geography science systems visualisation

Modelling land management

Dr Bethanna Jackson is a Senior Lecturer School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences at Victoria University Wellington.

Bethanna’s research addresses the impact of land management and climate change on multiple ecosystem services, including flood risk, agricultural productivity, water quality, biodiversity, erosion, cultural services, green-house gas emissions, and amenity/socio-economic impacts.  We talk about the LUCI project – a land management decision support framework – in particular how well we understand processes across multiple scales of time and space.

Talking points

Sustainable: Nothing is truly sustainable… I don’t truly have a definition which encumpasses every aspect of sustainablitly.

Success: It’s been a huge success developing this framework, which is a huge step forward because we are now able to look at the impact of many different environmental variables.

Superpower: My ability to be non-judgemental and provide a platform for sustainable development.

Activist: Yes, in the aspect that I am acting to create change and I believe very strongly in what I am doing… I don’t consider myself to be an activist as I actually try to keep certain environmental opinions to myself because I think it is very important that I am as objective as possible in putting this framework together.

Motivation: I really enjoy what I do, and I do feel like I’m making a difference to the world!

Challenges: I am looking forwards to more and more of my students getting out and taking their ideas out into the world. I’ve got some really good collaborations forming, so I am hoping that in a couple of years we will have produced something that is being applied quite broadly.

Miracle: Showing a bit less fear towards people in other cultures and accepting more refugees.

Advice: Whenever you are thinking about sustainability try and think beyond specific issues.

ecological economics systems

Positive systems thinking

Robert Costanza

Professor Robert Costanza is Chair in Public Policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University.   He is a thought leader in Ecological Economics – as a hint to his impact, one of his papers “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital” has been cited more than 15,000 times.

Professor Costanza is also currently a Senior Fellow at the National Council on Science and the Environment, a Senior Fellow at the Stockholm Resilience Center, an Affiliate Fellow at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, and a deTao Master of Ecological Economics at the deTao Masters Academy, China. His transdisciplinary research integrates the study of humans and the rest of nature to address research, policy and management issues at multiple time and space scales, from small watersheds to the global system. He is co-founder and past-president of the International Society for Ecological Economics, and was founding editor of the society’s journal, Ecological Economics. He currently serves on the editorial board of 10 other international academic journals. He is also founding editor-in-chief of Solutions (, a hybrid academic/popular journal.

We talk about what motivates him and where he sees Sustainability (and Desirability) heading in the future.  But, first we start with where he grew up…



Sam: Where did you grow up?


Robert: I grew up mainly in South Florida, born in Pennsylvania. We moved to South Florida because found that my dad worked in the steel mill at, was the site of the first case of fatal air pollution the United States, Donora Pennsylvania, and they eventually closed down the steel mill, and I think the clean air act was partly the result.


Sam: What did you want to be when you grew up?


Robert: When I grew up? I don’t know. It wasn’t that far back, but …


Sam: Once you got past the astronaut and a fireman.


Robert: I did have the astronaut thing for a while, but I think when I got to a university, I got very interested in how things are connected, the systems approach. My PhD was in systems ecology, and had HT Odum a famous systems ecologist as my PhD advisor. It was more about looking at how the world is connected, and interconnected, and not looking at humans as separate from nature, but humans as an interval part of a broader natural system, we’re not unnatural by any means. I think a lot of academic research was, and still is I think, is focused around looking at the economy as a separate thing, looking at nature as a separate thing, looking at ecology and economics separately, and so eventually my research was more about building an ecological economics. How do we actually integrate across the different, sometimes distinct disciplines that really should be talking to each other if we want to understand the world, and how it works, and particularly how to make it both sustainable and desirable.


Sam: Okay, so I’m going to slow you down. You did architecture first?


Robert: I did architecture first, yes.


Sam: Why architecture?


Robert: Well, actually I started in engineering. In aerospace engineering, this was the astronaut phase. I thought engineering, at least the way was being taught, was a little too narrow, not very creative, and so I switched to architecture that would have a little more creativity, but still yeah, the engineering science and math background. Got involved as part of that degree program in a study of South Florida, and how it evolved over time, and landscape planning, and landscape ecology, and architecture, that led directly into systems ecology field.


It was about understanding broader landscapes. When we look at the world at that scale, and larger, then we can’t ignore the tight interconnections between the human dominated part of the system, and the rest of the system. There is a study of how South Florida, the Kissimmee Everglades basin had evolved over the period from 1900, to the present that time. Went to 1973, it’s been a while. You can see the tremendous impact that humans have had on that system by draining the Everglades, by changing the way that system functioned. Trying to understand that evolution, and that landscape, and how to design a landscape that maybe worked better going forward.


Sam: Odum –  who is one of those textbooks that sits on my desk, and has done forever, its systems similar to electric circuitry approaches?


Robert: Well, that’s the system diagramming he came up with, and systems dynamics modelling, computer modelling, I think was also a part of, and it’s still a part of what I’m interested in doing. How do you understand these systems, not just from a qualitative point of view, but from a quantitative point of view. When we build computer models to simulate, and replicate the way systems work, to better understand them, to better understand really the uncertainties involved in how they behave as well, and give us a better handle on how to better manage them.


Sam: Your PhD was on the Everglades?  What were you trying to answer there?


Robert: It was a sustainability question, the project was funded around those terms, how do we create a South Florida landscape that was more sustainable, given the many issues that are still topical there? Changing the water flow patterns in the Everglades, and the effects that that had on fire, and nutrient regimes, and invasive plant invasions, and water supply for the East Coast, and development patterns, and the urban patterns in South Florida. All of those issues together,  led to this idea of ecosystem services, and natural capital. What is nature, the rest of nature I should say? Not the human part of the system supplying to the human part of the system that, in a way benefits, and maintaining life support, and controlling climate, and controlling water flow, and controlling nutrients, etc.


This idea of ecosystem services and natural capital, became a big part of it. I think it’s also a different way of looking at how to manage these systems. Traditionally conservationists have been protecting nature for its own sake, let’s keep people out of it, we want nature to be, so we’re going to preserve, which only goes so far. I think you can make that argument, but I think, in many cases, it’s maybe more effective to make the argument that yes, these places are beautiful, but they’re also very necessary to our survival, they’re productive, they’re not just pretty pictures. In fact, you could argue that the reason people appreciate the beauty in nature, is just that deep level understanding that these are systems that are required for our continued well-being.


Sam: This is in the early 70s?


Robert: Yes. Early 70s, 80s, yeah, and into the present.


Sam: In the early 70s that was a very different view from the prevailing view of, I just say, conservation over here, was human development over there. The great thing of teh Brundtland report was pulling all those things together.  That came after came after your PhD, but before that, somebody was being holistic in their thinking even to get you working on it.


Robert: Sure, and I think it was Odum, and others that are thinking the same way. There were 2 Odums actually, there was Eugene and Howard Odum. Eugene was the first author of the textbook that you have, or EP Odum, and HT Odum was my advisor, they worked together on the textbook. Other systems ecologists, and systems thinkers, Jay Forrester was also one of the influences. Herman Daly was actually a colleague of mine in my first job at LSU after I graduated with a PhD, and went to Louisiana state.


Sam: You were colleagues together there, and eventually started the Society for ecological economics, and the journal ecological economics.


Robert: We were trying to build that-institutional structure for people to work in a more trans-disciplinary way on these issues.


Sam: And a minor in economics?


Robert: Yeah.


Sam: I can’t imagine the views that you would have would go down too well with the traditional … the classical economic view. Did you manage to keep it quiet in those classes?


Robert: Well, that sort of was a minor, actually I took it as a foreign language, or in lieu of a foreign language. Yeah, I think it was a difficult sell at that point, and has been an ongoing difficult sell to the economics profession. I think that it’s finally changing, I think economists are finally beginning to get into behavioural, and experimental economics, and trying to understand the way people really behave, not necessarily the way people should in theory behave.


Sam: If you could only describe yourself as one of those two things, which one would you pick?


Robert: An ecologist or an economist? Well, that’s why we came up with ecological economists to keep both, but I think I will be ecology is the broader term, because the original definition of ecology was the economics of nature. Ecology, especially systems ecology really should be about understanding that whole system. People and the rest of nature. In that sense, it’s what ecology should be all about. It’s also what economics should be all about. Economics should be about what actually contributes to human well-being, and how do we devise the most desirable ends, and how do we achieve those ends? It’s about a lot more than the market, but unfortunately the mathematical models focus on how the market works. Unfortunately that’s what a lot of mainstream economics has gotten into. I think we need to broaden both economics and ecology, and merge them together, and that’s what we’ve been trying to do.


Sam: When you started talking about having a journal of ecological economics, did you get a perspective on the economics people themselves saying, “You got it wrong…“


Robert: Yeah, yeah of course.


Sam: What was your response to that?


Robert: Well, I think there were enough people that could see the value of it, that we were able to proceed, so we ignored that, and I think they ignored us as well. It’s just a fringe group. I think the journal is now one of the most successful economics journals, but also environmental journals, one of the few that crosses both of those fields, and I think it has been quite successful, at least providing a venue for people that want to do in a more transdisciplinary way. That was one of the main reasons that we had for starting the journal amount was there is no place for us to publish the things we were doing, because economics journals didn’t like it, and the ecology journals didn’t like it, it was too in the middle. We had to create a journal to publish our own things.


Sam: I’ve got two questions. What were the tenets of it, of ecological economics at the time, and how they changed over time?


