’’ To illustrate the complexity of

sustainability issues, the case study approach is extensively

used for a wide range of topics, including the conservation

of Horyuji Temple, the occurrence of the Minamata dis-

ease, the competition between food and energy, forest

management and global sustainability, water resource

management in northwest China, and a future transporta-

tion system in Kamakura City. To consider the case of

Horyuji Temple that has endured more than 1,300 years

and several large earthquakes, the site is used as a means of

exploring resilience from different disciplinary viewpoints.

From an engineering perspective, the earthquake resistant

structure was crucial, consisting of a durable timber con-

struction. From the perspective of social science, the socio-

cultural backgrounds played an important role, including

economic incentives and people’s willingness to maintain

the tradition of the temple. The students then explore how

the physical and social dimensions have gone through

complex interactions with each other over a long time by

integrating different disciplinary vantage points.

In another case study, competition between food and

energy production is discussed from different disciplinary

perspectives. Students are given what is called the

‘‘mainstream strategy’’ where farmers in Southeast Asian

countries such as Thailand are persuaded to shift their

products from food, i.e., rice, to biomass for energy,

assuming this will improve their economic conditions,

reduce fossil fuel consumption, and consequently contrib-

ute to the development of sustainable food and energy

systems in the region. The students then discuss the inter-

linked and trade-off relationships involving food secu-

rity,the global and regional energy balance, benefits and

drawbacks in the local economy, impact on the local

community, and social transformation. To help the students

deepen and broaden their understanding of the complexity

of the sustainability issue, experts and practitioners give

lectures to provide them with holistic and integrated

approaches to food and energy issues. Opportunities are

also arranged for the students to gain experiential learning

through visits to local villages and project sites. The stu-

dents tackle this issue in groups where they develop

communication and leadership whilst employing the con-

cepts and methodologies of relevant disciplines such

as agriculture, economics, sociology, and international

relations.

Throughout these case studies, students are urged to

revision and reformulate the problem at hand, which, in

many cases, is simply one part of a much larger issue that

requires a comprehensive understanding of the whole

structure. As the current academic environment tends to

strengthen fragmentation, rather than connection and inte-

gration of disciplinary perspectives, learning through actual

experiences in the local context is valuable for re-exam-

ining and redefining the problem at hand, and transcending

the initial scope of analytical framework. Interdisciplina-

rity not only combines disciplinary approaches, but also

makes it possible to question the implicit assumptions

made in formulating the original problem. As such, it

prompts the students to detach themselves from familiar

disciplinary views in a manner that nevertheless seeks to

avoid downright rejection or complete transformation of

existing academic viewpoints. Having gone through this

process, the students learn to obtain a new world view,

distinctive from the previous.

In regards to applying the experiences of GPSS to other

sustainability programs, points for consideration could

include encouraging the integration of both students and

teachers from a wide variety of disciplinary and cultural

backgrounds. Some of the implications for educational

programs in general could include the value of student,

teacher and disciplinary diversity, the use of interdisci-

plinary and cross-cultural communications, the need for

basic orientations and training in sustainability science,

identification of commonality rather than an emphasis on

originality, acceptance of plurality rather than an exclusive

focus on objectivity, and finally, synthetic and integrative

rather than analytical states of being (Sipos et al. 2008).

Last but not least, faculty development is a crucial factor

for successful sustainability science education (Wiek et al.

2011a).We need teachers who accept interdisciplinarity

and have skills to make use of students’ disciplinary and

cultural diversity in the education process.

As it is urgent in science and society to address climate

change and other sustainability challenges such as biodi-

versity loss, deforestation, depletion of marine fish stocks,

global ill-health, land degradation, land use change, and

water scarcity, sustainability science is regarded as a source

and aid for social transformations (Jerneck et al. 2011).

Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies

Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 105

123

(LUCSUS), a centre for sustainability research, brings

together seven disciplines from four faculties in order to

contribute to the development of the academic field of

sustainability science. At LUCSUS, sustainability science

bridges natural and social sciences to seek creative solu-

tions to such complex challenges. The program incorpo-

rates an academic agenda that advances the methodological

and theoretical understanding of what sustainability sci-

ence can be, how it can be pursued, and to what it can

contribute. LUCSUS coordinates Lund University Inter-

national Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies

and Sustainability Science (LUMES), as well as Lund

University Centre of Excellence for Integration of Social

and Natural Dimensions of Sustainability (LUCID).

LUCID aims at creating completely new and unique syn-

ergies across natural and social sciences in order to develop

new integrated theories and methods for addressing com-

plex sustainability issues. The research is expected to offer

theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions to

the broad and emerging field of sustainability science.

Identifying knowledge structuring as the key focus, a

generic academic platform is organized as a three-dimen-

sional matrix comprising three components, that is, core

themes (scientific understanding, goals, and pathways), cross-

cutting critical and problem-solving approaches, and any

combination of the sustainability challenges above. Four

sustainability challenges, biodiversity loss, climate change,

land use changes, and water scarcity, have been inserted into

the matrix as an example, and three issues have been discussed

for advancing theory and methodology in sustainability sci-

ence: how new synergies across natural and social sciences

can be created; how integrated theories for understanding and

responding to complex sustainability issues can be developed;

and how theories and concepts in economics, gender studies,

geography, political science, and sociology can be applied in

sustainability science. The generic academic platform serves

to structure and create new knowledge in sustainability sci-

ence and is a tool for exploring any set of sustainability

challenges. The combined critical and problem-solving

approach is considered crucial for sustainability science.

