• Energy Research

Abstract Although higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have seen a blossoming of sustainability initiatives of various kinds in recent years, the variety of institutional and socio-economic contexts brings about an equally plural interpretation and implementation of these sustainability change processes. This study focuses on the organizational change processes in six different universities across five countries (Belgium, Chile, Finland, Sweden & the United States of America), by way of a qualitative analysis of in-depth expert interviews. We apply the social issue maturation framework to identify, describe and assess patterns of change across HEIs, with a focus on engineering schools as the inherent inter-disciplinarity of engineering provides a promising entry point for sustainability reflection and action. Our findings indicate that sustainability processes often begin as ad hoc processes which grow and mature over time as a range of different actors join in. The commitment of a small team of ‘sustainability champions’ is a key factor for success, as is at least a tacit support from the institution’s hierarchy. Sustainability in HEIs is increasingly connected with sustainability in the private sector and with other public actors. Moreover there is a growing acknowledgement of the interactions between society, industry and academic engineering programs and projects. Ideally, sustainability change processes are gradually up-scaled from isolated efforts to coordinated actions, involving both academic and non-academic actors within and outside the institution.

Abstract Although higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have seen a blossoming of sustainability initiatives of various kinds in recent years, the variety of institutional and socio-economic contexts brings about an equally plural interpretation and implementation of these sustainability change processes. This study focuses on the organizational change processes in six different universities across five countries (Belgium, Chile, Finland, Sweden & the United States of America), by way of a qualitative analysis of in-depth expert interviews. We apply the social issue maturation framework to identify, describe and assess patterns of change across HEIs, with a focus on engineering schools as the inherent inter-disciplinarity of engineering provides a promising entry point for sustainability reflection and action. Our findings indicate that sustainability processes often begin as ad hoc processes which grow and mature over time as a range of different actors join in. The commitment of a small team of ‘sustainability champions’ is a key factor for success, as is at least a tacit support from the institution’s hierarchy. Sustainability in HEIs is increasingly connected with sustainability in the private sector and with other public actors. Moreover there is a growing acknowledgement of the interactions between society, industry and academic engineering programs and projects. Ideally, sustainability change processes are gradually up-scaled from isolated efforts to coordinated actions, involving both academic and non-academic actors within and outside the institution.

Participatory processes provide opportunities for water professionals such as scientists and policymakers and other stakeholders such as the local communities and farmers to meet, exchange information, deliberate, and share values. There is a diversity of rapidly evolving participatory methods, here defined, as tools for supporting the process of designing nature-based solutions (NbS) together with the stakeholders. However, this requires a systematic and informed selection to facilitate the adequate choice of tools, aligned to the requirements and context of the water professionals and the stakeholders for the design and deployment of NbS. Despite this, there is still little progress and knowledge accumulation on how to select the most context-appropriate tool(s). Consequently, in this research, we propose a stepwise framework for the use of participatory tools, which we categorize as: (i) tools used for defining the hydro-meteorological hazards (HMH) and its impact on stakeholders—knowledge tools (ii) tools used for co-designing NbS with stakeholders—co-creation tools and (iii) tools used for co-implementing the transition towards NbS—transition tools. We then apply and test this stepwise framework on the participatory processes used in eight brook catchments distributed in four countries: the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom. The framework is designed in steps that would lead to respectively: selecting, classifying, mapping, and grading the participatory tools leading to an informed and systematic decision of a tool or suite of tools for the design and deployment of NbS with stakeholders. With the application of this framework, we see that among the water professionals: (1) knowledge tools are central in the problem definition stage, particularly with non-technical stakeholders; (2) most anticipated co-creation tools are e-Tools/Virtual tools and workshops; (3) transition tools favor visual tools as a way of enabling the transition towards management practices.