Robert: I don’t think they’ve really changed-


Sam: Okay, so we can lose the 2nd question. What are the tenets of ecological economics?


Robert: I think we’ve talked about it, it’s very much of a systems approach. It’s not saying that economics is wrong, it’s not saying ecology’s wrong, it’s saying we need to understand the whole system together, not just individual pieces. That we also need to understand the system as one where the economy is embedded in society, which is embedded in the rest of nature, that these are highly interconnected systems. They’re not 2 separate systems maybe with a little bit of interaction, which I think was the traditional view, a more disciplinary view. We think of it as a transdiscipline, rather than a new discipline. Transcending disciplinary boundaries, and focusing more on how to understand the whole system, and the problems that we face. We need to bare the information, the knowledge is useful from, the existing discipline, but not thinking of your discipline as where you were born, not your total identity.


Sam: Your CV lists 20 books, 500 papers, you’ve been busy.


Robert: Yes.


Sam: What’s your favourite book?


Robert: My favourite book?


Sam: It can’t be just the last one you’ve written, just because it’s the last one.


Robert: The favourite of my books, or the favourite of-


Sam: Yeah, the favourite of yours.


Robert: Well, there is a textbook that we have called Introduction to Ecological Economics, so I think that’s one, it’s kind of a favourite because it covers a lot of this ground, but we did one recently that was a version of a report we did for the Rio +20 meeting called, Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature. A long title, but I think it gets at what we’re trying to do, and it gets at all of the different pieces.  Part of it has to do with envisioning what this system should look like. Part of economics is really about satisfying desirable ends, but we don’t spend very much time talking about, what are those desirable ends? What kind of world do we really want? That was the theme of the +20 meeting, the future we want, what does that really look like? Getting at that issue, and saying, “How do we think about, how do we talk about what that system should look like? How do we design the kind of system that we really want?” I think should be a much bigger part of the whole discussion. 
We’re actually doing a survey, we did a survey recently in Australia, we put four alternative futures out to the general public {Market Forces; Fortress World; Policy Reform; and  Great Transition}.  One was the business as usual free enterprise future, one was this more sustainable and desirable future that was more focused on community well-being, and well-being generally rather than maximizing GDP. The results are intriguing, because majority people, like 71% strongly preferred their community well-being sustainability future. If you put it in those terms, what kind of world do you want in the year 2050. A majority also thought that Australia was headed towards the …, and continues to head towards the more free enterprise future. I think that’s sort of deep in the public mind, that we are not really headed in the direction that most people want to go. How do we change that? I think we have to get that discussion higher up on the agenda, maybe your radio program can pick up on that in the future. Do people really want? Can we have that discussion very broadly? Use that as a vehicle to help us change the direction that we are headed.


Sam: What would it take to get to the physical parties anywhere to give up on growth as the primary agenda?


Robert: That’s a really intriguing question, and that’s what I think part of the reason for having this survey was to head in that direction. We have the sustainable development goals, which all the UN countries have agreed to, including New Zealand and Australia, and their 17 goals know they are much broader than just maximized GDP, even though that’s one of the subgoals. I forget which one it is, goal 8 or something that says … That it says, inclusive and sustainable growth. They couldn’t get the growth term out. There is a lot of effort to replace that with prosperity, or something that is less requiring of growth. I think there is a broad recognition these days, that GDP was never designed as a measure of societal well-being, and yet, it’s being used inappropriately as our main policy goal. If we really want a sustainable and desirable future, we’ve got to basically dethrone GDP as the primary goal.


Not that we shouldn’t keep those statistics, we should use them for what they were originally designed for, which is just how much production and consumption’s going on in society, not how well the society’s doing overall. For that we need some much better indicators. One alternative, for example, is to show you how much difference it could make, one alternative that we’ve looked at is something called the genuine progress indicator, which starts with personal consumption expenditures, a major component of GDP, so it’s the consumption part. Then it weights those by income distribution to acknowledge the distribution of wealth is an important factor, fairness and those sorts of things, to well-being.


Then it subtracts a bunch of things that shouldn’t be included as positives, like the cost of crime, the cost of pollution, the cost of climate change, etc. It turns out that in many countries the genuine progress indicator has leveled off, back in the 80s or so, even though GDP continues to climb, because the income distribution effects, the cost of environmental damage have begun to outweigh the positive influence – uneconomic growth. Not the perfect indicator for well-being, I think there’s a lot of research now on what could be better, but I think there is a broad recognition now that simply focusing on GDP growth is not the way to go. Not broad enough evidently, but getting there.


Sam: Is it possible to have GDP growth, and sustainable and desirable prosperity?


Robert: Not indefinitely. Certainly in some places for some time, and I think you could argue, looking back at the GPI GDP comparison, they were both increasing from the postwar period in the 50s, until about 1980, or sometimes later, and vary by countries. It’s certainly not impossible, but I think we should pay much more attention if we are going to have GDP growing, it should be growth in a way that’s not damaging to natural capital, that’s not damaging to social capital, that’s much better distributed on GDP growth. There are ways to improve, increase GDP that are more sustainable. On the other hand, it really should never be the goal in the first place. The first place is, the goal should be societal well-being much more broadly defined, and if that means that GDP goes up, well, fine, if it means that GDP goes down, well, so what? As long as you’re measuring the more appropriate set of indicators.


Sam: Do people understand the notion of the substitution? You talked about the highly connected…Daly‘s model strong sustainability model, the one we know  a bull’s-eye model, the economy being subset of society, and being subset of environment, and under that you can’t borrow from one capital to the other. That does go counter to what people justify. Well, yes, we’re going to chop this tree down, or this forest down, but we need to, to …


Robert: To grow the economy.


Sam: Yeah.


Robert: Yeah. That can only go on to a point. The best analogy from one distinction I think is important to keep in mind is, the distinction between growth, and development. Growth increasing the size of the magnitude of something, development is improving the quality and sometimes those go together, organisms in their early life stages are both growing and developing, but at some point growth stops, it doesn’t mean development has to stop. It’s going to be in a very different form, and so that … That’s going to mean we want sustainable development, we need to maintain our natural capital assets, as well as our social, our human, and our build capital assets. That’s going to mean population needs to level off, which it will eventually, and it means that we need to have a much more collaborative interaction with the other parts of the system.


Sam: In 2008, I was at the world education for sustainability conference in Bonn. Then after couple a days, someone from Malawi, or somewhere,  stood up and said, “This is all very Western, you’re already living in a lap of luxury, your notion of sustainability doesn’t apply to us all.” I’ve heard it expressed in other ways in terms of you can’t begrudge people wanting a fridge.
Robert: Well, I think the problem is the idea of replicating the flawed western development model, which has been very destructive of natural capital, very destructive of social capital. We need really a new development model for both the North and the South. I think that’s one of the key outcomes from the sustainable development goals process, that these are goals not just for that “developing country”, these are goals for all countries. Some of the goals have to do with reducing inequality, reducing hunger, access to water, but also protecting natural, and natural capital assets, but marine and terrestrial dealing with climate change.


These are goals that all countries have signed onto, and if we are going to do that, that means developing in a very different way. It doesn’t mean that those countries like Malawi shouldn’t improve their material well-being, but they should do it anyway that’s not so destructive, that has happened in the West, which would mean not basing it on consumption of fossil fuels that are damaging the climate, so they could move directly to a more renewable energy basis for their development, they could also improve the way those resources are distributed in the population, and build their social capital at the same time, rather than depleting it as we’ve done in the West.


Sam: Places like Cambodia that have managed to skip parts of the technology development, they’ve gone straight to mobile phones, can they do a similar thing in terms of the development pathway?


Robert: Well, that would be the way to go, yeah. Don’t go through the heavy industrialization, fossil fuel stage to go directly to something based on renewable energy, but also something that’s not using GDP as their main policy goal. GDP was developed during the depression and World War II as a way to facilitate production and consumption of very intensive material goods. It’s got a lot of problems when you start using that as a measure well-being. It’s really measuring the cost of production. Those are things that we want to minimise, not maximise. You want the benefits to be maximised, and the cost to be minimised. You want to get the efficiency of the economy in that sense, the most well-being for the minimum amount of GDP, rather than equating GDP with well-being, which is, I think, part of the problem.


Sam: You’re listed as one of the most cited authors ever. Went back and looked in my library online this morning. We talked on about the Ecological Economics that came out in 91, I have found 2 other papers n my library from 91 that I thought were interesting. One of them was called Mending the Earth. Does the Earth need mending?


Robert: I don’t remember that one. I think the Earth, more broadly conceived, if you’re thinking of the quote on quote natural part of the Earth. I think the teacher will survive whatever happens to humans.


Sam: Probably some collateral damage on the way through.


Robert: Yeah. I think what’s really needed is this recognition that we are a big part of the system, we’re in the anthropocene, as it’s been called now. Because of the magnitude of the human influence on what goes on in the planet, and because of that, we have to be much more cognizant of what we do, and how we manage that influence. If we want a sustainable and desirable future, we’ve got to take the whole system into account, and that will be the true mending I guess.


Sam: Another paper which I remember, was a paper assessing the data quality in policy relevant research, and that led me, in a roundabout way, along the path of participatory modelling. You involve people in the process, and that’s being a big part of what you’ve been doing over the whole time, is it’s not just about you as the expert doing this modelling, it’s about how to get the scientist, get the policymakers engaged the same kind of thinking.