The Knowledge Network for Sustainability Transitions

(KSI) was established by a Dutch research grant in 2004.

KSI consists of 50 doctoral candidates and 25 post-doctoral

candidates involved in a multitude of themes on sustain-

ability transitions. Post-graduates have interdisciplinary

backgrounds varying among engineering, economics,

social sciences, policy and governance studies, physics,

environmental sciences, health studies, agriculture sci-

ences, technology studies, computer science, and market-

ing. The network involves post-graduates and academics

from universities in the Netherlands and other European

countries. Within KSI, in which the Erasmus University of

Rotterdam was a founding-member, it is considered that

understanding and advancing sustainability science will be

realized by an understanding and researching of sustain-

ability transitions. Sustainability transitions are conceptu-

alized and understood as continuous processes of

fundamental change in cultures, structures, and practices of

complex societal systems towards sustainability (Fran-

tzeskaki and de Haan 2009). In the presence of complex,

wicked problems that bring about a system’s unsustain-

ability, transitions as radical transformative processes are

seen as treatments to alter the system to a more sustainable

state. Understanding the nature and dynamics of such

transformative processes towards sustainability requires

interdisciplinary knowledge and a deep commitment to

sustainability values (Loorbach et al. 2011).

When considering the academic merits of the research

field of sustainability transitions and its contribution to

sustainability science, points for consideration include the

explicit focus on processes that activate sustainability, the

practice of sustainability, and the understanding of pro-

cesses in society that lead to a more sustainable pathway.

The projects given to the post-graduates are based on

existing, on-going, or emerging unsustainability problems

such as the carbon-lock in energy systems in the Nether-

lands and UK, car-dependency in the mobility sector,

industrialization and intensification of agriculture, and

cost-driven health care in the era of climate change pres-

sures and various complex and persistent problems. The

emphasis is on unravelling the processes, drivers, or factors

that have the potential for transforming the system (its deep

structure, processes, and interdependencies therein) as a

treatment to deal with unsustainability.

The KSI network organized winter schools, post-grad-

uate seminars, and master classes to promote and ensure

interdisciplinary education of the post-graduates and

knowledge creation for sustainability and sustainability

transitions. At every post-graduate knowledge creation

activity specialists from different fields, as well as inter-

disciplinary sustainability experts, were invited to give a

lecture and to interact and reflect with the network of

researchers. The academic modus operandi was interdis-

ciplinary action research, involving numerous actors such

as specialists, innovators, communities, industry, and pol-

icy makers. The academic focus of those platforms was to

create a common ground and new knowledge on the gov-

ernance actions, both bottom-up, e.g., social movements,

sustainability innovations, and radical niches, and top-

down, such as institutionalization dynamics, support and

empowerment mechanisms, and governance methodolo-

gies (e.g., transition scenarios, transition experiments,

transition platforms, and transition arenas) that can enable

sustainability transitions in multiple domains (e.g., energy,

mobility, health, agriculture, water, tourism, food, and

waste management).

106 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113

123

Evolutionary process of institutionalization

Institutionalization of academic fields has traditionally

been promoted through establishing educational and

research programs, academic societies and associations, as

well as textbooks and journals. The emergence of chemical

engineering as an academic discipline illustrates the evo-

lutionary nature of institutionalization (Yarime 2011c). In

establishing chemical engineering, a variety of chemical

processes were conceptualized into ‘‘unit operations’’ such

as drying, distillation, separation, extraction, evaporation,

absorption, and adsorption (Rosenberg 1998). Based on

this intellectual foundation, the School of Chemical Engi-

neering Practice was established at MIT, which led to the

establishment of an independent academic department. The

publication of a standard textbook, Principles of Chemical

Engineering, followed a few years later. The conceptuali-

zation of unit operations effectively functioned as a

‘‘focusing device’’ in elaborating the purposes of education

and research in chemical engineering. The concepts, tools,

and methodologies developed in academia were applied to

actual problems that the industry faced in the production of

chemicals. The knowledge and experiences obtained

through this process, in turn, were fed back into education

and research at universities for further improvement and

refinement of academic foundations. The co-evolutionary

process of developing concepts and methodologies in

academia and utilizing them for solving problems in

industry functioned effectively through institutionalization

in establishing chemical engineering.

In sustainability science it is particularly important that

diverse types of scientific knowledge are integrated effec-

tively (Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Komiyama et al.

2011; Wiek et al. 2012b). There are, however, institutional

barriers and obstacles discouraging such knowledge inte-

gration in academia (Maurer 2006; van der Leeuw et al.

