Introduction

In order to respond effectively to the challenge of preparing a sustainability transition, major changes in the socio-economic system of modern society will have to be envisaged. Some earlier and simpler environmental problems could be tackled, for example, by reducing toxic by-products of a few production processes. However, responses to prospects of, for example, climate change will require large shifts right at the heart of our industrialized cultures, especially in the manner in which we use energy and produce greenhouse gases in the process. Referring to reduction scenarios discussed in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Kempton (1991) has stressed that “if world leaders decide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds, such a large reduction will require consumer and worker co-operation as well as citizen consent that major societal changes are worth the effort.” Responses to global environmental change will only be effective if they have clear public support.

Understanding the reactions of citizens to prospects of climate change and related policy options is thus a central element in developing effective climate policies. Studies on this issue can build upon a large body of research on environmental consciousness and behavior in general (see, e.g., the comprehensive overview by Brand 1997). In the last few decades, a variety of studies have focused specifically on perceptions of climate change issues (see, e.g., the overview by Jaeger et al. 1993; and by Thompson and Rayner 1998).

This book is the result of collaborations by a network of researchers across Europe and beyond. As a group, we share the conviction that sustainability science needs public participation to be successful. We also think that in order to really work, such public participation requires not only an open mind on all sides, but also improved tools. How did we reach this conviction?

Sustainability is an elusive concept. One of the few things that can be said with certainty is that sustainable (as well as unsustainable) development depends on an intricate web of interactions in linked systems, both natural and social. This web cannot be steered by any simple action into a premeditated direction. There is no easy way to open this Gordian knot, and trying to do so with the proverbial sword would damage rather than enhance our chances of a sustainable future.

This situation implies two things. First, sustainability cannot be approached by a grand master plan with a precise mapping of the end point and the trajectory to get there. Rather, it is ‘our common journey’ as humankind; it consists of one tentative step after the other, with the need for continuous feedback about whether we are going roughly in the right direction or not (National Research Council 1999). Given the complex systems involved, there is not much hope of achieving such meaningful feedback without using the potential of modern information technology, especially computer modeling.

This book reports the results of a grand experiment in how lay publics might be more effectively engaged in linking science and technology to the quest for sustainable development.

The experiment integrates three long-established but usually isolated lines of thought. The first concerns the appropriate role of science and technology in a transition toward sustainability. Early thinking on sustainability – such as that articulated in the World Conservation Strategy of 1980 – relied heavily on scientific studies of renewable resource management, carrying capacities, and environmental limits. The Brundtland Commission's 1987 report “Our Common Future” properly stressed the importance for any sustainable development strategy of targeted investments in knowledge creation and application. Over the subsequent decade, however, such investments generally lagged far behind needs. It has only been in the context of discussions surrounding the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development that widespread attention has begun to return to securing the scientific and technological foundations for a transition toward sustainability. One of the exceptions to this general trend has been in the relatively well-supported problem of climate change addressed in the study reported here. Climate change is, of course, only one aspect of the overall sustainability challenge. It none the less incorporates many of the most formidable elements of that challenge: tight coupling between social and environmental systems across multiple spatial scales; complexity in the resulting interactions that makes counterintuitive surprise the norm; and sufficiently long time lags between interventions and consequences to make wait-and-see management an option only for ostriches.

Introduction

Citizens' perceptions of climate change have been explored in various empirical studies with quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Dunlap (1998) explored lay perceptions and levels of understanding of climate change in six countries with a quantitative poll. In order to understand perceptions of climate change, Kempton (1991) compared lay perceptions with those of scientists in the US with a qualitative technique, while Bell (1994) looked at differences between media and public discourses on climate change. Other studies can be found in Lőfstedt (1992) and in Read (1994). In the study discussed here, however, the objective was not to look at the perceptions of the lay public per se but to study in which ways citizens can provide reflected and informed opinions, and participate in sustainability science in general and in Integrated Assessments (IA) in particular.

For this purpose, IA Focus Group procedures (see Chapter 1) were developed in the ULYSSES project. While in the first two phases of these procedures collages were produced and models were used (see the discussions in Chapters 4 and 5), the final phase of the IA Focus Groups was mainly devoted to the formulation of citizens' reports – written assessments by the participants themselves. These were usually prepared by first drafting steps and discussions in earlier sessions. What is the problem? What should be done? How should it be achieved? Who should do it? Which barriers are foreseen? These are some of the questions discussed by the participants and addressed in their citizens' reports.

Introduction: why venture capital?

In the long run, a sustainability transition will require major shifts in our socio-economic activities. As an example, consider the challenge that climate change issues pose for Europe. An effective European climate policy ultimately needs to achieve drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In order to keep the risk of major disruptions of human and natural systems moderate, global emissions would need to be below current levels in the long term (see Wigley, Richels, and Edmonds 1996). But population and per capita emissions in developing countries will continue to rise significantly for some time to come. The EU and other developed regions have a special responsibility to lead the way in reducing global emissions, not only because of their economic ability to initiate change, but also because their per capita emissions and cumulative historical emissions far exceed those of developing countries.

The IA Focus Group research discussed in the preceding chapters has shown that many citizens across Europe see scenarios of significantly lower energy use and greenhouse gas emissions as desirable (see also Kasemir et al. 2000). But how could such a future be realized? The feasibility of such scenarios depends on interacting patterns of lifestyle changes and technological changes. One option to induce technological change toward low-carbon products and processes is to make them more competitive by putting a tax burden on carbon emissions. This would not necessarily lead to welfare losses.