Robert: Yeah,  I think that’s important part of the process, this idea of that research and policy need to be coproduced. Otherwise you’re not going to get very sustainable solutions, you’re going to get siloization of knowledge that we’ve had so far. We really want to get past that, think it’s how do we involve all of the stakeholders in problem-solving? There are a couple of interesting methods for doing that. One of the other papers you probably read was this one that we did in 1997 in Nature about the value of the world’s ecosystem services, which came out of a working group at NCEAS, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, and that whole process of synthesis working groups, where you structure the engagement around the problem that you’re trying to solve together.


You bring that diverse set of participants together to solve that problem, I think that’s a much more productive way to move forward, than to simply do the more detailed analysis work most scientists are funded to do. The Synthesis Center was based on the premise that we needed to actually allocate some time for scientists to get together and see what their data actually means. How do you put it together and use it to solve problems, rather than simply collecting more and more? That’s been a very effective technique, synthesis centres have produced a huge amount of very highly cited publications, and they are not based on collecting more data, there based on getting diverse groups together to say, “What does this mean? How do we use it to solve problems?” I think we need to do more of that. Building models is one way to actually do that synthesis.


Sam: That’s a very different approach to what’s been called the argument culture, the assumption that over thinks do you choose this, or do you choose the other thing? I think there is an awful lot of what my field human computer interaction has made the mistake of thinking, is, it’s just a matter of saying, “How do you choose between this? Option A or option B?” One of them clearly bad, and the other one’s clearly good, so it’s just a matter of convincing people to do option B, but I think there’s an awful lot in just how complex things are.


Robert: You may have seen the book by the title The Argument Culture by Deborah Tannen, you may have read that one, it’s very good, which is a social linguist who got into this idea that we tend to frame everything black and white, and in fact, it’s very counterproductive when you’re trying to solve these complex problems. What we really need is discussion, consensus building, and recognition of the complexity of the issues if we want to move forward. Yeah, and that’s what I think this synthesis process can actually help with, that are conventional argument, basically the culture mediates against.


Sam: The value of total value of services is a very big number.


Robert: Yes.


Sam: Is it so big, and that’s why people just abstracted out and said, “Well, just ignore that.” Or is it just convenient to ignore it?


Robert: I think it just hasn’t been out there on the table because we’ve been so obsessed with GDP, but it’s certainly … It’s bigger than the estimates we came up with with a capital E, we’re a couple of times bigger than GDP in terms of supporting the human well-being. It’s not infinity, but it’s also not zero, it’s somewhere in between.


Sam: There’s been several posts in the last few weeks, and I think there’s been a couple of memes about that if the world’s major industries were to probably account for externalities, all of them would go broke.


Robert: Mm-hmm (affirmative).


Sam: Do you buy that argument, are they right?


Robert: I think maybe not quite all of them, but I’ve been involved with this company called Trucost, which I think is where those numbers are coming from, and they are able to estimate the external environmental costs by company, and if you … There are the damages to ecosystem services if you include those damages as part of the cost, then the profits these companies are making fall to zero or even negative, many of them. As you can imagine. We have a corporate structure that’s not really producing social benefits, they are producing private benefits, but they are only sort of mislabeled benefits because there are actually costs that are imposed on others through their damages to our natural capital and our human capital. It’s more reason to begin to estimate those costs, and to bring them into the accounting system so that we can produce a real social benefit from these companies.


Sam: What would it take for those sorts of costs to actually get onto the …


Robert: Onto the agenda?


Sam: Yeah.


Robert: Well, one simple way to do it would be to tax companies for those costs, so this idea of carbon taxes is certainly one way to do that, and that could be extended more broadly. You can combine that with the other side of the coin which would be to reward companies for producing social benefits. This idea of payment for ecosystem services. You pay companies or individual landowners for the positive benefits that they are creating as well. That would help to get the accounting more appropriate.


There are some companies and institutions that are beginning to move in this direction, the National Australia Bank in Australia for example is beginning to try to get natural capital onto the books, sort of estimate the value of the natural capital from some of their clients, and reward them for managing their natural capital, or effectively in terms of their decisions about lending and interest rates. They are part of the natural capital of… which is a group of financial institutions that are all trying to do the same thing.


There are some initiatives that are like that, Trucost’s numbers and estimates by company are used in some of the rankings for companies, sustainability rankings, so that could have an impact on investors and things like that.  Ultimately I think we need to mark those prices, those costs onto the table, and get the market to tell us the truth about the real cost of things.


Sam: What do we need to be doing at school to tertiary education to be preparing workforce that are seeing things in terms of the synthesis, the being able to see the bigger pictures, the connections, and so on?


Robert: Yeah, I think that’s really important, I think part of it is to structure things more in terms of systems, and understanding systems rather than only understanding the analysis, and the details of things. I think also engaging students much more in problem-based learning. That these workshops that could be structured around solving problems engage and include students along with stakeholders and faculty.


I’ve been involved in several of these kinds of courses, and workshop courses involving students, I think it’s much more engaging for students, to be involved in something like that, but also it teaches them how to be creative how to think about solving problems rather than simply memorizing facts.


Sam: What’s the biggest learning we’ve had in the last 20 years?


Robert: Biggest learning? Society.


Sam: Well, maybe … How has ecological economics contributed over the past 20 years?


Robert: Well, I would like to say that it’s sort of lead to things like the SDG’s, the recognition that we can’t continue to be so narrowly focused on GDP as the goal. I think it’s led to recognition that we need alternative indicators: well-being, it’s led to the recognition that natural capital and ecosystem services are extremely important and need to be part of the discussion, and how we manage the system. I think it’s led to many of the things we’ve been talking about actually being on the agenda these days, even 5, 10 years ago you couldn’t imagine a discussion about the problems with GDP, or alternative goals for society. Now I think it’s out there. Not that we solved the problem, but I think we at least acknowledged these issues I think much more directly, and I think forgetting to change the goal structure which I think is the first step in really solving that problem.


Sam: What would you like to see it contribute over the next 20 years?


Robert: Well, I think if we can build this broader consensus on the kind of world that we are really after in the next 20 years I would say out to 2040, or 2050, what do we want 2050 look like? Work backwards from there. I think we can build a much broader consensus among people about what kind of world they would like to see, then you can about what the immediate next step is. Having that discussion in society, and that’s what this survey I was telling you about earlier is trying to initiate, how do we have that discussion? I think it’s really what democracy should be all about, it is a broader discussion about the kind of world we want, and then that becomes the basis for the kinds of policies that we are using to get there.


Sam: We are not going to see that when it’s the first-past-the-post battleground approach are we?


Robert: It’s going to be difficult that way, yeah, so our approach needs to change.


Sam: Do you have any favorite thinking tools that you think if only everybody would use these tools once a day? How could they go about their lives and actively change how they are doing things?


Robert: Well, the first thing that comes to mind I guess is to start thinking of the world more as a complex system, and to see your connection to other parts of the system rather than seeing yourself as an isolated entity. That’s what’s helped me I think to see things in a broader light, just to take a much broader systems view, and we certainly don’t get very much education in that respect, in the conventional education system. Bringing systems science more into play, I think it would help.


Sam: What’s your go-to definition of sustainability?


Robert: Well, I like to distinguish between sustainability and desirability. I think if we used the real definition of the word sustainability, it means something that lasts, so we certainly want a system that lasts. We don’t want it to collapse, but at the same time we don’t want a bad system that lasts, so we want a much more desirable system that is also sustainable, and I think it’s the combination of the two.  Often sustainability is used as a code word for that sort of desirable and sustainable system, but I think if we made it a little more explicit and had the discussion more explicitly about what a desirable system really would be as we’ve been talking about earlier that that would help. I think often people, when you say sustainability, they immediately think you are talking about environmental sustainability or ecological sustainability, but I think it’s much more than that. We certainly have to have a ecologically sustainable system, we have to manage the climate and the rest of our natural capital, but we also have to have one that’s desirable.


Sam: You are associated with the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and they are famous for lots of things, one of them is that the planetary boundaries work. Also –  back to this desirable system that lasts –  the recognition that’s got to be a transformation.


Robert: Right, yeah.


Sam: How do we get people on board with that notion of change?


Robert: Well, one paper we are working on right now actually has to do with this idea of societal therapy that in fact we are in a very real sense addicted to the current system. In a way analogous to the way individual acts are addicted to drugs or alcohol. It’s got all these positive feedbacks in the short term, but in the long term it’s going to be a disaster, so what can we learn from what works at the individual level to overcome addictions to work at the societal level to overcome addictions? One thing that we know is that one of the worst things you can say to an addict, “You are doing the wrong thing, stop doing this, it’s just killing you.” That usually gets a very defensive denial kind of reaction, and yet that’s the way we’ve been framing this argument to society at a societal level about sustainability, and so it’s maybe not surprising that we get this kind of denial that we’ve been getting.


How do you overcome that? Well, one technique that seems to work at the individual level something called motivational interviewing, which is engaging the addicts but in a much more sort of non-confrontational discussion of what their goals are, whether what they are doing now really achieves their goals, and if not how could they change their behaviour to better achieve their goals. The analogy then for that at the societal level that at least one that we are working on is this idea of scenario planning, but engaging the broader society in this discussion of what kind of future they want. I think that’s the key to overcoming this addiction is to say, “What kind of world do we want? Can we describe that world? I think we can.” And we could probably build some broad consensus about that, and that’s the first step in overcoming our addiction to where we are now.