2012). Faculty members at universities are under increas-

ing pressure to publish articles in scientific journals in their

own specialties, without much incentive to collaborate with

researchers working in different academic fields. For

tackling crosscutting sustainability problems, scientific

collaboration is essential to assemble the necessary types of

knowledge and expertise (Shrum et al. 2007); it is thus

important to identify and elaborate the problems and

challenges to overcome in order to promote collaboration

across different academic fields. As a recent bibliometric

analysis of collaborations for sustainability revealed, the

creation, transmission, and sharing of knowledge on sus-

tainability tends to be confined within geographical clus-

ters, with specialization in each country and bilateral

collaboration (Yarime et al. 2010). Since each country has

its own particular focus among the academic fields, the

existence of geographical clusters poses a serious obstacle

to collecting, exchanging, and integrating diverse types of

knowledge, crucial to the establishment of the interdisci-

plinary field of sustainability science. Appropriate institu-

tional arrangements are therefore required in order to create

more effective integration.

Several initiatives have already been launched to set up

global schemes for academic collaboration on sustainabil-

ity science. Among the new types of organizational and

institutional arrangements is the Alliance for Global Sus-

tainability (AGS), of which the members include the four

scientific and technological universities, the University of

Tokyo, MIT, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,

and Chalmers University of Technology, in addition to

their associated partners. Created in 1997, the AGS brought

together hundreds of university scientists, engineers, and

social scientists to address the complex issues that lie at the

intersection of environmental, economic, and social goals.

These challenges are addressed by improving scientific

understanding of sustainability issues, developing tech-

nology and policy tools to help societies reconcile eco-

logical and economic concerns, and educating a new

generation of leaders committed to meeting the goals of

sustainable development. Research teams have been

formed with faculty, students, and senior research staff

coming from across their respective institutes to work on

critical issues in the areas of energy and climate, mobility,

urban systems, water and agriculture, cleaner technologies,

and policy and communications. Since the first set of AGS-

sponsored research projects was launched in 1997, the

AGS has worked with leaders from global businesses and

industries, governments, and NGOs worldwide to provide

innovative and practical solutions to real and urgent envi-

ronmental problems around the world.

Based on this experience, another alliance on research

and education on sustainability science, the Integrated

Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S), was

initiated by the University of Tokyo in 2005 with other

leading universities in Japan, including Kyoto University,

Osaka University, Hokkaido University, and Ibaraki Uni-

versity, together with prominent research institutes. By

2011, IR3S had become a network of 11 participating and

cooperating institutions. With the aim of serving as a

research and educational platform for sustainability sci-

ence, IR3S organizes lectures, workshops, and conferences

that bring together researchers, academics, students, gov-

ernment officials, and policy makers to exchange infor-

mation and discuss sustainability issues. IR3S has also

launched the academic journal Sustainability Science

(Springer) with the UNU. As it takes time for a new journal

to gain recognition, the creation of a section in a prominent

journal could be a promotional option too. This led to a

section devoted to sustainability science in the Proceedings

of the National Academy of Science in the US (Clark 2007).

Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 107

123

These and similar journals play a significant role in insti-

tutionalization by providing opportunities to demonstrate

as well as accumulate academic findings and achievements.

As another effort for institutionalization, the Interna-

tional Network for Sustainability Science (INSS) was

created in 2009 as a global platform for linking academic

networks to share knowledge on the present status of, and

diverse approaches to sustainable development. The goals

of the INSS are to link research networks together, to

provide society with a new kind of science, to educate a

new generation of sustainability stakeholders, and to take

the lead in social change and innovation for sustainability.

IR3S is one of the founding networks of the INSS as the

organizer of the first meeting of the International Confer-

ence on Sustainability Science (ICSS), which now serves

as the primary meeting of INSS. In the first ICSS, held in

February 2009 in Tokyo, a workshop was organized to

provide an international forum to exchange, share, and

discuss a wide range of ideas, concepts, and methodologies

in developing doctoral programs on sustainability science

and to explore opportunities for mutual collaboration in

institutionalizing the academic field of sustainability sci-

ence. Leading experts working in the field of sustainability

science were invited to learn from experiences gained

through existing and prospective doctoral programs on

sustainability science at different universities and research

institutes around the world. Participants in this conference

included the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

University, the School of Sustainability at Arizona State

University, the Lund Centre for Sustainability Studies at

Lund University in Sweden, the International Centre for

Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development at

Maastricht University in the Netherlands, the Sustainability

Institute at Stellenbosch University, and the Council for

Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa. The

second ICSS was held at the Sapienza University of Rome

in Italy in June 2010 (Wiek et al. 2012a), and the third

ICSS will be organized by Arizona State University in

February 2012 (van der Leeuw et al. 2012).

Collaboration within the scientific community has also

been promoted through other networking activities. The

Forum on Science and Innovation for Sustainable Devel-

opment, for example, has been hosted by the American

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for

information exchange on publications, programs, projects,

researchers, and institutions in sustainability science. The

Sustainability Transitions network (KSI) in the Netherlands

was also promoted through the establishment of a research

community that comprises a European and worldwide

network of researchers, constituting the Sustainability

Transitions Research Network (STRN). The STRN net-

work has published numerous papers and special issues, a

book series on sustainability transitions through an

academic publisher, and recently established their own

academic journal entitled Environmental Innovations and

Sustainability Innovations (Elsevier). Within this research

community, lectures and post-graduate courses and pro-

grams on sustainability transitions are currently being both

planned and implemented. The future challenge for sus-

tainability science and sustainability transitions is for new

courses, post-graduate programs, and knowledge creation

activities to consider equally important the focus on sus-

tainability values and on interdisciplinarity when aiming at

knowledge creation for sustainability. These emerging

institutional arrangements will have significant implica-

tions for promoting sustainability science, which requires

the production, communication, and integration of diverse

types of knowledge and expertise.