Participatory processes provide opportunities for water professionals such as scientists and policymakers and other stakeholders such as the local communities and farmers to meet, exchange information, deliberate, and share values. There is a diversity of rapidly evolving participatory methods, here defined, as tools for supporting the process of designing nature-based solutions (NbS) together with the stakeholders. However, this requires a systematic and informed selection to facilitate the adequate choice of tools, aligned to the requirements and context of the water professionals and the stakeholders for the design and deployment of NbS. Despite this, there is still little progress and knowledge accumulation on how to select the most context-appropriate tool(s). Consequently, in this research, we propose a stepwise framework for the use of participatory tools, which we categorize as: (i) tools used for defining the hydro-meteorological hazards (HMH) and its impact on stakeholders—knowledge tools (ii) tools used for co-designing NbS with stakeholders—co-creation tools and (iii) tools used for co-implementing the transition towards NbS—transition tools. We then apply and test this stepwise framework on the participatory processes used in eight brook catchments distributed in four countries: the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom. The framework is designed in steps that would lead to respectively: selecting, classifying, mapping, and grading the participatory tools leading to an informed and systematic decision of a tool or suite of tools for the design and deployment of NbS with stakeholders. With the application of this framework, we see that among the water professionals: (1) knowledge tools are central in the problem definition stage, particularly with non-technical stakeholders; (2) most anticipated co-creation tools are e-Tools/Virtual tools and workshops; (3) transition tools favor visual tools as a way of enabling the transition towards management practices.

Sustainability assessment has emerged as a key decision-support process in development cooperation in response to the growing acknowledgement of the impacts of global change. This paper aims at conceptualizing the effectiveness of sustainability assessment as applied in development cooperation, by focusing on the sustainability assessment practice by actors of the official Belgian Development Cooperation. The conceptualization of the effectiveness of sustainability assessment is synthesized in a set of issues and concerns, based on semi-structured interviews. The paper highlights the specificity of sustainability assessment in the development cooperation sector (e.g., through the cultural and discursive compatibility dimensions of assessment in a North-South context). Effectiveness is inherently linked to the expected functions of sustainability assessment in the decision-making process, which include fostering organizational change, shaping contextually adapted framings of sustainability and operationalizing the sustainability transition. These findings highlight the relevance of a discourse-sensitive approach to sustainability assessment if one is to strengthen its credibility and legitimacy.

Sustainability assessment has emerged as a key decision-support process in development cooperation in response to the growing acknowledgement of the impacts of global change. This paper aims at conceptualizing the effectiveness of sustainability assessment as applied in development cooperation, by focusing on the sustainability assessment practice by actors of the official Belgian Development Cooperation. The conceptualization of the effectiveness of sustainability assessment is synthesized in a set of issues and concerns, based on semi-structured interviews. The paper highlights the specificity of sustainability assessment in the development cooperation sector (e.g., through the cultural and discursive compatibility dimensions of assessment in a North-South context). Effectiveness is inherently linked to the expected functions of sustainability assessment in the decision-making process, which include fostering organizational change, shaping contextually adapted framings of sustainability and operationalizing the sustainability transition. These findings highlight the relevance of a discourse-sensitive approach to sustainability assessment if one is to strengthen its credibility and legitimacy.

Conflicts of interest often undermine conservation initiatives against biodiversity decline. Effective decision-making requires a deeper understanding of the positions, criteria, concerns, and perspectives of stakeholders. However, managing so many perspectives can be difficult, and if not done well, conflicts arise which make it difficult to achieve conservation goals. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that identifying areas of consensus is a good starting point to generate more effective debates and address complex issues. To do this, we investigate the diversity of perspectives regarding biodiversity conservation schemes among stakeholders in the studied ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam. Using Q-methodology, a semi-quantitative technique that enables us to systematically study the subjective views of stakeholders involved in a topic, we identified and organized a range of shared perspectives into three groups, known as factors. A total of 20 participants sorted 45 statements according to their perceptions and objectives, from -4 'most disagreeable' to 4 'most agreeable'. Then, respondents explained their rankings in a post-sorting interview. Next, the data was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis was conducted in two parts: (i) Dividing respondents into groups based on similar perspectives and (ii) coupling distinguishing statements with one of the factors characteristic of that viewpoint. Finally, in a qualitative analysis, we used the distinguishing statements and insights from interviews to create narratives and titles for the three factors: (1) Ports are key for our economic wealth, hence port development should continue, (2) Nature first, and (3) Multi-actor governance. Our findings confirm consensuses in three areas: policy, land use, and mitigation tactics. Interestingly, all narratives unanimously agreed on the importance of regulating port development and land use changes via legislation and environmental impact assessments. However, they debated the rigidity of legislation and whether offsetting port expansion (and associated land and resource use claims) should take place locally or internationally. We also found that decision-making mostly followed a human-centered perspective, where economic values were more relevant than intrinsic ones. These insights can serve as a baseline for stakeholders to form coalitions around areas of consensus to depolarize debates and avoid decision-making gridlocks.