Sam: I think a key is the work that the Transition Towns are doing.  Because that demonstration of we are not trying to convince you of anything, we are just going to demonstrate a better way. We are not talking about a lesser life, we’re not talking about just taking stuff away from you. Here we are over here having a good time, and I think those sorts of things are going to be key. But that’s a hard call for businesses.


Robert:, I think that’s why we need to engage the broader public having that discussion about what it could look like. The Transition Towns are a little model, we could say, “Look, it’s not utopia, it’s not pie in the sky, it already exists.” There was a really good article in the Guardian a while back, I forget the authors name but it basically said, “Okay, here’s my vision of the future about people interacting in a community way, renewable energy and all the things we were talking about in a sustainable future.” Then he says, “Well, this is not utopia, this is already happening, it’s just happening in different places. Is not all happening in the same place, it’s not all happening at the scale that we wanted to happen.” It’s certainly not unfeasible, it’s a totally feasible future that we are talking about.


Sam: Can we do transformation at scale?


Robert: I don’t see why not, we want to. We have to build the consensus to help us get there. I think that’s part of overcoming the addiction, the reason that we don’t do it is well it’s much easier because there are all the positive feedback of just staying in the current way of doing things. There is a lot of inertia built into the system. Overcoming that inertia is going to take some positive willingness to change, and that doesn’t come overnight. It really takes this broader social discussion.


Sam: We are writing a book of these talks, we are calling it Tomorrow’s Heroes, and in that we are describing the work that people are doing, and the things which we’re calling superpowers. What would you like your sustainable superpower to be? What are you bringing to the sustainability team?


Robert: Okay, maybe the ability to show people what life would be like in a sustainable and desirable future. In a way that they can relate to. That’s been one of the most difficult parts in this process, you can describe this future, future world in a text narrative, but really I would like to be able to produce a visual reality kind of world where people could, “Here, walk into this world, here are the alternatives, which of these worlds do you really want to live in?” Let them sort of live in that world for a while. It’s maybe not predict the future, but be able to project people into alternative futures that they can actually experience, and then decide which one they like best. I think that would help to build the consensus for which road we really want to make.


Sam: What’s the biggest success you’ve had in the last couple of years? I would suggest something, and that’s celebrating success, and journals like your solutions journal. It’s about celebrating the things that people are doing, and I think that’s a real success.


Robert: Yeah, I will go with that. Maybe I could use that as a way to celebrate success in journal, so we’ve been doing this now for 7 years, but the title is solutions for sustainable and desirable futures available online for free, Our rule of thumb for articles in the Journal is no more than a 3rd of the article can be about describing the problem, and two thirds has to be about describing the solutions, so it’s really a way of compiling and providing a venue for people to talk about what works. Transition Towns certainly have been one of our topic areas, we have a section called on the ground, which is really about what’s happening in different places geographically there are real solutions.


Sam: I might have stolen your success opportunity, you could talk about something else if you wanted.


Robert: No I like that one. That was good.


Sam: Do you consider yourself to be an activist?


Robert: Not in the traditional way I guess, but I think definitely in the way of trying to get society to change and be transformed into something better, yes.


Sam: What motivates you, what gets you out of bed in the morning?


Robert: Well that’s probably it, how do we create a better world for our children and grandchildren? I think that motivates a lot of people actually, to make the world a better place.


Sam: We talked about what challenges ecological economics has over the next 20 years, let’s pull it down a little bit. What about you over the next couple of years?


Robert: Over the next couple of years? Well, I would like to dethrone GDP. I think that’s going to be a big challenge, because there’s a lot of inertia there. I think the time is right to come up with alternatives, but they’re not going to happen right now building a fairly broad consensus about what to replace GDP with, and I don’t think we can leave that void blank either, I think we need to replace it with something, some way of measuring progress toward our goal. Some have argued that well, we don’t need an aggregate indicator, we just need a dashboard. I think when you are driving your car do you do need a dashboard, yes you need to know how things are working, but you also need to know where you’re going. We need to have those goals more explicitly set, and we also need to be able to measure progress toward achieving those goals. As Yogi Bear once said, “If you don’t know where you’re going you end up somewhere else.”


Sam: You might have just answered this question, but I’m going to ask it anyway because then you get a free hit. It’s stolen from motivational interviewing. If you could have a miracle occur by tomorrow morning, what would it be?


Robert: A miracle? Well yes I think if … If we could get the world society to recognize that we are headed in the wrong direction, and that we need to change course much more dramatically, I think if we could get somebody like Bernie Sanders elected as president of the United States and some other countries, but I think these miracles are at least foreseeable these days. I mean, Bernie made a lot more progress than most people anticipated, and I think he was saying many of the same kinds of things that we’ve been talking about, and people recognize that yes, that business as usual, the traditional approaches to politics are not really appropriate anymore.


Sam: You lived in Vermont – is that way of thinking, even if it doesn’t hold not total sway, does it get more traction in places where it’s been tried?


Robert: Yeah, I think so, yeah. It’s been shown to work in the sense that people’s quality of life is improved, it’s not damaged by reducing their sort of material consumption they can be happier in different ways. Focusing more on social capital. I lived in a cohousing community in Vermont, which was very explicitly designed for people to share resources, to focus on their … Keep their relations within the community, the ecological sustainability issues, and I think the quality … We’ve actually done some research showing that the quality of life in these kind of intentional communities like transition talents, but there’s a whole range of them is in fact much higher than the quality of life and non-intentional communities. It gets back to our ability to do this, it’s totally feasible, it’s totally practical, it’s not … There are no technological constraints, it’s really overcoming this I think addiction to-


Sam: It’s becoming a marketing job for those pockets of the better life?


Robert: Exactly, yeah.


Sam: I think that’s one of the interesting questions. Things like local food markets, how do we scale that up, but also maintain the benefits of your local…


Robert: I think that’s totally possible, yeah. Just recognize that that’s in a sense a better way to handle food production, it should be as local as possible not that everything should be local. I think it is really getting the balance right.


Sam: Yeah so that was a bigger miracle, what’s the smallest thing that we could do that would make the biggest difference?


Robert: The smallest thing we can do? I guess it could be self-serving there and say, “Take a look at Solutions and try to contribute your own solutions to the ongoing discussion.” I think if we could get people thinking in that way, that there are ways to solve these problems.  These is not the sacrifice, the sacrifice is to not solve the problems. We can’t afford business as usual, I like Paul Raskin’s, phrase that business as usual is really the utopian fantasy. That’s not really possible, you have to transform the system into something more sustainable and desirable.


Sam: Lastly, you might have just answered this as well, but another free hit then, do you have any advice for our listeners?


Robert: Okay, can I just reiterate what I just said? I think that the advice would be start thinking in a more positive way about the whole system, and may be reading Solutions would be a way to sort of stimulate some of that discussion, but I think there are a lot of positive things happening around the world, but just not all happening at the same time or the same place. We can move in that direction, if we can build this broader consensus about the world that we want.


Sam: Thank you very much for joining me.


Robert: Yeah, my pleasure, thank you.




We are grateful for the support of Victoria University in making this Sustainable Lens.


computing energy

Footprints of digital infrastructure


Knowing the impact can be used to start a conversation, to reflect on choices.

Dr Daniel Schien is an expert on the footprint of digital infrastructure. We talk about his background – Informatics in Berlin, developing software in Australia and teaching computing in Afghanistan. His research has involved the environmental impact of the transformation of the Guardian newspaper. He also teaches teaching environmental management and is involved in Green Hackathon.

Talking points

I was always interested of questions of ethical concern

Curriculum was technical content but it was informatics so questions of ethics and intersection of computers and society, not just the numbers.

Understanding of the consequence of future business

In making a comment on the environmental impact of a service we need to be clear that we are not making a comment on its value from another perspective. …that technology might be liberating…we are not claiming that environmental sustainability is the only criteria that should be applied.

Systems methods of dealing with the complexity of so-called wicked problems.

How can you deal with this wicked problem with no single optimisation criteria

The goal is to make sure that communities who are often marginalised in decision making…when other organisations are dominating the decision making, marginalising some actors. There is a potential here to make a change for good by teaching environmental managers -giving them the tools to involve everybody who is affected.

The Green Doors was a project to see how can we use ICT to make other practices more sustainable

(Superhero) Because I’m a computer scientist I’ve got an understanding of the anatomy of digital systems, but I bring into this a passion for sustainability, and an awareness of processes in the social domain. That’s a good starting point for doing this interdisciplinary work.

(Success) Daughter.

(Activist) No, my work takes place professionally. Activist compromises professional activities.

Guardian, making a difference…environmental footprint, I hope that other organisations follow

Chance here to create more awareness for consumers about the sustainability implications of consuming these services…a decision support tool. Knowing the impact can be used to start a conversation, to reflect on choices. The goal is not to blame people, to make people feel guilty, but to create more awareness and understanding.

By exposing themselves to criticism they should be applauded while other players are shying of that risk.

(Motivation) Chance to make a difference

(Challenges) having impact from academic position

Miracle: The biggest environmental concerns I have are around transportation, domestic heating and consumption.

Advice: trying to remain cool and aware, not too frantic about trying to play academic game


Computing at the heart of culture change

Barath Raghavan in his rooftop garden at ICSI Berkeley

For better or for worse, technology is seen as the future; computing can shift culture in ways that are aligned with sustainability.

Dr Barath Raghavan is a researcher with the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, California. We discuss how he brings together his research in networking and passion for sustainability – particularly gardening.