Incentive structures and frameworks are particularly

important in encouraging cooperation and collaboration

among researchers in different departments. This would

require some radical changes in the criteria for evaluating

the performance of faculty members. Promotion and tenure

systems need to be adjusted not only in a single place, but

also in a wide range of universities and research institutes

for promoting extensive mobility, developing long-term

career paths, and incentivizing transformational research in

collaboration with stakeholders. It is very important to

create and maintain institutional arrangements that allow

for effective feedback from a variety of stakeholders in

society. Involving stakeholders who do not necessarily

share the same backgrounds or motivations as academia,

however, might pose difficulties in producing rigorous

scientific results in the traditional sense (Lang et al. 2012;

Yarime 2011c). The process of collaborating with stake-

holders thus needs to be credited appropriately in evalu-

ating educational and research activities on sustainability.

Students of academic programs in sustainability science

will explore their career paths after graduation. Thus,

through creating promising opportunities for young people

not only in academia but also in industry, business, and the

public sector, sustainability science will be able to cement

itself more deeply in society over the long term.

Collaboration and networking with stakeholders

in society

In the global emergence of the so-called ‘‘new economy’’

or ‘‘knowledge-based economy’’ it is scientific knowledge

and innovation—no longer mere physical resources—that

form the most important assets for economic growth and

international competitiveness (Etzkowitz and Webster

1995; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). In this new paradigm,

intellectual property plays a central role, and governments,

universities and industry cooperate on an unprecedented

108 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113

123

scale in order to bring about technology-driven growth

(Etzkowitz 2002). In the US, university–industry collabo-

rations have become characterized by patenting activities, a

process that has been fueled by a wider shift in federal

policy regarding intellectual property, coupled with the

growth of the biotechnology industry within which the

university also played a pivotal role (Mowery et al. 2004).

This has created a historically unparalleled opportunity for

academic research results to be converted into financial

gains through licensing deals and spin-off firm creation,

particularly in the life sciences, pharmaceutics, and infor-

mation and telecommunication technology. The economic

success of technology transfer activities at MIT and Stan-

ford University have culminated into an entrepreneurial

model that now constitutes the exemplary model of a

modern research university engaged in social and techno-

logical development (Etzkowitz 2002).

However, it is equally important to acknowledge the

negative effects of an excessive focus on patenting and

entrepreneurialism upon academic science and university

conduct. One of the most often cited concerns relates to the

openness of public science and the ‘‘scientific commons.’’

As universities and academic scientists respond to

increasing pressures to patent inventions and assert more

and more intellectual property rights over scientific

knowledge, valuable information is snatched from the

‘‘general tool kit’’ of scientific understanding and tech-

niques (Nelson 2004). This trend, it is argued, may in fact

prove to have a negative effect on innovation and on the

economy (David 2003; Heller and Eisenberg 1998; Nelson

2004). Other anxieties that have been raised against aca-

demic capitalism include conflicts of interest and the

market intrusion upon scientific objectiveness (Bok 2003;

Editorial 2001), ‘‘profiteering’’ as university technology

transfer programs prioritize revenue making over ensuring

the widest possible usage of inventions (Thursby et al.

2001; Thursby and Thursby 2002), and finally, the negative

effects of corporate-like competition upon the traditional

culture of academic science, which has always been com-

mitted to open sharing and collaboration (David 2003;

Mowery et al. 2004; Nelson 2004).

From a sustainability perspective, it should be empha-

sized that the entrepreneurial model and conventional

technology transfer practices would not necessarily be

appropriate for promoting larger socio-technical innova-

tion, particularly outside the life sciences, nor are they

focused on the sustainable development of the local and

regional communities. Rather, the entrepreneurial para-

digm is fixated on spurring business as usual economic

growth and not always on addressing pressing social or

environmental issues. For a university seeking to apply its

expertise and sources of innovation to the goal of building

a sustainable society, the existing mode of university–

industry collaboration requires a careful re-examination

(Orecchini et al. 2012). The present model needs to be

reformed so that academia will engage with a variety of

stakeholders in society through interactions in jointly cre-

ating and implementing relevant expertise (Alvial-Palavi-

cino and Yarime 2011; Yarime 2011a). The focus of the

new model should then be on spurring green innovation

and social entrepreneurialism in the community and

enabling multi-stakeholder collaborations aimed at solving

complicated and interconnected sustainability issues.