Sometimes I am astonished when taking a “sustainability” look at energy relevant news. The continued operation of smaller hydroelectric power plants, which are producing electricity with extremely low life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions, is questioned due to the availability of cheap electricity from fossil fuels. Heat insulation of buildings is progressing, yet the energy management of new buildings is considered clearly less important than aesthetic design and other factors. Small, light-weight fuel efficient vehicles are available on the market, yet the trend of current sales favors heavier and ever more powerful cars. Energy efficient appliances stay on the shelf as less efficient devices are offered at lower prices.

These facts show that ecologically favorable technical solutions are presently not being chosen, as sustainability arguments are not ranked high within the set of preferences of public and individual actors. This is why Public Participation in Sustainability Science, the subject of this book, is of utmost importance. Unless we succeed in engaging those stakeholders who ultimately decide on energy relevant investments and purchases better in sustainability debates, the market penetration of energy efficient or ecologically benign technology will be impeded or severely delayed. Such delays could have far-reaching consequences for our planet. Hence, it is necessary that not only Sustainability Policy but also Sustainability Science starts to involve the public in its discussions.

The approach of Integrated Assessment Focus Groups presented in this book combines two important aspects.

While the first two parts of this volume have focused on the IA Focus Group approach to public participation in sustainability science, the third part relates this research to further forms of participation explored in recent projects and programs. It starts from one of the central findings of the focus group work discussed earlier, namely that citizens throughout Europe tend to be in favor of climate change mitigation by reducing overall energy use in the future. In Chapter 7, Kasemir et al. discuss a participatory exercise with representatives from venture capital and young technology companies and from the European Commission, that explored options of how to initiate significant reductions of fossil fuel use by early-stage investments into ecologically sound energy innovation. The participants considered changes in tax exemptions, subsidies and government guarantee schemes to be at least as important as carbon taxes. Taking a long-term perspective, Tuinstra et al. then describe in Chapter 8 how the Dutch COOL project studied options for drastic (50–80 per cent) reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the long run. Central to this project were participatory processes at three different scales: the Dutch national context, the European, and the global scale. Common lessons from the research discussed in the earlier parts of this volume and from the COOL project are discussed. In Chapter 9 Downing et al. then change the focus of the discussion from climate change mitigation to regional adaptation.

This final part of the present volume looks at the research described in the earlier parts, especially the work on IA Focus Group procedures, from a bird's-eye perspective, and explores its meaning for the future development of integrated assessment and sustainability science. In Chapter 11, van Asselt and Rotmans discuss the role of this research for the development of a broader research program of integrated assessment. As an example, they describe how this research has helped them build a bridge between earlier work on integrated modeling and uncertainty, and more recent research on “integrated visions for a sustainable Europe” that combines stakeholder participation with modeling work. While their work, like the bulk of the research on public participation in sustainability science discussed in this volume, has been conducted in Europe, in Chapter 12 Ramakrishna discusses what role citizens of developing countries can play in sustainability debates. He explores similarities and differences between the research discussed throughout this volume and experiences in the developing world, and from this draws conclusions on how increasing public participation could support understanding and collective action toward sustainability, particularly in developing countries. Finally, in the concluding Chapter 13, Stoll-Kleemann, O'Riordan and Burns assess the general potential of increasing the role of citizens in shaping a sustainable future. They argue that interactive, multilevel governance is essential in tackling the sustainability challenge, and that the experiences discussed in this book can help us understand how this might be achieved.

This first part summarizes underlying concepts and major insights of the research on public participation in sustainability science discussed in this book. In Chapter 1, Kasemir et al. argue that currently decision-making on sustainability issues in general, and climate policy in particular, is in a transition from taking first careful steps of analysis to preparing major shifts in socio-economic activities. This transition needs an improved integration of citizens' and stakeholders' views into policy making to be successful. Documented and tested participatory procedures, which integrate expert knowledge with views held by the public, are necessary. The IA Focus Group methodology, developed to address this need, is discussed, and major results concerning citizen views on climate change and energy use are summarized. In Chapter 2, Gough et al. then focus specifically on conditions for meaningful participation in such procedures. Their findings include that open-ended settings, in which both participants and moderation team steer the process together, may initially even increase scepticism, but in the longer run support the establishment of mutual trust and understanding. Also, the medium of interaction between lay publics and expertise in participatory procedures was found to be crucial. In most IA Focus Groups conducted in the research discussed in this book, computer models were an essential medium of this interaction. In Chapter 3, Jerry Ravetz suggests that such integrated models on global change issues face such high uncertainties that they can be understood to have a metaphorical rather than a predictive function.

The challenge

Perhaps the biggest challenge of our times is the task of achieving a transition to sustainability, a transition that will enable people around the world to live free from want and fear without compromising the ability of future generations to do so as well (Annan 2000). Research that supports such a transition can build upon first steps toward understanding nature–society interactions from two converging areas of study. The first area is work in environmental science, that has not only made substantial contributions toward our understanding of the natural world, but also has begun to include human causes and impacts of environmental change. The second area is work in economic, social, and development studies, that has started to go beyond purely societal issues and to incorporate environmental factors as well.

The emerging field of ‘sustainability science’ combines these two areas of study and uses these foundations for a better understanding of complex dynamic interactions between social, environmental, and economic issues. In order to be successful and robust, sustainability science needs to include methods and procedures for increasing public participation in its discussions and debates. In the current volume, we discuss why this is the case, and what such procedures for public participation in sustainability science could look like. We have used the issue of climate change and its relation to urban lifestyles as a case study to examine the possible roles of public participation in sustainability science.