Talking points

I struggle that computing as a field is about virtual worlds…creating everything in an abstract space, computer programs have no physical boundaries – at least this is how computer scientists like to think of it. Yet at the same time…I’ve had concerns about energy and environmental issues. Those were always two distinct interests – I have my computing interests and I had my environmental interests, and they never crossed.

A formative experience at elementary school was an Earth Day…50 simple things kids can do to save the earth…awareness things.

(Little things like recycling) It’s the easiest thing, it’s immediately apparent, and you think you’ve done something…the danger is if that’s all you do.

Small things awareness building

(4 environmentalisms) if it’s all light green we’re not going to make any progress.

Computer networks enable long range communication in a way that was never possible before…

Networks in a broader sense – understanding how things interlock in systems. That connects to ecology in ways that I hadn’t anticipated.

Donella Meadows’ leverage points – how to effectively change large scale systems – she was a systems ecologist, but her principles apply equally well to how would we change the internet.

Thinking about one system helps you think about others. My hope is that I can bring more computing systems thinking people into the fold of thinking about ecological problems.

Modularity based on abstraction is the way that things are done…(Liskov)…we have computer systems built on a scale that would have been unfathomable only a couple of decades ago – the internet may be the single biggest system humans have ever built – and this system wouldn’t work with modularity, the ability to divide up the problem, and abstract it to simplify the way two different systems plug into each other…but now computing is so embedded in society it is important that we understand not only the upsides of modularity and abstraction, but also the downsides. What happens when you get too much complexity in a system?

(Are our systems too fragile?) Optimist: the reason the internet is so stable is that there are enough feedback loops, people who’s job it is to fix it. Pessimist: there are too many weak points, in interests of efficiency, we’ve engineered out all of the redundancy. We’ve seen examples of both of these perspectives being right.

Razor-thin margins require resources to run just-in-time. Will we be able to maintain that as we become more resource constrained?

The energy footprint of the internet…I got a question from someone…is it better for me to travel or use a Skype video conference?… The conclusion I came to was that if you have to travel more than 10-15 miles by car, then video conference is a lighter energy footprint. An hour video conference is about the same as driving 10 miles – that’s a bigger footprint than people imagine. The material footprint is considerably more than people think – all the devices had to be manufactured, have a fixed lifespan, depend on the power-grid…

With embodied energy and electricity consumption, the internet accounts for something like 2% of global energy consumption.

The easiest thing we could do is keep devices longer, next we should really use computing to help save energy in other aspects of society.

The fundamental issue is that the economic system is structured for obsolescence and growth – so if people were to keep devices for as long as possible, it would have ripple effects throughout the entire economic system.

Effective environmental thinking requires a restructuring of societal priorities.

(Tomlinson) Sustainability is a cultural issue, not a technological issue. So computing can only really help solve problems we as society decide are important enough to solve.

If we decide as a society that sustainability isn’t really important, then we can throw all the computing we want at it, it won’t make a difference

(so are we wasting our time?) It is natural for computing to want to be involve. Shower timers, reminders to recycle aren’t going to make a difference, but……effect of drought reminders in California….small shifts in thinking will eventually add up, and this is where social change comes from.

So there is some small value in doing the small things, the problem is when we only do the small things.

We need to go beyond the small concrete goal to broader systemic change.

For better or for worse, technology is seen as the future; computing can shift culture in ways that are aligned with sustainability.

Computing in the the Long Emergency…there are ecological limits that we’re facing, they’re likely to take a number of different forms rather than a single event, and they won’t happen all at once, they’ll play out of the course of a century…we’re seeing that right now…so how does computing have to contribute? how are we going to be affected?

Computing research is driven on the promise of more, the promise of progress, new prosperity through new invention. This long emergency future might make it impossible to have that better tomorrow future – it might be making do with less…At best the science and technology research will help us more gracefully go downhill, rather than falling off a cliff.

(How might computing learn from the positive demonstration of a better life, seen in the Transition Town movement?) The ability to communicate with people all over the world…we don’t know what we’re doing, its a giant planetary experiment, the best we can do is share what seems to be working…communication technology is pretty important for that.

The structure of the computing industry, like any industry, is about making profits, and that is not aligned well with the sorts of responses and solutions that sustainability minded people have identified.

Solving the sustainability of computing itself is a very small piece of the puzzle, it’s about using computing to make society more sustainable.

(Technology utopia or slow/fast decline?) I still think that a gradual decline is on the cards. I don’t believe that we can wriggle out of what ecology tells us – that we’re in overshoot, humans are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet, so something is going to have to come down: our resource consumption, our industrial base, probably many things will come down…but I don’t think that many of the things we take for granted as part of everyday life are necessary for happiness. This is what the Transition Town movement identifies – you can still have a rich life, a happy life, without a materially wealthy life. The difficulty I have, is that so far I haven’t seen evidence from a broader society that we collectively make good political decisions, the rules that we apply to ourselves, we haven’t figured out that we have to make decisions that have short term painful consequences for long term benefits. We have to slow down the rate of resource consumption now so that we can have reduced climate change in the future. That’s where my worry lies – I think we will still have a slow decline, but the nature of that slow decline..will it be a harsh slow decline or will we come up with an alternative system that mitigate that decline?

I believe in community oriented responses.

In 50 years in the future, will we still have resources to run the internet? I’ve thought about this quite a bit, we wrote a paper Macroscopically Sustainable Networking: An Internet Quine (a Quine is a program that can reproduce itself)…do we have the knowledge, resources and machinery to rebuild the internet using local resources? Or do we really need the global industrial system to keep the internet going. A simple answer is that we have enough waste – chips sitting in landfill – to keep the internet going for a very long time. A more complex answer is that a lower bandwidth internet is certainly easy to do. The other question is will it be useful for society that people will care?

(Concerns about food production leads to local resilience activities such as farmers markets, community gardens and guerilla gardening…is guerilla networking possible or desirable?) Yes, I’m involved in several such projects.

(Success?): Tree planting. Working with a lot of businesses to plant fruit trees.

(Activist?): I don’t know, I’ve never thought about it. It would be fair to say that I am, but I do keep my activism separate from my research – that’s the traditional way, although these days I feel I am allowing the two to converge.

(Motivation?): Growing things. Looking for opportunities to plant something almost every day.

(Challenges?): Figuring out how what I think is worthwhile is Research, with a capital R. What is defined as research…a professor here likes to quote “researchers get paid to be clever, not to be right”, I’d like to be a little bit clever and a little bit right. I’d like us to do work that is important, but also come up with new ideas that are useful to society.

Thinking about how to convince a research community that is designed around novelty, rather than societal impact – that’s a challenge.

(Miracle?): I would implement some version of Herman Daly’s steady state economy.

(Advice?): Read something that if far afield from your field, something from some other discipline.

Although recorded in Barath’s rooftop garden in Berkeley, this Sustainable Lens is from a series of conversations at University California Irvine. Sam’s visit was supported by the Newkirk Center for Science and Society, and coincided with Limits 2015.


Sustainable software engineering

Birgit Penzenstadler

If I put sustainability into the software system requirements, that means during testing I now have to test whether the system meets those sustainability requirements. What I’m doing now is finding those metrics.

Dr Birgit Penzenstadler is Professor for Software Engineering at California State University Long Beach. In her research Birgit explores the relationships between sustainability and software engineering.

We talk about Birgit’s background and motivations, her teaching and research, and the Karlskrona Manifesto,

Talking points

What are the things that we as software developers should pay attention to?

The first part (of the Karlskrona Manifesto) is about misconceptions that we have about sustainability….for example that there is a magic technical solution just around the corner that’s going to solve the sustainability problem, we’ve just got to find that one silver bullet.

…and for each of those misconceptions we explain what the reality is, and as sustainability is a very complex problem, a wicked problem – we can’t solve it with a magic bullet, it will take many things that solve different aspects of the problem and it’s unclear how we can do that.

The second part of the manifesto proposes a set of principles, for example we need to be looking at longer timescales when we develop systems, and we need to involve multiple disciplines, it can’t just be a bunch of software engineers trying develop a system, we need to get expertise from other people, for example from psychologists, ecologists…

At the end of the manifesto we give a couple of suggestions as to what people might do as the next step.

Start by discussing it, what it might mean and raising awareness.

The major push back I get is “I get my requirements from my customers, it’s not my place to say you should also look at the sustainability aspect”. So this should be part of our ethics standard, that I don’t just look at what is the maximum return on investment and is this safe for humans to use without getting hurt, but we should also look at other categories of damage.

We should always be free to point out social and environmental consequences, but the line at which we should walk away and say we’re not going to do a development…it’s hard to say where that line is.

At the moment we might be developing a lot of systems that we don’t really need.

Instead of inventing yet another system, and developing yet another software product, maybe we should be looking at simpler solutions.

Instead of products to buy, we should perhaps be better looking at sharing systems

The main intention of the Karlskrona Manifesto is to raise the discussion around sustainability, to make software engineers aware of the topic – look, it’s your responsibility to at least think about this and think what you are going to do about it.

I discuss four definitions of sustainability with my students: 1. To persist over an extended period of time.
2. To preserve a function over an extended period of time.
3. The next one (you taught me), ethics extended over space and time – this adds the notion of value.
4. (from Ehrenfeld) Life to flourish indefinitely – painting the vision of an even brighter future.

Then I tell students the other part, from Laurence Hilty – to scope your analysis well, what do you want to sustain, for whom you you want to sustain it, and what is the time horizon you want to be looking at.

For some reason, we humans tend to think that sustainability means preserving the human race on this planet, the truth is the planet would fare pretty well without us, but we still want to be around, so we strongly scope what we perceive as sustainable in that way.