In an attempt to establish an alternative model of

innovation and cross-sector collaboration, various research

communities at the University of Tokyo have come toge-

ther to engage in a process that is referred to as ‘‘social

experimentation for sustainability.’’ The traditional defini-

tion of social experimentation applies to social welfare

experiments designed to test government policy interven-

tions in a process that must be both generalizable and

replicable (Greenberg and Shroder 2004). At the University

of Tokyo, a broader interpretation of social experimenta-

tion from the context of sustainability is proposed: that is, a

multi-stakeholder intervention on society to demonstrate

the impacts or results of a particular policy or technology

for sustainability. This expanded definition would be useful

in describing a series of multi-stakeholder driven demon-

strations and pilot projects currently being implemented by

the university in view of accelerating a local transition to

sustainable development.

The ‘‘Urban Reformation Program for the Realization of

a Bright Low Carbon Society’’ was initiated in 2010 at the

Kashiwa campus of the University of Tokyo (University of

Tokyo 2011). The overall aim of the project is to design the

blueprint for a low-carbon, elderly citizen-friendly com-

munity in the local vicinity of Kashiwa and to demonstrate

its feasibility via a comprehensive series of social experi-

ments. Both basic and applied research is being conducted

by six groups: energy (development of solar heating and

air-conditioning), senior mobility (trial of super compact

electric vehicles), clinical plant science (senior citizen

education project to alleviate crop diseases), agriculture

and landscape planning (promotion of local agriculture and

bio-mass production), city planning (unification of project

and housing and services for the elderly), and lastly,

information systems (unification and information manage-

ment). The partners for this project include the University

of Tokyo, local government authorities, a think tank, local

enterprises, NPOs, and citizen groups. With regard to the

functions of the partners, the City of Kashiwa and Chiba

Prefecture grant access to data and knowledge, and assis-

tance with legal and political matters. The think tank

Mitsubishi Research Institute provides consulting and

support for strategic decision-making. Private companies

supply technical assistance and facilities, with non-profit

Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 109

123

organizations and citizen groups facilitating citizen par-

ticipation and providing local knowledge.

Concerning the drivers and barriers for this project, an

established history of collaboration and cooperation

between the university and city government, coupled with a

desire to increase the scale of these exchanges, has played a

large role. Furthermore, the future-oriented vision and prior

commitment to low-carbon development of Kashiwa City

has also proved to be a driving force, not forgetting that

interest and support from local residents and other key

stakeholders is high, especially compared to other cities.

Last, but not least, significant five-year funding has also

been secured from the national government. On the other

hand, difficulties sometimes arise from the differing

visions, values, and approaches of the various research

groups involved, and collaboration and information sharing

between these separate research communities is at times

challenging. Moreover, there is also a degree of uncertainty

regarding expected results, and the long-term sustainability

of the project, a trend not unlike that observed in other

transformational sustainability science projects around the

world (Wiek et al. 2012b).

Aside from its research significance, the Urban Refor-

mation Program for the Realization of a Bright Low Car-

bon Society also has valuable implications for

sustainability education. Throughout the project, students

from various graduate programs at the University of Tokyo

actively participate in the diverse social experiments of

each research group. By doing so, they learn transdisci-

plinary approaches to addressing interwoven problems

requiring both technical solutions and policy innovations.

As various types of stakeholders in society are involved in

the social experiments, students can also learn how to

communicate effectively with people and organizations

that do not necessarily share or understand academic ter-

minologies and curiosities (Brundiers and Wiek 2011;

Rowe 2007). This educational role is then extended to the

community and to all stakeholders involved, all of who

may monitor and appropriate results via annual public

conferences and academic journals such as Sustainability

Science. Although this model of social experimentation for

sustainability is still in its initial stages and therefore

encountering many difficulties and obstacles, we would

nevertheless like to highlight its significance as an attempt

to address the complexity of sustainability issues by inte-

grating education, research, and contributions to society

through collaboration and networking with external

stakeholders.

The Natural and Social Science Interface of the Institute

for Environmental Decisions at ETH Zurich organizes

collaboration between academia and society through

transdisciplinary case studies in support of sustainability

transitions (Scholz and Marks 2001). Society faces many

ill-defined, messy, complex, and long-term sustainability

problems, which require learning for socially robust solu-

tions and orientations. The definition, representation, and

transformation of these problems ask for theory–practice

interaction and mutual learning. Transdisciplinarity means

switching from science for society to science with society

and is regarded as the methodology of sustainable transi-

tion (Lang et al. 2012). The transdisciplinary case studies

deal with sustainable transitions of rural and urban systems,

companies, or industries, and policy processes (e.g., deci-

sion processes on nuclear waste disposals). Here, trans-

disciplinarity is considered to be essentially different from

interdisciplinarity. While interdisciplinarity fuses methods

and concepts from different scientific disciplines, trans-

disciplinarity goes beyond sciences, organizes processes of

mutual learning among science and society, and innovates

conventional patterns of knowledge exchange. Thus,

transdisciplinarity integrates experiential knowledge and

values about real-world problems provided by practitioners

and stakeholders with scientific knowledge about systems

provided by researchers. It is also characterized by a joint

process initiated by non-academia, including government,

industry, public, and NGOs, or scientists on an ‘‘ill-

defined,’’ societally relevant, real-world problem that

includes challenging scientific questions; joint leadership

on equal footing for the process and project; joint problem

definition including system boundaries; joint responsibility

but taking different and complementary roles; a method-

based collaborative research methodology, including

deliberation and negotiation processes with stakeholders;

and the construction of robust orientations and/or solutions

to the problem.

