The quality of sustainability science: a philosophical perspective

References

• Bergmann, M. & Schramm, E. 2008. Grenzüberschreitung und Integration: Die formative Evaluation transdisziplinärer Forschung und ihre Kriterien (Boundary transgression and integration: the formative evaluation of transdisciplinary research and its criteria). In M. Bergmann & E. Schramm (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten (Transdisciplinary Research: Understanding and Evaluating Integrative Research Processes). pp. 149–176. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Betz, G. 2006. Prediction or Prophecy? The Boundaries of Economic Foreknowledge and Their Socio-Political Consequences. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, W. & Dickson, N. 2003. Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(14):8059– 8061.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, H. 1996. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dobson, A. 1998. Justice and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J. 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. pp. 137–152. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):735–755.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, M. 1999. Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity. pp. 21–45. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jahn, T. 2008. Transdisziplinarität in der forschungspraxis (Transdisciplinarity in the research-practice). In M. Bergmann & E. Schramm (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten (Transdisciplinary Research: Understanding and Evaluating Integrative Research Processes). pp. 21–38. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Kates, R., Clark, W., Corell, R., Hall, J., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J., Schellnhuber, H., Bolin, B., Dickson, N., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G., Grubler, A., Huntley, B., Jager, J., Jodha, N., Kasperson, R., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore III, B., O‘Riordan, T., & Svedlin, U. 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642.
   Google Scholar
• Komiyama, K. & Takeuchi, K. 2006. Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1(1):1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 1996 [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lecourt, D. 1969. L’Epistémologie historique de Gaston Bachelard (The Historical Epistemology of Gaston Bachelard). Paris: Vrin (in French).
   Google Scholar
• Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neumayer, E. 2010. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms, 3rd ed. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Neurath, O. 1932. Protokollsätze (Protocol statements). Erkenntnis 3:204–214 (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Ott, K. 1997. Ipso Facto—zur ethischen Begründung normativer Implikate wissenschaftlicher Praxis (Ipso Facto–On the Ethical Substantiation of the Normative Implications of Scientific Practice). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Ott, K. & Döring, R. 2008. Theorie Und Praxis Starker Nachhaltigkeit (Theory and Practice of Strong Sustainability). Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, T. 2006. Phronesis, urteilskraft und interdisziplinarität (Phronesis, judgment and interdisciplinarity). In S. Baumgärtner & C. Becker (Eds.), Wissenschaftsphilosophie Interdisziplinärer Umweltforschung (Philosophy of Science Interdisciplinary Environmental Research). pp. 25–40. Marburg: Metropolis (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Potthast, T. 2006. Umweltforschung und das problem epistemischmoralischer hybride (Environmental science and the problem of epistemic-moral hybrids). In S. Baumgärtner & C. Becker (Eds.), Wissenschaftsphilosophie interdisziplinärer Umweltforschung (Philosophy of Science Interdisciplinary Environmental Research). pp. 87–100. Marburg: Metropolis (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice, Rev. Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O. 2008. Anforderungen an eine integrative und transdisziplinäre Umweltforschung (Requirements for integrative and transdisciplinary environmental science). In M. Bergmann & E. Schramm (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten (Transdisciplinary Research: Understanding and Evaluating Integrative Research Processes). pp. 119–148. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Scanlon, T. 2003. Rawls on justification. In S. Freeman (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. pp. 149–167. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scholz, R., Lang, D., Wiek, A., Walter, A., & Stauffacher, M. 2006. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7(3):226–251.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, J., Brand, F., Kopfmüller, J., & Ott, K. 2008. Building a theory of sustainable development: two salient conceptions with the German discourse. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 7(4):465–482.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, R. 1956. Contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (1): 65–94.
   Google Scholar
• Spash, C. 2002. Greenhouse Economics: Value and Ethics. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van der Sluijs, J. & Funtowicz, S. 2008. Sozialökologische transformation bedingt neues verhältnis von wissenschaft und politik (Social-ecological transformation requires a new relation between sicence and politics). In J. Dellheim & G. Krause (Eds.), Für eine neue Alternative: Herausforderungen für eine sozialökologische Transformation (For a New Alternative: Challenges to Socio-Ecological Transformation). pp. 63–81. Berlin: Karl Dietz Verlag (in German).
   Google Scholar
• van Kerkhoff, L. & Lebel, L. 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31:445–77.
   Google Scholar
• Wätzold, F. 2009. Interdisziplinarität am Beispiel der Zusammenarbeit von Ökologie und Ökonomie (Interdisciplinarity: An Exemplary Discussion of the Cooperation of Ecology and Economy). Public Lecture, Historisches Institut, University of Greifswald, 18 November (in German).
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler, R. 2008. Science on the marsh: on the ground of education (for sustainable development). In S. Allen-Gil, L. Stelljes, & O. Borysova (Eds.), Addressing Global Environmental Security Through Innovative Educational Curricula. pp. 11–26. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zierhofer, W. & Burger, P. 2007. Disentangling transdisciplinarity: an analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Science Studies 20(1):51–74.
   Google Scholar