I’m taking the liberty of using one of my 25 lectures on software engineering to discuss software engineering for sustainability because I think that it is important

use case

If I put sustainability into the software system requirements, that means during testing I now have to test whether the system meets those sustainability requirements. What I’m doing now is finding those metrics.

This is taking the requirements problem to the extreme.

If in requirements engineering I define what sustainability means in terms of this specific software, then I have as a starting point for the metrics that will help me determine whether that software system is sustainable…but that means I have to do work at the beginning, it means I have to do a life cycle analysis, which is not yet a standard method for software engineering.

(is it possible to write requirements to solve wicked problems?) It’s tough. I’m an optimist by nature. This sustainability research has sometimes brought me to the limits of my optimism, but I refuse to give up.

There’s a lot of challenge in doing this, but I’m going to try to find the best method that I can.

I can teach my software engineering students to start paying attention to sustainability.

I do think that every one of us, no matter what discipline we are working in, can find at least a small point of leverage.

If I have the freedom to develop a software system, what do I want the system to be about, then I can decide to make a software system that is a completely new solution that helps people to form a community and do something together instead of making small efficiency steps if the solution was not the best one in the first place.

Car efficiency versus car sharing…a case where optimising one solution further would yield far less benefit than going for a completely different solution.

(software engineering is by definition a systems view) yes, and at the same time, I think we software engineers often don’t step back enough. We’re thinking how can I break down this problem into manageable parts and solve those, when we should be taking a step back and trying to apply a systems thinking approach.

(if pushed for metrics) Environmental impact, social consequences.

The environmental impact is not just the hardware, it is what is the system going to be put to use for.

(success) Finishing up my Habilitation.

(Activist) I would say so, yes. It is not my job to teach my students about sustainability, but nevertheless I do it, and I really care about convincing them that it is worth having a discussion about.

(Not your job, but it’s not job to teach in non-racist manner, or non sexist manner either, can we get sustainability to same level? I’m teaching my students to behave professionally non-racist, sustainably…). I would make sure not be a racist in class, but I guess I wouldn’t talk about not being a racist in class during my class, I guess that’s the difference.

I implicitly adhere to good ways of behaving, because that’s what I’ve been taught culturally, and maybe we can get to that same point about sustainability.

(Motivation) When I go out into the mountains at the weekend, and I love the mountains, and I see all that beauty around me – that’s what I really want to preserve.

(Challenges) Californian in training.

(Miracle) Tough choice…I want our planet to have way left population than it currently has. Not because of a disaster, but it’s a magic wand – the population never grew to that many people. And we found better ways of using technology and not taking it to the extreme as we have over the past couple of decades. Maybe we just had a magic moment of insight a few centuries back.

(Is technology going to save us?) I don’t think technology is going to ruin or save us – it’s our choice as responsible human beings to put technology to good use such that it can help us to save ourselves and this planet.

(Advice) Listeners already care about sustainability and probably think about how they can put it into action in their personal lives – I would like to encourage all of you to continue doing that.

This Sustainable Lens is from a series of conversations at University California Irvine in June 2015. Sam’s visit was supported by the Newkirk Center for Science and Society, and coincided with Limits 2015.

social-ecological transformation

Nurturing social-ecological transformation

Albert Norstrom

How do we nurture and scale up the seeds of the better Anthropocene?

Dr Albert Norström of the Stockholm Resilience Centre is Executive Director of the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS). We talk about the role of ecosystem services, our social-ecological systems and how we can scale up the seeds of the good anthropocene.

Talking points

The Millennium Assessment was a great success…but after that there was an effort to identify key knowledge gaps…how regime shifts can affect ecosystem services, how management and governance of ecosystem services should be designed to get the best outcomes in both the social and ecological arena….so a ten year programme to try to address these key gaps…the programme on ecosystem change and society was born.

Social-ecological system are systems in which scientists address both the social and ecological aspects of a specific place and trying to get positive outcomes in both of these arenas.

Regime shifts…events where things are looking pretty good in the ecosystem you are trying to manage, then all of a sudden things go crazy, and teh ecosystem shifts to something completely different to what it was before.

We need to move beyond seeing nature as nature and social systems as social systems, but seeing an holistic interconnected social-ecological system.

I’ve always been interested in issues of equity and justice and all things political.

It was a purposeful evolution in my career: in the beginning I focussed on the ecological dimension, (but as my career has progressed) , I’ve been trying to bring the social dimension into the ecological dimension.

One of the big challenges we have, if we’re going to If we’re going to solve some of the big sustainability problems of the world is to make it easier for the next generation of scholars to wear this transdisciplinary hat… that can very comfortably switch between paradigms and disciplines or work in teams of researchers representing different disciplines.

Current academic structures are silo-disciplinary.

But if you get thrown into this transdisciplinary ocean at the beginning, the risk is that you get washed away because you have no real platform to stand upon.

Bringing people into the mix makes ecosystems much more complex, a necessary step, but it is impossible to improve the functioning of an ecosystem if you don’t understand the livelihoods of the people that live there, how they value nature, their culture, their norms, power dynamics in communities, the myriad of legislative requirements – all of these things influence how people act, or can’t act, and all of these things are extremely difficult to start uncovering.

Academic careers are heavy on rewarding a certain type of CV, heavy to reward quick publications, slow to recognise running courses, or working in transition groups, or other activities that have a long term tangible impact on society.

Understanding range of interconnections that exist in our planet today.

The anthropocene – an era where human activity is now the biggest driver of change on the planet.

Characteristics of the anthropocene include the increasing speed and scale of things.

The real challenge is understanding connections – how a region in the south of Sweden is connected to a place in the Amazon.

We’re still struggling to understand scale… how locales and regions are connected to one another.

How can we design sustainable management policy that is resilient in the face of this big connected human enterprise that is the anthropocene, and at the same time work at the local level.

The anthropocene describes the age of human,s but is is a very small proportion of human species that have shuffled us into the current situation that we’re in, perhaps it should be the capitalcene, or the technocene.

The anthropocene is not totally doomsday, the term gives us the potential to explore the potential of the human species to adapt and transform, to use innovation as a positive force – a potential good anthropocene.

We are all ultimately dependent on the biosphere, dependent on ecosystems to keep producing these goods and services. So the anthropocene means that it is up to us as the human species to become stewards of the biosphere.

I believe that things can definitely get better, there’s a plethora of different initiatives…transition towns are super-inspiring.

Within civil society, within research, government and business, there’s a shift towards interdisciplinarity, towards an acknowledgment that we are so dependent on the biosphere for our future. It’s matter of taking those small initiatives – the seeds, trying to nurture them. we need to understand how to scale up these initiatives – things such as transition towns, urban gardening, guerilla gardening, popping up in different guises around the world – how do we take these, understand these, how they can be scaled up, blended with other similar initiatives to realign the ship towards a better anthropocene.

A problem is the scaremongering focus on doomsday scenario of the anthropocene, the Mad Max approach, is that a lot of these good stories, the seeds , get lost in the reporting.

We can’t go back to pristine, setting conservation targets that have that at the target is nonsensical – we’ve locked these systems into trajectories where we can’t go back. But ecosystems are surprisingly resilient…novel ecosystems, but they still require adaptive responsive management in to order to shuffle them along a pathway where they stay reasonably healthy,

Reasonably healthy systems that aren’t optimised to produce single things…and constant change, not the status quo.

How do we provide tools to social-ecological systems to cope with change?

Ecosystem services have been somewhat hijacked into monetary value, this speaks the value of business, but it forgets the intangible or invisible aspects.

A better anthropocene is one where equity issues are addressed, power issues are addressed, democracy issues are addressed.

Scenarios…thinking about how the social and ecological systems work together, including a long hard think about who the stakeholders are, invite them into the process, participatory stories about the future.

Participatory visioning process, thinking about common futures

Globally we need acceptance of multiple narratives, global sustainability needs to embrace pluraism, multiple pathways expressing similar values.

How do we nurture and scale up the seeds of the better anthropocene?

We will have to embrace diversity to form a global narrative. he dominant narrative is broken: growth, wealth concentration, inequality is broken.

How do we grow small scale innovation into something bigger – a global transformation?

(Success) The sustainable development goals. It is acccepted and acknowledged that we depend on ecosystems and biosphere are a fundament for social development. A a social-ecological perspective has gone from being a tiny area of academia to an integrated part of the biggest global agreement around sustainable development.

(Activist) Yes. I’ve always harboured that streak. It is difficult to set aside, to split yourself up between being a researcher and an activist. In many cases you are both at the same time. I think that is inevitable.

(Motivation) It’s quite simple, I have two daughters, we have to make sure the world is a better place for them.

(Challenges) PECS conference

(Miracle) We would be in the good anthropocene now

(The smallest thing that would make the biggest difference towards this miracle?) Continuing dialogue with people, especially those who don’t share the same views as me.

(Advice) Spread knowledge that in doing this work you are not an isolated speck in the ocean. There’s a lot of activity at different levels, different scales to try to make the world a better place.

ecological economics economics systems

Seeing big, connected pictures

Marjan ven den Belt



 I value my kidneys, but I have no intention of selling them. But for some reason when we look at wetlands that function as the kidneys of our ecosystem, they are for sale. There’s something wrong there.

Associate Professor Marjan van den Belt is the Director of Ecological Economics Research New Zealand at Massey University. She is an Ecological Economist.  We talk about what led her to a career in economics and how that became ecological economics and what that means.