Teaching goals in transdisciplinary case studies go

beyond project-based instruction. It is therefore important

to organize a joint problem definition with legitimized

decision makers, to organize mutual learning by commu-

nication and collaboration with case agents, to contribute to

case development, and to reflect potentials and limits of

transdisciplinarity. Students learn how to master com-

plexity, that is, understand and define relevant aspects of

the case utilizing the knowledge of case experts, and define

future states, options, and scenarios. Students learn how to

integrate knowledge through embedded case study methods

(Scholz and Tietje 2002). It is important to use tools to

facilitate group processes and to reflect on and optimize

group processes (Stauffacher et al. 2006). The methodol-

ogy follows six steps of defining a guiding question, facing

the case, performing system analysis, developing scenarios,

performing multi-criteria analysis, and developing robust

orientations (Scholz et al. 2006). Through this process, the

acquisition of various competencies are expected, includ-

ing learning to research ill-defined, societally relevant,

complex real-world problems, and dealing with methods of

110 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113

123

integrating/relating disciplines (e.g., psychological and

physical variables), systems (e.g., variables from human/

social and environmental/natural systems), interest (e.g.,

stakeholder perspectives and values), modes of thought

(e.g., experiential vs. analytical knowledge), and cultures.

Students start from real-world problems and collaborate in

groups, also with stakeholders from outside academia.

Transdisciplinarity can be considered the engineering task

of the twenty-first century. In other words, students learn that

sustainable solutions require more than mere technological

solutions. The key of transdisciplinarity is a close collabo-

ration between praxis/practitioners and university/scientists,

keeping distinct societal roles. Students can profit from being

involved in a transdisciplinary case study on multiple levels,

bridging the science-society gap, and methodologically

sound approaches to complex, ill-defined, and intermingled

problems. The ETH program is currently in a transition

towards transdisciplinary processes based on the human-

environment system framework. The idea is that complex

human-environment interactions may only be understood if

scientific rigor is linked to profound experiential, real-world

system knowledge. Transdisciplinary processes are consid-

ered as the means to generate and utilize this knowledge.

Furthermore, the idea of a sustainability college is expected to

institutionalize life-long learning, which is necessary for

developing sustainability and for systematically incorporat-

ing the rich and deep knowledge in making progress towards

sustainability (Scholz and Marks 2001).

Towards an integration of education, research

and societal contribution for sustainability

Higher education institutions are increasingly expected to

play a key role in generating concrete solutions and strat-

egies to tackle the dynamic, complex factors fueling the

sustainability crisis. To fulfill this expectation, it is essen-

tial that education, research, and societal contributions are

seamlessly integrated into a combined response that is then

promoted and reinforced in the process of institutionali-

zation. To this end, utilizing universities as a platform for

social experimentation through collaboration and net-

working among academia, industry, and the public sector

will enable contributions to learning and innovation for

sustainability. The experience and expertise of the private

sector are a particularly crucial ingredient when imple-

menting multi-stakeholder collaborations with the public

sector aimed at triggering institutional reforms favoring

innovation for sustainability.

With the diversity of experiences at academic programs

in various higher education institutions, opportunities need

to be seized for mutual learning and collaboration on

education, research, and outreach activities in sustainability

science. Students, fellows, and researchers can be

exchanged among different universities, possibly with

portable scholarships and fellowships. Coordination of

academic programs through bilateral/multilateral schemes

can also be pursued. Joint workshops or summer schools

for doctoral and young researchers will be a valuable

opportunity to exchange and learn from different approa-

ches to conducting rigorous research in this diverse field.

Career paths for graduates and researchers need to be

explored, with interviews, surveys, and continued dia-

logues with industry and government. Schemes for

exchanging students and faculty members in university

with employees and researchers in industry need to be

explored. Finally, coordinated efforts for effective outreach

to decision makers and stakeholders in international com-

munities are also expected to contribute to fostering sus-

tainability at the global level.

Acknowledgment The authors thank the handling editor and three

anonymous reviewers for their very constructive comments and

suggestions.

References

Alvial-Palavicino C, Yarime M (2011) Sharing and shaping percep-

tions: dialogues with expertise in the deployment of renewable

energy technologies. In: Cotton M, Motta BH (eds) Engaging

with environmental justice: governance, education and citizen-

ship. Inter-Disciplinary Press, Oxford, pp 189–200

Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (2011)

Talloires declaration. Association of University Leaders for a

Sustainable Future, Washington, DC

Baba Y, Yarime M, Shichijo N (2010) Sources of success in advanced

materials innovation: the role of ‘core researchers’ in university–

industry collaboration in Japan. Int J Innov Manag 14(2):201–219

Ben-David J (1971) The scientist’s role in society: a comparative

study. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2007) Operationalising sustainability

science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot

projects. Geogr J 173(4):343–357

Bok D (2003) Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization

of higher education. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Branscomb LM, Kodama F, Florida R (eds) (1999) Industrializing

knowledge: university–industry linkages in Japan and the United

States. MIT Press, Cambridge

Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world

sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov High

Educ 36(2):107–124

Brundiers K, Wiek A, Redman CL (2010) Real-world learning

opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real

world. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(4):308–324

Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl

Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738

Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging

research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8059–8061

Conference of European Rectors (1994) COPERNICUS—the univer-

sity charter for sustainable development. Conference of Euro-

pean Rectors (CRE), Geneva, Switzerland

Crow M (2010) Organizing teaching and research to address the grand

challenges of sustainable development. Bioscience 60(7):488–489

Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 111

123

Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science.