Talking points

I was an environmental activist from an early age – it has always been a part of me, perhaps my methods have become more refined over the years.

I chose economics because I thought that understanding the world’s money systems

The human system should be within the carrying capacity of the ecological system

Ecological economics is not so much how we use the existing economic tools on environmental issues (that would be environmental economics), ecological economics aims to design and develop new types of tools

Ecological economics is not particularly impressed with GDP – Gross Domestic Product – because it measures economic activity only. It does not distinguish whether that activity is desirable or undesirable. For example if we have sickness, war, disasters, crime that’s all good for GDP. Whereas the things that we do want – healthy families, low crime, environmental volunteering – that is not counted as valid activity for GDP.

You get a distorted picture when you take GDP as a proxy for well-being or wealth.

Uneconomic growth is when we don’t count costs and benefits in decision making – such as benefits we derive from the ecosystem that are not in our decision making.

New Zealand should take a good look at whether we are experiencing uneconomic growth.

We train economists to think that if only we could include all externalities in our decision making framework – the market – then we’re all sweet. The problem is that goods and services from ecosystem services don’t behave as marketable goods.

We’ll never have all the externalities, all the science, by looking in smaller and smaller pieces, hence I’m all for transdisciplinary approaches using synthesis – put the pieces together in an elegant way.

We really need more synthesis – putting the pieces together, not just taking apart.

Trickle-down hasn’t worked,

We need to decouple economic growth – measured as development, all the things that are desirable – from material throughput.

All over the world we see GDP growing, while the Genuine Progress Indicator levels off.

Facilitating complex dialogue

Systems dynamics is not about prediction, it’s about understanding.

How do we make better decisions in a timely fashion? How do we develop the capacity to make the best possible decision in the most transparent way? How do we synthesise the information we have effectively?

Systems thinking is an uncommon common sense.

We’ve kind of forgotten the art of synthesising things back together. It’s my big quest, bringing the disciplines together.

We assume that value can only be monetary, but it’s not. We use values in many different ways – to measure things, to express to whether we care for it, ethical aspects. I would say I value my children, but they’re not for sale to the highest bidder. I value my kidneys, but I have no intention of selling them. But for some reason when we look at wetlands that function as the kidneys of our ecosystem, they are for sale. There’s something wrong there.

Sometimes putting a monetary value on something can be a good conversation starter, but it doesn’t mean we should immediately create a market for it.

Pricing is different from valuing, we need to get that lingo straight.

The fragmented approach isn’t really helping. So provide the space, put people together, connect the dots.

(Superpower) Time travel for backcasting…and the beauty is that we have these tools. We do have to crack silly measures like GDP, and intellectual property rights over ecosystems

(Success) Working with Maori – that holistic, moralistic way of looking at the world. I find that creative and giving and promotes dialogue.

(Motivation) While we have to acknowledge that the trends aren’t good – I’m not in denial about this – but I choose to wake up every morning and work towards solutions, because I enjoy that the most.

(Activist) Active. Does this make me an activist. Sometimes I do show up and bang my fists on the table, but my natural tendency is as a mediator, a facilitator – providing participatory leadership inviting people into that space.

(Challenges) Establish a synthesis centre.

(Miracle) That we really start to understand how dependent we are on ecosystems. That there is great opportunity and excitement in redesigning our human society to respect and stay within those bounds. That for me is very exciting.

(Advice) Keep at it. Find the right people, don’t be in denial. Be courageous.

botany ecology

Ecology: Connected science

Kath Dickinson

The essence of ecology is that it is all around us.

Prof Kath Dickinson is a plant ecologist at the University of Otago. She has broad interests particularly in plant-animal interactions. We talk with her about the science of ecology, and the role of people in ecological systems.

Talking points

It’s always a good idea to be very grounded in getting your feet wet.

I’m very glad I started with geography – the breadth can lead you in multiple directions.

Ecology is the study of interactions.

Ecology is a complex science, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t try to understand it. For me, ecology is inclusive of people.

It is easy to think in the linear way, but complexity means thinking in a non-linear.

We can think of a community as a spider web, hugely complex and very strong in some directions, but easily disrupted in others – by fast and slow disruptions.

If we look at ecosystems, there aren’t boundaries, but considering scale helps, we can say whether we are talking at scale of tree, or forest, or country level, or ocean level.

Ecologists as a field tends to attract people who are attracted to complex thinking, who are able to multitask – thinking about things across scales and in a non-linear fashion.

The term ecology is being taken widely…as a sense of understanding interactions, with respect to can we discern some patterns, some sense out of it. And if we can’t…what is the role of chaos?

That in New Zealand and Australia people are considered separate to the system, even in Australasian ecological science, probably represents the colonisation history…despite the integrated worldview of the indigenous peoples. But now we are increasing working with a message of integration – from mountains to the sea.

Social ecology is a recognition of the role of people in the system.

I talk with students about a play on words: a part from the system – two words – and apart from the system, one word. The writings stemming from the colonial, Christian ethic uses one word: apart from the system. The writings of sustainability, resilience, adaption, the ecosystem services approach all show a move to a part of the system.

(Can we describe the essence of a functioning ecosystem in terms that can be reduced to money?) In some situations, its a tightrope we walk, what economic value does one put on beauty? what economic value does one put on spiritual enrichment? what economic value does one put on a Cromwell chafer beetle?

We are starting to recognise the value of ecosystems…wetlands for example.

(But does this reinforce idea that nature is there for us to exploit?) If we look at the whole planet as a system, Gaia and the moon landings…ecologists might want to talk about integrating ecology with economics

Scale…whether timescale or spatial scale, getting understanding…means understanding scale. Be very aware of what question I’m asking, match the question to the scale. Not one scale fits every problem?

(Does ecology have an inherent ethics?) As a science yes. But it doesn’t necessarily require a care ethic.

Ecology is a continuum to sustainability. A broad philosophical debate.

As humanity becomes increasingly urbanised, the connection to nature becomes more distant. So we need an appreciation of natural history, a positive relationship with nature, rather than a fear or a distance.

Climate change is the biggy, but there are very rapid changes in land cover and oceans.

The rapidity of change is of immediate concern, this is not to dismiss the important and complexity of climate change, but the very rapid phase shift with systems around the world, much like the spider’s web analogy – it easy to destroy a spiders web, but try building it back up again – it takes time, even if it is possible.

There are several elephants in the room: history (decades, centuries, evolutionary) and often we don’t know that, what we see is what we can measure – usually 20 years if we are lucky…the other elephants: market forces; how particular decisions are affected by literal downstream effects – we need integrated land policy.

(Activist?) Out there waving a board saying no to nuclear power? No, but there people who are proactive in the sense of caring about whether it is a hydroelectric dam, or dirty rivers, or the quality of our soils. But as a scientist its a tightrope over maintaining credibility as a scientist and being out there wanting to make a difference. So endeavoring to make a difference.

(Motivation?) Endeavouring to make a difference. If you gather a group of people together to solve a complex problem, and you want to make a difference, it’s not the collective IQ you have in the room, it is the diversity that you have in the room. So there’s a motivation in listening to different perspectives, and valuing perspectives, which isn’t to walk away from fact that decisions can be difficult to make, and not everybody might agree, but the chances are that the diversity will lead to a more robust outcome.

(Challenges?) New courses starting. Interesting challenges of funding.

(Advice?) As individuals we can pull together to make a difference.

business economics policy

Creating change

David Bent

A responsibility mindset – a focus on compliance – is not a strong narrative for change.

David Bent is Director of Sustainable Business at Forum for the Future. He is also a policy fellow at the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge.

Talking points

15-20 years into my career it is the right moment to to ask the big questions, and the right question after working with business for 10+ years on becoming more sustainable, it seems the right time to ask “what’s the role of business?”.

Business as political actors

The more we found better ways of representing cost on how much effort it would take for a company to move from its current position to being sustainable, the less likely they were to use that information to do anything about it – for one thing, you were telling them off, and the other, you were making the opposite of a business case…we were framing it all wrong. We were starting with a responsibility mindset, the business has a negative impact on the world, what can we do to make that impact less. The switch now, is the world has an impact on the business, what can the business do to be successful in a world dominated by sustainability. That opens up a whole new terrain of things you can do, including looking at the opportunities, and framing things as strategic risks, that if you do nothing about then your entire industry is at risk.

A responsibility mindset – a focus on compliance – is not a strong narrative for change.

How can we create change by helping leading businesses go further, faster?

Our system innovation approach is deliberately aligning all of our work to create change at a system level

How can we help individual companies play their part in the transition to a sustainable global economy?

A move away from framing things in terms of responsibility- which rather traps you in ethics and duty and you have to hope that people share your value set – to a frame based on sustainability, how will you be successful in the long term?

How can we scale up what seems to be working? What can we do to scale up innovation so there is system level change? How do you scale up impact?

Our (Forum for the Future) founders had had a long time campaigning, and post-Rio 92 they could see that campaigning by throwing mud wasn’t enough, people where saying “yeah, I get it, it’s important, now what should we do?”, so Forum was founded on the basis of partnership and long term working

One of the primary things we provide is being a critical friend

Part of what the change agents in the companies are looking for, is someone who can bring the difficult truths to a conversation. That does lead to delicate balances: “what is the most this organisation at this time can handle, with a view to them being able to handle more in a years time?”.

With the best will in the world, even with the pioneering organisations we’re working with, they are to some extent dependent on the status quo, and we’re trying to change the status quo and create disruption in the interests of people who don’t yet exist in the form of future generations, and it’s very difficult for future generations to pay current wages.