Res Policy 23:487–521

David PA (2003) The economic logic of ‘open science’ and the

balance between private property rights and the public domain in

scientific data and information: a primer. In: Esanu JM, Uhlir PF

(eds) The role of scientific and technical data and information in

the public domain: proceeding of a symposium. National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Editorial (2001) Is the university-industrial complex out of control?

Nature 409(6817):119

Etzkowitz H (2002) MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science.

Routledge, London

Etzkowitz H, Webster A (1995) Science as intellectual property. In:

Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of

science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 480–505

Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Healey P (eds) (1998) Capitalizing

knowledge: new intersections of industry and academia. State

University of New York, Albany

Fadeeva Z, Mochizuki Y (2010) Higher education for today and

tomorrow: university appraisal for diversity, innovation and

change towards sustainable development. Sustain Sci 5:249–256

Fadeeva Z, Galkute L, Lotz-Sisitka H, Abdul Razak D, Chacon M,

Yarime M, Mohamedbhai G (2011) University appraisal for

diversity, innovation and change towards sustainable develop-

ment? Can it be done? In: Global University Network for

Innovation (GUNI) (ed) Higher education in the world 4: higher

education committed to sustainability—from understanding to

action. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 308–313

Florida R (1999) The role of the university: leveraging talent, not

technology. Issues Sci Technol 15(4) (online)

Frantzeskaki N, de Haan H (2009) Transitions: two steps from theory

to policy. Futures 41(9):593–606

Gibb A, Haskins G, Robertson I (2009) Leading entrepreneurial

university: meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of

higher education institutions. National Council for Graduate

Entrepreneurship (NCGE), United Kingdom

Glasser H, Calder W, Fadeeva Z (2005) Definition: research in higher

education for sustainability. Document prepared for the Halifax

Consultation, Halifax, NS

Greenberg D, Shroder M (2004) The digest of social experiments, 3rd

edn. The Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC

Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The

anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701

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

T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lovbrand E, Persson J (2011)

Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:69–82

Kajikawa Y, Ohno J, Takeda Y, Matsushima K, Komiyama H (2007)

Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an

analysis of the citation network. Sustain Sci 2:221–231

Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I,

McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux

S, Gallopin GC, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jager J, Jodha NS,

Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B,

O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science

292(5517):641–642

Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a

new discipline. Sustain Sci 1(1):1–6

Komiyama H, Takeuchi K, Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) (2011)

Sustainability science: a multidisciplinary approach. United

Nations University Press, Tokyo

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

Swilling M, Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in

sustainability science—practice, principles and challenges. Sus-

tain Sci 7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Thissen WH (2011) A transition

research perspective on governance for sustainability. In: Jaeger

CC, Tabara JD, Jaeger J (eds) European research on sustainable

development. Transformative science approaches for sustain-

ability, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–90

Maurer SM (2006) Inside the anticommons: academic scientists’

struggle to build a commercially self-supporting human muta-

tions database, 1999–2001. Res Policy 35:839–853

Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science: theoretical and

empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Meyer JW, Ramirez FO, Schofer E, Drori GS (2002) Science in the

modern world polity: institutionalization and globalization,

revised edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2004) Ivory

tower and industrial innovation: university–industry technology

transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States.

Stanford University Press, Stanford

Nelson RR (2004) The market economy, and the scientific commons.

Res Policy 33:455–471

Onuki M, Mino T (2009) Sustainability education and a new master’s

degree, the master of sustainability science: the graduate

program in sustainability science (GPSS) at the University of

Tokyo. Sustain Sci 4:55–59

Orecchini F, Valitutti V, Vitali G (2012) Industry and academia for a

transition towards sustainability: advancing sustainability sci-

ence through university-business collaborations. Sustain Sci

7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0151-3

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999)

The response of higher education institutions to regional needs.

OECD Publishing, Paris

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007)

Higher education and regions: globally competitive, locally

engaged. OECD Publishing, Paris

Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels

and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnol-

ogy community. Organ Sci 15(1):5–21

Owen-Smith J, Riccaboni M, Pammolli F, Powell WW (2002) A

comparison of US and European university–industry relations in

the life sciences. Manag Sci 48(1):24–43

Philpott K, Dooley L, O’Reilly C, Lupton G (2011) The entrepre-

neurial university: examining the underlying academic tensions.

Technovation 31(4):161–170

Redner H (1987) The institutionalization of science: a critical

synthesis. Soc Epistemol 1(1):37–59Rosenberg N (1998) Chemical engineering as a general purpose

technology. In: Helpman E (ed) General purpose technologies

and economic growth. MIT Press, Cambridge

Rowe D (2007) Education for a sustainable future. Science 317(5836):

323–324

Salter A, D’Este P, Pavitt K, Scott A, Martin B, Geuna A, Nightingale P,

Patel P (2000) Talent, not technology: the impact of publicly funded

research on innovation in the UK. SPRU, University of Sussex

Scholz RW, Marks D (2001) Learning about transdisciplinarity:

where are we? Where have we been? Where should we go? In:

Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Haberli R, Bill A, Scholz

RW, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving

among science, technology, and society. Birkhauser Verlag AG,

Basel, pp 236–252

Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods:

integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thou-

sand Oaks

Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006)

Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability

learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain High

Educ 7(3):226–251

Shriberg M (2002) Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in

higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for

practice and theory. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):254–270

112 Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113

123

Shriberg M (2004) Assessing sustainability: criteria, tools, and

implications. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education

and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and

practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 7–20

Shrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I (eds) (2007) Structures of scientific

collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge

Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative

sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J

Sustain High Educ 9(1):68–86

Slaughter S, Leslie LL (1997) Academic capitalism: politics, policies,

and the entrepreneurial university. John Hopkins University

Press, Baltimore

Slaughter S, Rhoades G (2004) Academic capitalism and the new

economy: markets, state and higher education. The Johns

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis

and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287

Stauffacher M, Walter AI, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2006)

Learning to research environmental problems from a functional

socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary

case study approach. Int J Sustain High Educ 7(3):252–275

Stephan PE (2010) The economics of science. In: Hall BH, Rosenberg

N (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation, vol 1. North-

Holland, Amsterdam

Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in

sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390

Tamura M, Uegaki T (2012) A development of educational model for

sustainability science: challenges in the mind-skills-knowledge

education at Ibaraki University. Sustain Sci. doi:10.1007/s11625-

011-0156-y

Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower?

Sources of growth in university licensing. Manag Sci

48(1):90–104

Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics

and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major US

universities. J Technol Transf 26(1–2):59–72

UNESCO (1984) Activities of the UNESCO-UNEP International

Environmental Education Programm (1975–1983). United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris

UNESCO Education Sector (2005) United Nations Decade of

Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014): interna-

tional implementation scheme. United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Paris

University of Tokyo (2011) Urban reformation program for realiza-

tion of bright low carbon society. http://low-carbon.k.u-tokyo.

ac.jp/en/index.html

Uwasu M, Yabar H, Kara K, Shimoda Y, Saijo T (2009) Educational

initiative of Osaka University in sustainability science: mobiliz-

ing science and technology towards sustainability. Sustain Sci

4(1):45–53

van der Leeuw S, Wiek A, Harlow J, Buizer J (2012) How much time

do we have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science.

Sustain Sci 7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0153-1

Velazquez L, Munguia N, Sanchez M (2005) Deterring sustainability

in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which

influence sustainability in higher education institutions. Int J

Sustain High Educ 6(5):383–391

Whitmer A, Ogden L, Lawton J, Sturner P, Groffman PM, Schneider

L, Hart D, Halpern B, Schlesinger W, Raciti S, Bettez N, Ortega

S, Rustad L, Pickett STA, Killilea M (2010) The engaged

university: providing a platform for research that transforms

society. Front Ecol Environ 8(6):314–321

Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman C, Banas Mills S (2011a) Moving

forward on competence in sustainability research and problem

solving. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 53(March–April):3–13

Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011b) Key competencies in

sustainability: a reference framework for academic program

development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218

Wiek A, Farioli F, Fukushi K, Yarime M (2012a) Sustainability

science—bridging the gap between science and society. Sustain

Sci 7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0154-0

Wiek A, Ness B, Brand F, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012b) From

complex systems analysis to transformational change: A com-

parative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci

7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y

Wright T (2002) Definitions and frameworks for environmental

sustainability in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ

3(3):203–220

Wright T (2004) The evolution of sustainability declaration in higher

education. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education

and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and

practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 7–20

Yarime M (2011a) Case description of sanyo electric solar LED

lantern in Kenya: growing inclusive markets. United Nations

Development Programme, New York

Yarime M (2011b) Challenges and opportunities in sustainability

science: a perspective based on research and educational

experiences. In: Global University Network for Innovation

(GUNI) (ed) Higher education in the world 4: higher education

committed to sustainability—from understanding to action.

Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 254–258

Yarime M (2011c) Exploring sustainability science: knowledge,

institutions, and innovation. In: Komiyama H, Takeuchi K,

Shiroyama H, Mino T (eds) Sustainability science: a multidis-

ciplinary approach. United Nations University Press, Tokyo

Yarime M, Tanaka Y (2012) The issues and methodologies in

sustainability assessment tools for higher educational institu-

tions: a review of recent trends and future challenges. J Educ

Sustain Dev (forthcoming)

Yarime M, Takeda Y, Kajikawa Y (2010) Towards institutional

analysis of sustainability science: a quantitative examination of

the patterns of research collaboration. Sustain Sci 5(1):115–124

Sustain Sci (2012) 7 (Supplement 1):101–113 113

123