Sustainability is not a collection of individual things, but it’s a relationship between all those different things.

We meed to maintain a transdisciplinary systems view…to see the connections, and to see the dynamics, and to play out and see what the unintended consequences might be requires seeing the connected whole.

What historical examples are there in our shift of energy sources that happened at a global scale and happened quickly? The one that gives me hope, bizarrely, are the shift from coal to oil…and the abolition of slavery, a move from a seemingly free resource with negative impacts occurring on people the political elites of the time didn’t care about – in that case people who were slaves, in our case people in the future. It took a generation, but it is possible to make those massive changes…the political elite can see a viable alternative. A third parallel is the transition to the welfare state.

(Michael Jacobs four conditions for creating the Welfare State) Massive crisis – opportunity for change…business elites could see a viable path…that someone has laid the intellectual groundwork…and a popular movement.

We had the crisis – the global financial crisis – and that disproved the intellectual foundations for the previous two decades – that if you leave companies alone they won’t be so stupid as to hard themselves…it turns out the bankers are that stupid. We had a popular movement, a spasm of anger – who got us into the mess and who is paying for the mess.

…but in London there weren’t enough people who feared that they would down-grade their current and their children’s prosperity…the interesting thing about austerity, is to what extent are people giving up hope that the future is better than today. At the moment, the way people are reacting to that in the UK and across Europe, is they are turning to nationalist parties.

The facts don’t back up (nationalist) story, but nevertheless the story speaks to people being very much afraid, feeling that globalisation is taking things away from them, and losing hope for the future and turning nationalistically- turning inwardly to deal with it rather than turning outwardly.

Part of the story has to be making ourselves more resilient by distributing the risk and ability to respond across many different nodes, and acknowledging interdependence – what happens way over there affects us here. It is in our enlightened self interest to make sure that things don’t get really bad in Africa. I want the people in the tropics to have the capability to choose how to live their own lives rather than being subjected to have to respond to e vents far beyond their control.

We know a lot about the boundary conditions we have to live within…then there’s the social and political foundations – give people the capability to make choices in their own lives…that’s moderately well known: a degree of equity; interdependence; you need access to energy, health care water, sanitation … those end goals and the boundaries are like the table on which you can put your coffee cup of sustainable economy – that’s well known. What we don’t have a good grasp on, is how we make the transition from here to there. There’s a couple of things that make that really difficult. One is that it has to be economically viable at each step of the way – the current ways of making profit have to finance the things that drive us in a different direction, we have to allocate capital away from stuff that is familiar and currently turning out profit…and put that investment into things that are a bridge into the new future. The other problem is that every step along the way has to be politically viable…without knowing how that is going to happen we’re adding decimal points on the end of a universal constant, it doesn’t make any difference.

Businesses need to make a reason for change….seeing that the long term success of their businesses, their shareholders is in creating a more sustainable world.

The buy-in of a certain group of the business elite is there, we now need more unusual ambassadors.

Humans have evolved brilliantly to respond to things that are urgent that we can see and touch and feel – if you’re a monkey in a tree that’s absolutely what you have to be good at – and what we have in the crisis – the slow, grinding, unfolding crisis that we have – are things that our actions today affect the world in 25 plus years, climate change experience of the next 15-20 years was set in train by accumulative behaviour up until about 1990.

Our evolutionary heritage, and our political systems are really badly set up to deal with climate change – in many ways that’s why there is a crisis, it’s in the gaps of how we deal with things. If we could deal with it, we would have dealt with it, but we can’t deal with it and that’s why it’s ongoing.

Rational argument hasn’t carried the day, so in some ways we need something that will loosen people’s ties to the status quo. We missed the opportunity of the financial crisis…we didn’t have a strong enough intellectual alternative, equivalent to Keynes, then may be we could have replaced laissez-faire markets with something else.

A resilience narrative gives agency, it gives them stuff to do in their locale, it gives a way of thinking more into the future. But the thing I don’t like about it – its shadow side – it accepts that some sort of crisis is inevitable, that we can’t really avoid some sort of downside in order to create action, and there’s still an eternal optimist side of me that says, with enough workshops and podcasts we’ll be able to act before we’re in that situation, but that was probably five – ten years ago.

So there’s something appealing as well as appalling in the resilience narrative that could bind people together to act.

(Motivation?). Social justice and creating change for social justice.

I am annoyed when there’s persistent injustice, in particular where’s nothing the people at the end of that can do anything about it. We’re at a complicated moment in history – fairness always means different things: fairness of outcome, fairness of process, fairness of opportunity. There’s a mixture for me of fairness of outcome and fairness of opportunity, and we have to acknowledge that at the moment we’re not set up for that – and for me this makes what are seen as environmental issues are really social issues. If we take climate change – it’s been caused by the emissions of rich countries, it’s going to affect poor countries, and affect choices and take away the ability to have to have the life that people want to lead in the tropics in the first instance, and that’s not even remotely their fault, and that’s the social justice question. The environment is the means, but the real motivation for me is the social justice question. And what gets me out of bed in the morning is creating change to avoid those injustices.

(Activist?) No. For me an activist is someone who’s primary way of trying to create change is protesting outside the castle walls. For me, we need the activists at the gate, banging and causing elites to understand that there’s need for change, my role is the advisor inside the court that helps the barons do something about it. You need both parts of that movement, you need the activists and you need the ones helping those with resources and power do something about it. And that help might include getting out of the way. Inside the gates and therefore not activist.

(Challenge) How can we take advantage of the windows of opportunity that come along? To avoid the worst and get the best.

(Miracle) Smallest thing that might make the biggest difference. Extend the time horizon of decision makers – to 10-15 years planning horizon, you would have enlightened self-interest – thinking about not just your entity, but all the things your entity relies on and all the things it impacts on. Once you have that time horizon then you start thinking about who else shares those goals to create a good context for my entity.

(Advice) There is always something you can do wherever you are. It is easy to think these challenges are so enormous that there’s nothing you can in any situation it’s about what “they over there should be doing. Well they should but there’s also things that everyone can be doing

If everyone does lots of little things, they do add up.

innovation systems

Complex systems

Henk Roodt

Rocket science is simple compared to the complex systems that involve modelling people and the environment.

Dr Henk Roodt knows about the development of technology. And about making that real. A Scientist/Engineer with 25+ years experience in high technology environments, he is currently Research Programmes Manager at Waikato Institute of Technology. We asked Henk to talk about his background (it’s rocket science), whether 3D printing will really change the world, and innovation processes as applied to Green-Tech. Henk is associated with Audacious – Dunedin’s student business incubator, where he is Entrepreneur in Residence.

Talking points:

It’s only when it is really big, and audacious that you go for it. Big things in the history of science were driven by real world problems.

Need to model the environment and the people at the same time. Not the physical model then slap in the people as an add-on. Start with people, the complexity of the people and their culture.

So how do you pitch the right level of modelling? (for complex problems such as hunger in Africa)…one of the things I’ve discovered is that doing mathematical models at that level is stupid. non-quantitative models, morphologies that show how things fit together, that opens up the discussion rather than bringing it into a fixed framework. A model like that gives you an instant picture at a moment in time. This sets the scene for the next level, and the next, the whole model is a work in progress.

Modelling systems is not like modelling airflow over the wing of an aircraft – sure that’s super-mathematics…but to model complex systems and people you often only need a piece of paper and a computer to help you look at all the options.

You have to make certain choices, and that comes down to ‘what are those guiding principles you have in your life that you are willing to live by?’. You have to set those up in your mind and listen carefully to that voice.

Opening up a social good category in Audacious meant they could put their emotions and their hearts into their businesses. They are mixing the social responsibility and the business – this is the edge that will deliver the social good.

I ask myself: can I change things by applying my skills?

Shane’s number of the week: 2.07&#176C is how much hotter the >Australian Spring was above average, producing the warmest spring on record.

Sam’s joined-up-thinking: Sam is working up a survey into the values and educational expectations of incoming IT students.

Henk described Ken Erwin’s book Communicating the New.

architecture design

Architectural games: designing complex emergent systems

Ann Pendleton-Jullian

It is not about how you necessarily design a finished object, but how do you design the conditions for that object to emerge?

Ann Pendleton-Jullian is an architect, writer, and educator whose work explores the interchange between culture, environment, and technology. She brings to sustainability her experience in architecture – but it’s not all about buildings. She says it is “not about how you necessarily design a finished object, but how do you design the conditions for that object to emerge?”.  In her studio she goes “beyond a complex juggling act of all the conditions” to adopt a ludic design process.

games by nature…are the way by which we push boundaries of the conditions that reality gives us, and in pushing boundaries – identity boundaries, physical boundaries – we test out alternative possibilities and they are very constructive for moving society forward.

it’s trickery, they’re designing complex adaptive systems without knowing they’re doing it at first

The four themes she consistently publishes on are:

  • emergent forms of architecture and urbanism
  • game design as a way to tool the mind to work with and design complex emergent systems
  • design and education innovation
  • architectural analysis and theory about anything that has to do with the intersection of culture, technology and the natural and built environment within a global ecology.
  • Until we have shifted from a narrative of guilt and fear to a narrative of desire it’s going to be a real hard thing to win

Ann Pendleton-Jullian was in New Zealand to give a keynote speech at HERDSA13.  The title of her talk was Upside Down and Inside Out. The Future of the University as a Design Problem.

Some of the works referenced in our conversation: