Sustainability Science Framework

Definition:

• System: bounded area with set of elements and components that are connected and interact with each other
• Social: Variety in cultural groups
• Environmental: biological diversity of species, genes, ecosystems and landscapes including potential diversity in resources
• Dynamic: System is always changing, therefore any examination is only a snapshot of the system
• Dynamic social environmental system: Systems that have many interconnected components with feedback loops affecting their interactions and are characterized by self-organization and emergent behavior including all factors that interact with each other & influence earth, environment, humans & our lives
• --> Theory: challenges cannot be considered singularly but need to be seen as a part of a network

Characteristics:

• Complex adaptive system: system with many components that are connected with each other and interact in different ways; there are positive and negative feedback and connections across them
• --> “Humans, their institutions, infrastructure and environmental support systems are part of a complex, adaptive social environmental system.”- Matson, p.55)

Challenges

• Interactions through feedback loops:

1. Positive feedback loop:
2. Negative feedback loop: example: building of roads/ schools in underprivileged communities → more people in need moving there → more work on infrastructure required (Matson) → negative feedback loop

• Invisibilities: parts linked across space and time, local chocies that affect other communities or generations in ways the decision maker can't see. Reasons for Invisibilities:

1. Ignorance (problems are ignored when they can't be seen/felt & effects on future generations are not considered)
2. Localism (only consider the local effects) 

• Complexity:
• Tipping points: even a small change can disturb the state and functioning of the system, can lead to regime shifts
• Regime shifts: large and persistent and often abrupt changes in the dynamics of a system, caused by substantial changes in interactions. 
• Surprises: changes can have unexpected consequences within a system
• Vulnerability: likelihood of suffering harm
• Resilience: Ability of the system to maintain its current functions under stress or even transform opportunities. Factors for resilient systems:

1. Diversity
2. Redundancy: replication of some elements in the system is important --> provides insurance against loss of others
3. Connectivity

Application in CCS context

1. Resilience and Vulnerability of CCS Systems: In a dynamic social environmental model, resilience is crucial for maintaining system functions under stress, which is relevant for CCS as a technology aiming to contribute to long-term climate resilience
2. Positive and Negative Feedback Loops in CCS Deployment:

• Positive Feedback Loop: As CCS infrastructure grows, the cost of technology may decrease due to economies of scale, leading to more adoption and further emissions reduction, thereby creating a reinforcing loop. This technological scaling can encourage more investment in CCS research and development
• Negative Feedback Loop: On the other hand, there may be negative feedback from local communities who resist CCS projects due to concerns about safety, land use, or distrust in the technology. This opposition can slow down or halt CCS deployment, creating a loop where perceived risks outweigh potential benefits.

Definition

• Aim: understanding character of interactions between nature and society; integrate study and practice through use-inspired research
• Focus: creating & harnessing different kinds of knowledge --> address social problems --> strives to integrate study and practice
• Goal: increase our knowledge & ability to manage interactions between environmental and social systems à stage on which sustainable development plays out 

Challenges

• Complexity 
• Uncertainty: scientific knowledge surrounding sustainability issues is often incomplete or uncertain due to the complexity of environmental systems and the long-term nature of these problems. 
• High Stakes: Decisions regarding sustainability can have far-reaching impacts on ecosystems, economies, and societies. Mistakes or delays in addressing sustainability problems can lead to irreversible damage. 
• Value Conflicts: Sustainability issues involve multiple stakeholders with differing priorities and values, such as economic development versus environmental conservation. Post-normal science recognizes the importance of involving all stakeholders in decision-making to address these value conflicts 
• Vulnerability 
• Invisibility (of time and space) 
• Normativity 
• Role of science in sustainability transitions: help assure that the social agitation seeking to promote sustainable development is informed agitation 

Application in CCS context

• Understanding the Nature-Society Interactions: CCS operates at the interface between environmental management (carbon sequestration) and socio-economic systems (industrial emissions). Sustainability science in CCS would study:

1. Environmental systems: Understanding the capacity of geological formations to store carbon safely and permanently.
2. Societal systems: Evaluating public perceptions, regulatory frameworks, economic viability, and industrial adoption of CCS technologies.

• Use-Inspired Research: CCS is an example of use-inspired research where the technology is developed to address an urgent societal problem: climate change. Applying sustainability science would involve:

1. Interdisciplinary research that integrates environmental science, engineering, economics, and social sciences to optimize CCS.

• Role of Science in Sustainability Transitions:

1. Informing social agitation: Science, through sustainability science principles, can provide evidence-based insights to climate activists, policymakers, and industries advocating for CCS as part of a broader decarbonization strategy.
2. Bridging science and society: Sustainability science emphasizes co-producing knowledge with stakeholders to ensure that CCS development is socially inclusive and scientifically sound.

Definition

• “operates within the boundaries of a systematic scientific framework, in which researchers strive to answer specific questions and where uncertainties are managed automatically, values are unspoken, & foundational problems unheard of (p. 740)”  

Characteristics

• steady advance in certainty of our knowledge in between conceptual revolutions 
• “curiosity-motivated”/ mission-driven: not always urgent, breaking down problems 
• Relies on technology; doesn’t question results/ applies critical thinking skills 
• Quality assurance informally by peer review 
• Reductionism: analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation 
• Newtonian: materialistic: all phenomena (physical, biological, mental, social) are constituted of matter; particles are only fundamentally distinguished by position in space ; no uncertainty required --> e.g. experiments: calculations first and then conduction of experiment
• focus: linear problems: individual part of system is studied --> full picture understood at end 
• Approach: funding, research conducted, then knowledge applied --> problems solved with knowledge 

Advantages

• Steady Progress in Knowledge
• Curiosity-Driven Inquiry

Challenges

• Limited Immediate Application
• Inflexibility in Addressing Uncertainty
• Unspoken Values and Unheard Problems
• Narrow Focus Due to Reductionism
• Dependence on Technology
• Issue-driven Inquiry

Application in CCS context

• Inflexibility in Addressing Uncertainty: Traditional science's inclination towards certainty and control can struggle to accommodate the inherent uncertainties in CCS, such as long-term storage risks or unpredictable public acceptance. The rigidity in dealing with these uncertainties can slow progress in implementing CCS on a larger scale.
• Narrow Focus Due to Reductionism: Reductionism can cause CCS research to overlook broader system-wide interactions, such as the integration of CCS into energy systems, its economic viability, or its role in a just transition. By focusing only on the technological aspects, traditional science may miss out on creating holistic solutions.
• Steady Progress in Knowledge: The structured, methodical approach of traditional science allows for the steady accumulation of reliable data on CCS technologies, ensuring that the risks are well understood and that the technologies are safe for widespread use.

Definition

• Post-normal science addresses situations where "facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent" [Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 744]. 
• Approach: Simultaneous scientific exploration and practical application --> solutions need to be continuously adapted to latest scientific knowledge  

Characteristics:

• Systems view of world 
• Coping with uncertainties & embracing them--> systemic, synthetic, humanistic approach (Uncertainties are epistemological (theory of knowledge) / ethical --> decision stakes reflect conflicting purposes among stakeholders) 
• Quality assurance of scientific product & process, people, purpose 
• Integrated approach --> facts and values cannot be separated  
• Inter- & transdisciplinary approaches --> Path to democratizing science  
• “Issue-driven” --> (Issue: facts are uncertain, values disputed, stakes high, decision-making urgent --> Policy-making is the interaction of knowledge and values) 
• Complementary to applied science & professional consultancy

Extended peer community:

• Quality assurance, quality of science --> quality is assured even without the formal research process 
• Includes all stakeholders to ensure effective problem-solving (e.g. investigative journalists, lawyers, pressure groups) --> give feedback 
• Contribute knowledge/perspective help develop a view 
• Can enrich process of scientific investigation 
• Ensures effectiveness of science in addressing challenges of global environmental problems 
• Monitoring by extended peer community can help simultaneous scientific exploration and practical application

Example

• NUSAP (Numerical, Unit, Spread, Assessment & Pedigree) system: integrated approach to problems of uncertainty, quality, values 

Advantages

• Applicable in high uncertainty / high stakes situations
• More inclusive & democratic approach to science --> higher credibility & acceptance of results

Challenges with high decision stakes & systems uncertainties

• Soft values can dominate hard facts (contrary to normal science); these categories can not be separated, ethics included --> values as horizontal, independent variable 
• Attempts to make forecasts, but all elements are very uncertain

Application in CCS context

• Dealing with Uncertainty in CCS Implementation: CCS involves uncertainties at multiple levels, including technical feasibility, long-term storage security, and environmental impacts, as well as socio-political acceptance:

1. Epistemological Uncertainty: Scientific understanding of CCS, including how effectively CO2 can be sequestered for long periods and the risk of leakage, is still evolving. Post-normal science recognizes that knowledge is incomplete and continually advancing, requiring decision-making under uncertainty.
2. Ethical Uncertainty: Ethical concerns also arise, such as whether CCS might enable continued fossil fuel use instead of transitioning to renewable energy.

• Stakeholder Involvement and Extended Peer Communities: CCS, like many large-scale environmental technologies, requires engagement from diverse stakeholders to ensure that the values, perspectives, and knowledge of all relevant groups are considered:

1. Extended Peer Community: Post-normal science emphasizes the involvement of an extended peer community beyond traditional scientific experts. For CCS, this could include local communities, NGOs, legal experts, policymakers, industry players, and environmental activists.
2. Democratization of Science: Including stakeholders in the CCS process helps democratize science, allowing non-expert voices to shape decision-making. For example, communities living near potential storage sites need to be involved to address concerns about safety, land use, and local impacts.

• High Stakes and Urgent Decision-Making in CCS: The stakes for deploying CCS are incredibly high due to the urgent need to mitigate climate change, and the decisions made now will have long-lasting implications:

1. High Decision Stakes: The success or failure of CCS has implications for global climate goals. If CCS is deployed at scale and works as intended, it could remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, helping meet net-zero targets. However, if CCS fails due to technical, economic, or social barriers, it could waste valuable time and resources in the fight against climate change.
2. Urgency of Action: Post-normal science recognizes the urgency of making decisions even when the science is incomplete. In the case of CCS, waiting for perfect knowledge is not an option because of the immediate need to reduce atmospheric CO2.

Definition

• combination of a person’s value orientation and his or her view on how to understand the world and the capabilities it offers. They are the lens through which the world is seen. (p.688) --> individual's perception

Characteristics

• (often unconscious) mental habits, frames and assumptions, of which worldviews are composed
• might not immediately seem to be relevant to contributors of the SD debate, but exactly these kinds of cultural mechanisms or ‘filters’ are the basis on which humans decide how to act, according to their perception of the environment and reality.
• It shapes their beliefs in nature and in the world-as-a-whole  
• expansionist and ecological worldview 
• Worldviews are critical to sustainability transformations as they represent the deepest leverage areas for change 

Worldview construction

• process of developing and shaping individual or collective perspectives on the world
• includes values, beliefs, and interpretations of reality.
• Dynamic process can evolve over time as individuals or groups engage in dialogue and learning.  
• --> collective, dynamic process that involves dialogue, learning, and ethical considerations, all aimed at fostering a shared understanding necessary for sustainable development

Types of worldviews

• Modern worldview: characterized by

1. scientific rationalism,
2. reductionism,
3. linear progress,
4. anthropocentrism, and
5. a separation of nature (exploitation) and society 

• Indigenous worldview:

1. Relational worldview = People and entities come together to help and support one another in their relationship.
2. Emphasis on Interconnectedness of humans and nature; People's behaviour towards nature depends on what people think about themselves in relation to the surrounding environment. 
3. Emphasis on spirit and spirituality
4. sense of a community tied together by familial relations and the families’ commitment to it 
5. Conservation-oriented practices of people with this worldview in the tend to be grounded in their human-as-part-of-nature worldview which requires respect for other beings even as they are disturbed, cut, killed or consumed 

Application in CCS context

• Modern worldview:

1. Separation of Nature and Society: In this worldview, nature is often viewed as a resource to be managed. CCS is seen as a way to protect the atmosphere by treating it as a system separate from human society, where carbon emissions can be captured and stored away from public view. The focus is on controlling environmental impacts without necessarily addressing the deeper relationship between society’s consumption patterns and nature’s health.
2. Linear Progress and Anthropocentrism: Those with a modern worldview may see linear progress in the fight against climate change, with CCS as a step in that progression. They may believe that humans, as the dominant species, can continue to exploit nature for resources, but need to develop tools like CCS to mitigate the harmful side effects. The emphasis on human control over nature (anthropocentrism) leads to a belief that CCS can help continue economic growth while addressing the environmental impacts of industrialization.

• Indigenous Worldview:

1. Conservation-Oriented Practices: Many indigenous groups have long practiced sustainable living, based on the belief that humans should take from nature only what is needed and in ways that respect the natural world. CCS, as a technology that manages waste from industrial processes, may be seen as a symptom of an unsustainable, exploitative relationship with nature rather than a solution. For those with this worldview, addressing climate change might involve rebalancing human activity with natural processes, focusing on regenerative practices rather than large-scale technological interventions.
2. Relationality and Interconnectedness: In an indigenous worldview, nature is seen as a living system, deeply interconnected with humans. The idea of capturing and storing CO₂ may be perceived as artificial and potentially harmful to the balance of ecosystems. The concern may be that CCS disrupts natural cycles rather than restoring balance.

Definition

• Reflexive knowledge production: process that encourages continuous questioning and critical evaluation of one's own worldview and the diverse worldviews of others 
• Knowledge types: Interconnectedness of ideas, theories, and methods for Human-nature connectedness --> six broad knowledge themes that represent different ways of understanding sustainability. These themes reflect various perspectives on human-nature relationships. 

Characteristics

• Reflexive knowledge production:

1. transition from a cycle of nonreflexive knowledge production, which is characterized by a lack of awareness and reinforcement of dominant perspectives, to a more holistic and adaptive cycle that fosters deeper understanding and connection among individuals and nature 

• Knowledge types: Interconnectedness of Knowledge Types: Knowledge themes are not mutually exclusive; --> relationships based on shared concepts incl. intersecting disciplinary or cultural origins, which can enhance understanding and facilitate sustainability transformations 

1. Indigenous Knowledge: holistic understandings of interconnectedness among all living and non-living entities, incorporates spiritual, emotional, and cultural dimensions, highlighting the importance of place and context in sustainability practices. 
2. Local, place-based knowledge:  refers to the understanding and insights that individuals or communities develop based on their specific geographical and cultural contexts, rooted in the experiences and practices of local populations, particularly Indigenous communities. 
3. Systems-Thinking: understanding complex interactions and feedback loops within ecological systems, holistic view but can sometimes abstract the lived experiences of individuals. 
4. Relational Thinking: This perspective challenges anthropocentric views by recognizing the agency of non-human entities, dynamic understanding of relationships between humans and nature, emphasizing interconnectedness. 
5. Inner, subjective knowledge: refers to the personal, introspective understanding that individuals develop about their experiences, emotions, and connections to the world around them, importance of personal reflection and awareness in shaping one's worldview. 
6. Spiritual and Religious Knowledge: role of spirituality and religion in shaping values and beliefs related to sustainability, greater recognition of diverse spiritual practices and their contributions to sustainability discourse 

Takeaway is knowledge pluralization

• recognition and integration of diverse forms of knowledge and perspectives.
• Emphasis on importance of valuing multiple ways of knowing --> enhancing understanding & foster more effective solutions to complex problems, particularly in sustainability contexts. 

Definition

• Systems knowledge: basic understanding of the problems, components, and dynamics of social-ecological systems. System knowledge focuses on analysing and describing scientific facts, theoretical and empirical aspects, and state-of-the-art knowledge  
• Target knowledge: knowledge about one’s own and others’ motives (goals, interests, preferences, values, normative beliefs), which relates to ideas of how a system ought to be --> aspiration of how current system should be
• Transformative knowledge: knowledge about how change can be achieved and managed. Combined with system and target knowledge, transformative knowledge allows a desired state to be attained

Characteristics

• Systems knowledge:

1. Descriptive knowledge
2. Within a system: system knowledge addresses the context and components of the social-ecological mechanisms at hand
3. Between systems: it becomes more complex to incorporate actors’ knowledge about parts of the different linked systems, and knowledge about how changes in one system can lead to changes in others
4. System knowledge integration: The two main goals of system knowledge integration are (i) reducing informational uncertainties, e.g., by integrating experiential knowledge from local actors with data from researchers; and (ii) building a shared understanding of components and processes within and between social-ecological systems

• Target knowledge:

1. Normative knowledge
2. Target knowledge not identical with motives but the conscious result of the process of perceiving, processing and remembering information about one’s own and others’ motives.
3. Target knowledge integration: The two main objectives of target knowledge integration are to achieve (i) a reduction of normative uncertainties regarding the motives of societal actors (i.e. a better mutual understanding of respective motives)  and reaching (ii) a convergence of the actors’ motives (including a reduction of conflicts between motives and actors) for different motives among actors --> objectives depend on actors’ willingness to exchange knowledge (and thus to achieve an understanding of each other’s motives), to deal with dissenting motives, and to accept and even adopt others’ motives.
4. Integration between system and target knowledge: Goal: Evaluation of problem relevancy, based on system knowledge and target knowledge. Only by combining understanding of social-ecological systems’ problems (systems knowledge) with knowledge, which relates to actors’ motives (goals, interests, preferences, values, normative beliefs) (target knowledge), understanding of problems becomes important to actors --> problems are relevant and should be solved  

• Transformative knowledge:

1. includes practical expertise, problem-solving competences, and implementation of measures (e.g. strategies, sets of instruments, tools, actions, behavior), integrates cognitive forms of “knowing” with practical notions of “doing”  
2. Transformative knowledge integration: The two main goals of transformative knowledge integration are (i) the integration of measures into societal contexts, including a reduction of conflicts between contradictory knowledge claims of actors regarding effective or necessary measures; and (ii) empowerment that enables actors to increase their power and autonomy and actively participate in transformation processes in the long term, even beyond a project’s lifetime 
3. Integration between target and transformative knowledge: Goal: co-creation of a shared vision among the actors. This relates to a desired (future) state of the respective social-ecological system and includes a prioritization of targets for changing the system 

• Knowledge integration and barriers (see table)

Application in CCS context

• System knowledge:

1. Technical Knowledge
2. Environmental Dynamics
3. Economic Systems
4. Integration: To reduce uncertainties about the effectiveness, risks, and socio-political acceptance of CCS, it is crucial to integrate scientific data with experiential knowledge from local actors

• Target knowledge:

1. Climate Goals
2. Economic Interests
3. Environmental Justice and Public Values:
4. Integration: engaging in dialogue between different actors to reduce conflicts and reach a mutual understanding of each other’s motives. For instance, balancing the economic motives of industry with the environmental values of communities requires cooperation and negotiation, allowing for compromise and alignment of goals (e.g., decarbonization).

• Transformative knowledge:

1. Policy and Regulation
2. Public Engagement and Communication
3. Learning and Adaptation
4. Integration: Transformative knowledge integration involves embedding CCS measures within the broader societal context and empowering stakeholders to participate in the transformation process. This includes resolving conflicts over how CCS is implemented and ensuring that all stakeholders, including local communities and industries, have the knowledge and capacity to actively contribute to the change

• Integration between Systems & Target knowledge: involves evaluating how CCS fits within broader social-ecological systems and aligning scientific understanding of CCS (systems knowledge) with societal goals and values (target knowledge). For instance, while CCS may be technically feasible, it is only relevant if it aligns with public goals (e.g., reducing carbon emissions) and addresses concerns about safety and environmental impact
• Integration Between Target and Transformative Knowledge: This focuses on the co-creation of shared visions for the future. In CCS, this might involve bringing together stakeholders to agree on how CCS can contribute to a low-carbon economy and what measures are necessary to achieve that goal. It requires identifying and prioritizing the targets for CCS implementation, such as which industries to prioritize and how to ensure equitable outcomes.

Definition

• Indigenous and local knowledge systems (Hill et al., p. 12, 2020):

1. bodies of integrated, holistic, social and ecological knowledge, practices and
2. beliefs pertaining to the relationship of living beings, including people, with one another and with their environments.
3. grounded in territory,
4. highly diverse and is continuously evolving through the interaction of experiences, innovations and various types of knowledge (written, oral, visual, tacit, gendered, practical and scientific).
5. --> knowledge can provide information, methods, theory and practice for sustainable ecosystem management.
6. at the interface between biological and cultural diversity

Challenges

• Cultural Context Specificity: Beliefs and practices related to ILK are often deeply rooted in specific cultural contexts, making them difficult to share or understand across different groups. For instance, the health of a species may be linked to particular resource use practices or ceremonies that are unique to a local community, complicating the integration of this knowledge into broader scientific frameworks. 
• Recognition of ILK Systems: Previous attempts to incorporate ILK into citizen science (CS) initiatives have faced criticism due to insufficient recognition of place-based ILK systems. This lack of acknowledgment can undermine the relevance and capacity of ILK to guide local governance and ecosystem management, leading to missed opportunities for effective stewardship. 
• Procedural and Substantive Risks: Engaging with ILK involves both procedural risks (related to project delivery and participation of ILK holders) and substantive risks (which may undermine the integrity of ILK systems). These risks require careful consideration to ensure that the engagement does not inadvertently harm the very systems it aims to support. 
• Communication Barriers: There is often a gap in understanding between scientific knowledge and ILK. Efforts must be made to ensure that knowledge contributions from both sides are comprehensible to each other. This includes translating scientific concepts into terms that are meaningful for local communities and vice versa. 
• Power Dynamics and Decision-Making: The power dynamics in collaborations can pose challenges, as decision-making authority often remains with external organizations rather than local communities. This can lead to a lack of trust and engagement from ILK holders, who may feel that their knowledge and rights are not being respected.

Application in CCS context

• Application highly depends on CCS site location

1. Shared Decision-Making Authority
2. Inclusive Decision-Making
3. Sustainable Ecosystem Management
4. Site Selection and Impact Assessment

Definition

• Science-based framing: scientist is interested in topic where local knowledge is included as data provider; Scientific approaches are applied 
• Knowledge based approach: not one single starting point, include stakeholders on same level, combine. Emphasis on multiple views and knowledge types; Avoid putting scientific processes on local communities (misunderstandings, not appreciating cultural contexts) 

Foundation of Knowledge:

• Science-Based Framing: This approach is grounded in empirical data and scientific methods, focusing on quantitative measurements and standardized indicators. It often prioritizes scientific expertise and objectivity in assessing environmental issues. 
• Knowledge System Approaches: These encompass a broader spectrum of knowledge, including Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) systems. They value qualitative insights and long-term observations that may not conform to scientific standards, emphasizing the importance of cultural context and local practices. 

Decision-Making Dynamics:

• Science-Based Framing: Decisions are typically made by experts based on scientific findings, which can lead to a top-down approach. This may result in the exclusion of local perspectives and the complexities inherent in social-ecological systems. 
• Knowledge System Approaches: These promote participatory decision-making, where local communities and knowledge holders are actively involved. This collaborative process fosters more contextually relevant and culturally sensitive solutions, enhancing community engagement and ownership. 

Indicators of Success: 

• Science-Based Framing: Success is often measured through quantitative indicators, such as species counts or pollution levels. While these metrics are valuable, they may not capture the full spectrum of ecosystem health or community well-being. 
• Knowledge System Approaches: These may include qualitative indicators that reflect local values and cultural significance, providing a more comprehensive view of sustainability. This holistic understanding is crucial for addressing the multifaceted nature of environmental challenges.

Importance of Understanding These Differences: 

• Holistic Solutions: Recognizing the distinctions between these approaches allows for a more integrated understanding of sustainability challenges. Combining scientific data with local knowledge can lead to more effective and inclusive solutions that consider both ecological and social dimensions. 
• Strengthened Collaboration: Understanding these differences fosters better collaboration between scientists and local communities. Valuing both knowledge systems can enhance partnerships, leading to strategies that are more likely to be accepted and successfully implemented. 
• Adaptability and Resilience: Knowledge system approaches often emphasize adaptability and resilience, which are critical for addressing the dynamic nature of sustainability challenges. By incorporating diverse perspectives, solutions can be more flexible and responsive to changing conditions 

Application in CCS context

• Science Based Framing:

1. CO₂ Monitoring and Leakage Detection
2. Quantitative Risk Assessment
3. Performance Metrics

• Knowledge Systems approach

1. Engagement with Local Knowledge Holder (ecological observations)
2. Culturally sensitive site selection

Definition

• designed to facilitate effective collaborations between diverse knowledge systems, particularly between Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) and scientific knowledge.

Characteristics

• Mobilizing Knowledge Systems: need to articulate local knowledge for sharing, using culturally appropriate methods 
• Translate Contributions: translate concerns of efforts to make sure that different knowledge contributions make sense to representatives from different knowledge systems 
• Analyzing/ bringing different knowledge contributions together: representatives from different knowledge systems need to be involved in analyzing and negotiating whether the contributions are overlapping, converging, or diverging. An important part is acknowledging that some aspects may be in disagreement—for example, stemming from incommensurable aspects of different knowledge systems. 
• Synthesizing Knowledge: To synthesize entails shaping a broadly accepted common knowledge that maintains the integrity of each knowledge system, as is illustrated in figure by the braided strands, rather than integrating aspects of one knowledge system into another.  
• Applying Knowledge: When applying the knowledge, it is critical to recognize benefits and outcomes of the collaboration that can feed into different kinds of interests and needs—that is, that of local communities as well as researchers or regional decisionmakers.

Advantages

• These tasks collectively guide the development of collaborative initiatives that build on and strengthen ILK systems while fostering ethical and reciprocal relationships between knowledge holders. 

Definition

• collaborative approach that combines diverse expertise and stakeholder engagement to create relevant and actionable knowledge 
• essential for addressing complex challenges, such as sustainability, where multiple perspectives and experiences are crucial for developing effective solutions 

Characteristics

• Collaboration Across Disciplines: Joint knowledge production often involves interdisciplinary collaboration, where experts from different fields contribute their insights and methodologies.  
• Engagement with Stakeholders: In joint knowledge production, stakeholders such as policymakers, community members, and industry representatives are actively involved in the research process.  
• Iterative Learning Process: The process of joint knowledge production is typically iterative, involving continuous feedback and adaptation.  
• Shared Ownership of Knowledge: One of the hallmarks of joint knowledge production is the shared ownership of the knowledge created.  
• Practical Application: The ultimate aim of joint knowledge production is to produce actionable knowledge that can inform policy and practice. 

Definition

• critical process in policy design that involves defining and organizing complex issues to facilitate effective decision-making and action.

Characteristics

• Cognitive-Analytic and Political-Interactive Process: Problem structuring is not just about analytical thinking; it also involves understanding the political dynamics at play. It requires both cognitive skills to analyse the problem and political skills to navigate the interactions among stakeholders. 
• Transforming Messy Situations: The process aims to translate unstructured problems, which are often perceived as chaotic, into more structured and manageable policy problems. This transformation allows for collective action and targeted solutions. 
• Iterative Process: Problem structuring is iterative, involving several functions such as problem sensing, categorization, decomposition, and definition. Each of these functions helps refine the understanding of the problem and leads to more effective policy design. 
• Political Timing and Thoughtfulness: Successful problem structuring also requires an understanding of political timing and the ability to act thoughtfully. This means knowing when to push for change and when to hold back, which is as important as analytical skills. 
• Realistic Opportunities for Improvement: A well-structured problem should be seen as a realistic opportunity for improvement, aligning with the standards or feelings of stakeholders involved. This ensures that the problem definition is actionable and relevant 

Guiding Principles: Effective problem structuring is guided by four key principles:

1. Problem Sensitivity: Being aware of the nuances and complexities of the problem. 
2. Frame Reflectiveness: Reflecting on how the problem is framed and understood by different stakeholders. 
3. Forward and Backward Mapping: Alternating between different mapping styles to explore the problem and potential solutions. 
4. Puzzling and Powering: Balancing analytical exploration with the political aspects of policy-making. 

4 problem types

• Structured problem

1. Policy designers feel near consensus on normative issues at stake 
2. -> it is known how the problematic situation can be turned into an improved, desirable, unproblematic future e.g. domesticated problems with a low complexity such as statehood, building/paving roads, many problems of medical nature 
3. --> can be solved by administrative implementation/ professional routine 

• Unstructured 

1. Discomfort with status quo, but uncertainty about science/ volatility in mass and elite opinion 
2. Strong conflict about values at stake --> Any attempt to solve this problem causes additional conflict 
3. Disagreement what puzzle pieces are part of the "puzzle"/problem and how it can be solved e.g. cloning, xenotransplantation

• Moderately structured (goals/ends) 

1. Agreement on norms/principles/ands and goals 
2. Uncertainty about relevance/ reliablity of knowledge --> causes discussions on what research can help gain knowledge to solve problem 
3. Often problems of bargaining about responsible person to finance/enable the intervention e.g. traffic safety/ fighting obesity

• Moderately structured (means) 

1. Relevant & required knowledge; discussions about normative claims involved; 
2. Ambiguity about values e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage, smoking 

--> Moderately & unstructured problems: problem-solution couplings, Problem can be classified differently by the different stakeholders involved  

Challenges

• Difference between reality and a desired situation --> all problems are socially constructed 

Application in CCS context

CCS can be categorized primarily as a moderately structured problem (goals/ends) because there is consensus on the need to reduce CO₂ emissions, but uncertainty remains regarding the best methods and technologies to achieve these goals.

Definition

• science is strictly separated from decision-making processes in society from the production of basic knowledge to its use and the societal benefits it generates  

Characteristics

• In order to achieve this progress, science is seen to adhere to a set of professional norms (CUDOS): Communalism (willingness to share knowledge), Universality (everybody can join the search for universal truths), Disinterestedness (knowledge production is not tainted by personal interests), Organized Scepticism (knowledge must be critically scrutinized and tested by peers)

Advantages

• protects the autonomy and authority of science from corrupting influence (demarcation)

Challenges

• science produces not only societal benefits but also damage (e.g Atomic bombs, pesticedes) 
• basic science is not independent from societal and political concerns  
• linear model assumed that no extra effort was necessary to ensure the effective use of knowledge  
• implies simplistic and naïve understanding of decision-making processes, in which scientific knowledge unproblematically translates into action: 'if we all agree on the facts we will know what to do'.  
• The linear model does not take into account the complexity of environmental issues  
• The linear model is also undesirable from a perspective of democratic legitimacy, because it envisions a technocratic society, with highly restricted political debate 
• knowledge production processes in science are associated with values of neutrality, objectivity and truth, societal processes of decision making are often associated with taking sides, 
• subjectivity and power -> problems arise when science and society meet 
• politicization of science: influence of political agendas on scientific research, often leading to biased outcomes that can undermine scientific integrity, as illustrated by historical examples like the misuse of eugenics during the Nazi regime 
• scientization of politics involves the integration of scientific knowledge into political decision-making processes, which can enhance the legitimacy and relevance of policies. However, this relationship is complex, as it can also lead to the perception of science as politically neutral, obscuring the inherent power dynamics and biases that shape both scientific inquiry and policy formation (Clark, 2011)  

Definition

• enables us to see “[w]ho is empowered through knowledge, and to what ends” (Jasanoff 2004b, p. 33)
• Conceptualizing boundary organizations as political spaces in which science and policy are co-produced through boundary work, therefore, helps to treat diverse forms of knowledge and environmental representations in more balanced ways. 

Application in CCS context

• oundary organizations play a critical role as political spaces where scientific, local, and political knowledge can be negotiated and integrated.
• By adopting this approach, CCS initiatives can be designed and implemented in ways that respect the diverse knowledge systems involved, ensuring that the technology serves both climate goals and community needs.

Definition

• practices and strategies that individuals and groups use to create distinctions between different domains, such as science, policy, and society.
• defining what counts as valid knowledge and who gets to participate in various discussions.
• emphasizes that boundaries are not fixed but are negotiated and modified over time through social interactions and debates

Characteristics

• Demarcation:

1. crucial for defining the boundaries between different domains, such as science, policy, and society.
2. Helps to establish what constitutes valid knowledge and who is considered an expert.
3. By clearly delineating these boundaries, boundary work protects scientific practices from unwanted interference and maintains the integrity of scientific discourse.
4. Essential in ensuring that scientific knowledge is respected and utilized appropriately in decision-making processes. 

• Cooperation:

1. vital for effective boundary work among various stakeholder
2. Fosters collaboration & mutual understanding allowing integration of diverse perspectives and knowledge systems
3. --> can lead to more relevant & applicable research outcomes due to sharing of insights and resources

• Coordination:

1. essential for managing the relationships and interactions between different practices and domains
2. organizing tasks and responsibilities among participants to ensure that knowledge production and application are aligned with societal needs
3. Helps to navigate complexities of boundary work, allowing for the establishment of common goals and shared understanding among stakeholders
4. important in expert committees and advisory councils, where close cooperation is necessary to provide usable knowledge and informed advice

Challenges

--> “Context matters for understanding and designing boundary work.” (Clark et al, p. 4620; 4616) 

• The lack of agreement in boundary work is due to not recognizing the different types of boundary work being done. 
• boundary work varies greatly even within one research program, influenced by the context of knowledge use.
• Understand boundary work by focusing on the source and intended use of knowledge:

1. When knowledge is used for enlightenment, the main challenge is to establish credibility across different knowledge areas. 
2. For decision-making, the challenge is to ensure the knowledge is relevant and useful to the decision-maker. 
3. In negotiation contexts, the legitimacy of knowledge becomes crucial, especially when multiple parties have conflicting interests. 

• The most complex boundary work involves many competing knowledge sources and political interests, requiring a common understanding. 
• Both knowledge producers and users must consider the political effects of their interactions in boundary work contexts 

Application in CCS context

• Demarcation in CCS:

1. Establishing Scientific Authority: In CCS, scientists and engineers hold the technical expertise to determine whether specific geological formations are suitable for storing CO₂, how effective capture technology is, and how long CO₂ can be safely stored. Boundary work helps delineate this scientific domain from other domains, ensuring that scientific practices are respected and protected from outside interference. 
2. Incorporating Local Knowledge: define the role of local and Indigenous knowledge in CCS projects e.g. on land use, resource management, and social impacts.

• Cooperation

1. Fostering Collaboration
2. Mutual Understanding

• Coordination in CCS:

1. Task Coordination
2. Navigating Complexity

• Challenges in Boundary Work for CCS:

1. Context Matters
2. Lack of Agreement

Definition

• Boundary objects are tools or artifacts (Computer models, test protocols and standardized tests) that incorporate a previously settled division of labour between the work of experts and the work of policy makers (coordinate work).

Characteristics

• They are designed to be flexible enough to be interpreted in various ways by different stakeholders while maintaining a common structure. Collaborative products such as reports, models, maps, or standards that “are both adaptable to different viewpoints and robust enough to maintain identity across them” (Clarke)

Examples

• For example, a scientific report can serve as a boundary object by providing a shared reference point for scientists and policymakers, allowing them to engage in discussions despite their differing perspectives. Objects have intrinsive meaning (Climate models, IPCC report for policy makers) 

Application in CCS context

1. Computer Models for CCS Deployment
2. Standardized Testing and Protocols
3. Reports and Policy Documents
4. CCS Pilot Projects as Boundary Objects
5. Carbon Accounting Standards

Definition

• entities (intermediary domain, e.g the IPCC) that operate at the intersection of science and policy, aiming to bridge the gap between knowledge production and its application.

Characteristics

• They help to connect scientific knowledge with decision-making processes while maintaining a degree of separation between the two domains.

Challenges

• being perceived as scientific without being seen as part of the scientific community, and they must navigate the complexities of both knowledge production and policy-making. 

Definition

• Participatory knowledge production:

1. Action research: concerned with a symmetric approach to development, in which scientific experts do not tell the locals what is good for them,  but contribute to their empowerment by engaging in joint fact-finding and problem-solving processes. 
2. post-normal science: normal science is ill equipped to deal with current social and environmental problems and the high uncertainties, risks and stakes they involve.Waiting for scientific certainty is irresponsible and undertaking action is urgent. These situations require a post-normal approach that generates knowledge that is assessed and evaluated in extended peer review processes involving lay citizens 
3. mode-2 science:  new mode of knowledge production that occurred outside of traditional university boundaries and took place in a context of applications. involves stakeholders and is considered to be problem-oriented, socially robust and better able to deal with complex problems. In contrast to action research and postnormal science, which constitute approaches that can be applied to specific cases, mode-2 science denotes the large-scale transformation of systems of knowledge production in society.  
4. Transdisciplinary research: can be seen as mode-2's practical counterpart.  'a new form of learning and problem-solving involving co-operation between different parts of society and science in order to meet complex challenges of society. Transdisciplinary research starts from tangible, real-world problems. Solutions are devised in collaboration with stakeholders'  
5. --> The four concepts discussed have different backgrounds, with action research focusing on social-research in the global South, while the others are more Western-oriented (post-normal science, transdisciplinarity and mode-2 science) and emphasize natural sciences. 
6. They share key similarities, such as blending knowledge creation with practical use, involving stakeholders, and aiming for socially relevant knowledge rather than universal truths and they are problem-oriented and embedded in society through a focus and reflection on the implications of knowledge production.
7. Diverse skillset required from scientists, especially social skills

• Criteria of usable knowledge: 'often not clearly defined, they are subject to multiple interpretations and are difficult to assess empirically' (Turnhout/Halffman, p. 35 (2012))

1. Relevance: Knowledge needs to be timely and relate to the topics that are currently salient
2. Conformity: Knowledge needs to conform to the prior knowledge, experiences and beliefs of the users
3. Quality: Knowledge should meet scientific standards regarding objectivity, methodology and accuracy
4. Action-oriented: knowledge should offer a direction for action, for example by presenting alternatives
5. Challenging: knowledge should be interesting and challenging for example by offering new perspectives or innovative ideas

Application in CCS context

• Action research

1. Empower communities by ensuring they have a voice in the decision-making process.
2. Create locally relevant solutions by incorporating Indigenous or local knowledge about land, ecosystems, and social impacts.
3. Build trust between stakeholders, reducing opposition to CCS projects through transparent, inclusive processes

• Post normal science

1. Extended peer review processes where local communities, environmental groups, and laypeople review and discuss CCS risks and benefits alongside scientific experts.
2. Risk communication that integrates both scientific data and community concerns, ensuring that policy decisions around CCS are robust, socially accepted, and timely

• Mode-2 Science:

1. Stakeholder involvement is crucial for ensuring the social robustness of CCS technologies. For instance, by involving industry players, local governments, and environmental NGOs, CCS research and implementation are more likely to address economic, regulatory, and social dimensions in ways that are sustainable and accepted by society.
2. This approach also enhances the resilience of CCS projects by incorporating knowledge from diverse sources, making them better suited to cope with complex problems like climate change mitigation.

• Transdisciplinary research:

1. Real-world problems, like the need to reduce CO₂ emissions and manage long-term storage risks, are addressed through a cooperative process that integrates scientific and non-scientific knowledge.
2. Stakeholders such as industrial engineers, environmental planners, and community leaders can work together to devise solutions that are not only technically feasible but also socially acceptable and environmentally just.

Types of scientists

• Pure scientist (linear model of science) 

1. focuses on research with absolutely no consider action for its use or utility
2. no direct connection with decision-makers 
3. Not possible in reality as funding always has to be justified 

• Science Arbiter (linear model of science) 

1. serves as a resource for the decision-maker, standing ready to answer factual questions that the decision-maker thinks are relevant 
2. recognizes that decision-makers may have specific questions that require the judgment of experts (Interaction)  

• Issue advocate (Post-Normal Science) 

1. focuses on the implications of research for a particular political agenda 
2. seeks to promote a particular decision 
3. Stealth Issue Advocate: unintentionally/or hiding the act as Issue Advocates, influencing policy without explicitly acknowledging their role in advocating for a specific outcome. -> solution act as honest broker by associating science with possible courses of action --> use science communication to advance a ‘hidden agenda’ 

• Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives (Post-Normal Science) 

1. engages in decision making by clarifying and, at times, seeking to expand the scope of choice available to decision-makers that allows for the decision-maker to reduce choice based on his or her own preferences and values 
2. enable the freedom of choice by a decision-maker 
3. seeks to place scientific understandings in the context of policy options 
4. Most scientists are not aware of their role --> all roles are important, but scientists have to choose 
5. "we should not view science as an activity to be kept separate from policy and politics but, instead, as a key resource for facilitating complicated decisions that involve competing interests in society. We want science to be connected to society. " (p.10)  

• Honest Issue Advocate (Bohman et al., 2018) 

1. argue for the role of an "honest issue advocate" because climate adaptation research needs to both raise political awareness and drive action without pushing a specific solution 
2. researchers must actively promote its importance while offering a range of options.  
3. The honest issue advocate blends positive framing of adaptation’s benefits with transparency about own biases, avoiding the pitfalls of "stealth advocacy." This approach helps ensure that adaptation becomes a political priority while maintaining the integrity of scientific advice.

Application of different roles

• Decision Context: The role scientists should adopt depends on the decision context, particularly: 

1. Values Consensus: The degree to which decision-makers agree on values and objectives. 
2. Uncertainty: The level of scientific and political uncertainty present in the decision-making context. -> the higher the more focus on policy options (p.19) 

Application in CCS context

• Honest Broker

1. Present multiple pathways for integrating CCS into broader climate mitigation strategies.
2. Help decision-makers understand the trade-offs between CCS and other options like renewable energy or carbon offsets.
3. Expand the scope of choices by considering diverse perspectives, including the views of local communities, industry stakeholders, and environmental groups.

• Honest issue advocate:

1. Raise political awareness of the need for large-scale carbon mitigation.
2. Advocate for more funding and research into CCS while acknowledging its limitations, such as high costs and potential ecological risks.
3. Promote CCS as part of a portfolio of solutions rather than the only solution.

Definition

• Science advice is given through various groups like commissions and committees, helping governments and the public make informed decisions. 

Characteristics

• Traditional views see policymaking as a straightforward process, where scientific facts lead to clear solutions, but this is often not the case. 
• Real-world policymaking is complex and involves many different ideas and influences, not just scientific expertise. 
• Different types of knowledge can compete in policy discussions, and values play a significant role in shaping decisions. 
• The relationship between science and policy is not simple; knowledge and values are intertwined in the decision-making process. 

Definition

• characterized by uncertainty in facts, disputes over values, high stakes, and the urgency of decision-making, as described in the context of 'post-normal science' → high uncertainties & decision-stakes → unstructured;

Examples:

• COVID, urbanisation

Application in CCS context

• Complexity of Interconnected Issues: CCS is not just a technical challenge of capturing and storing CO₂. It involves complex interactions between energy systems, economic structures, environmental goals, political agendas, and public acceptance. Any solution to CCS requires addressing multiple, intertwined issues like the energy transition, climate policy, industrial innovation, and the economic feasibility of long-term CO₂ storage.
• Technological Uncertainty and Advancement: The technology behind CCS is still evolving, and there are uncertainties about how it will develop and at what pace. Technological breakthroughs are needed to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of CO₂ capture and storage. However, relying on future technological advancements adds another layer of uncertainty to the planning and deployment of CCS.
• Ethical and Social Dimensions: CCS raises ethical questions. For instance, should countries invest heavily in CCS, which allows for the continued use of fossil fuels, or should they focus on phasing out fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy? Some argue that CCS enables "business as usual" for carbon-intensive industries, delaying the transition to more sustainable energy systems. Others view CCS as necessary to meet climate goals, particularly for hard-to-decarbonize sectors like cement and steel production.

Definition

• Unity and Mutual Belonging: Indigenous cosmologies perceive everything in the universe as interconnected. This sense of unity fosters a relationship where humans and nature are not separate entities but part of a larger whole. This interconnectedness is crucial for understanding sustainability from an indigenous viewpoint  

Characteristics:

• Reciprocal Relationships: indigenous peoples engage in reciprocal relationships with nature, where they take from the environment while also giving back. This is exemplified in the relationship between humans and sweetgrass, where harvesting by humans creates conditions for the plant's growth, illustrating a cycle of giving (Caretaking) and receiving. 

Definition

• Set of tools to integrate non-academic actors within scientific research, use citizens as knowledge provider (e.g Non-academic actors taking pictures of wildlife, counting birds, …)

Characteristics

• A science-based data interface and a collaborative pluralistic interface needs to be viewed in the context of human rights, claims to traditional estates and IPLC (Indigenous People & Local Communities) ongoing obligations or commitments to caring for their home 
• Continuous dialogue with ILK holders is essential to ensure that ILK historical and contextual complexities are not overlooked in CS initiatives
• includes collaboratively and iteratively designing the interfaces between knowledge systems  
• they can be mutually valuable and promote shared ownership of the outcomes 
• Acknowledge that significant efforts and resources are needed to develop and maintain broad engagement with ILK holders from the outset 
• Working with multiple knowledge systems requires scientists, ILK holders, and laypeople to embrace flexible, reflexive, diverse, and at times divergent modes of making meaning and truth claims. This requires epistemological agility

Advantages

• plays a significant role in promoting knowledge integration, particularly between scientific knowledge and Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) 
• CS has contributed to increasing the participation of laypeople (often defined as people who have not been trained in science) in science policy governance processes  

Challenges

• Cultural Sensitivity: Engaging IPLC in citizen science initiatives for CCS must be done with cultural sensitivity to avoid exploitation or tokenization of ILK
• Resource and Effort Requirements: Significant effort and resources are required to ensure meaningful and ongoing engagement with non-academic actors, particularly IPLC. This includes capacity building, dialogue facilitation, and long-term commitments from project leaders.
• Power Dynamics: Power imbalances between scientific institutions and local communities can pose a challenge. Efforts must be made to ensure equitable participation and that the knowledge and insights of local actors are valued and acted upon.

Application in CCS context

1. Monitoring CO₂ Leakage: (e.g., changes in vegetation health, water quality, or air quality)
2. Tracking Ecosystem Changes (e.g. counting species, plant health over time)
3. Transparent Risk Communication

Definition

• Evidence synthesis: Authoritative evidence synthesis, involving evaluation and integration of scientific knowledge from multiple disciplines and perspectives, is critical to inform effective and trusted brokerage.  
• Brokerage: Brokerage at the science–policy interface can be defined as a form of boundary function that generally has the following attributes
• Knowledge brokerage: Process of effectively transmitting the results of evidence synthesis to the policymaker (p. 3) 

Characteristics

• Evidence synthesis: Evidence synthesis can take many forms, from formal meta-analyses to literature review, or to constructing mathematical models to describe a system.
• Brokerage:

1. ensures alignment between the needs and request of the policy community and the evidence synthesis provided. 
2. that any evidence synthesis is robust, transdisciplinary, and has appropriate expert inputs.  
3. It ensures that the policy community and other audiences have a robust understanding of the implications of the evidence offered.  
4. Advice in the form of choices/options rather than making specific recommendations. 
5. policy advice minimizes the biases and values of those providing advice, and the advice is self-reflexive in that it communicates its own limitations and any unavoidable bias.  
6. It does not attempt to take a role in the policy choice process
7. “A significant portion of effective brokerage may come in the form of informal discussion, particularly early in the policy process or when seeking alignment of question and answer. In these cases, political and policy sensitivity may limit communication, and premature exposure can undermine trust.” (p.4) 

• Knowledge brokerage:

1. Adding underlying values to the transferred knowledge 
2. broker must take into account the dynamic nature of policymaking, and the epistemic and non-epistemic value-based perspectives of both providers and users of knowledge 

Application in CCS context

Definition

• Potential users are more likely to trust new knowledge when it meets these three criteria 
• Saliency & credibility are about the knowledge product (how relevant is the knowledge? Can we trust the knowledge?); Legitimacy is about the process of knowledge production: was knowledge produced while taking into account various
• Salience: relevance of knowledge to the users' needs and contexts 
• Credibility: knowledge generated in transdisciplinary research is trusted and accepted by all stakeholder -> credibility must be constructed for particular users in particular contexts using standards that work for them 
• Legitimacy: about the perception of fairness, lack of bias, and respect in the knowledge production process. Users need to see knowledge producers as genuinely trying to help them 

Characteristics

• Saliency:

1. Knowledge can become salient when knowledge producers recognize the knowledge needs that users say are most salient and adjust research agendas to supply it 
2. Related to relevancy: who is it relevant to & why; When knowledge is perceived as pertinent, it fosters greater engagement and collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and local communities, enhancing the overall impact of the research effort 

• Credibility

1. establishing the reliability and truthfulness of the knowledge claims made. Researchers must be aware of the different criteria that various stakeholders use to assess credibility, which may differ from traditional academic standards

• Legitimacy:

1. crucial for building trust among the different stakeholders in transdisciplinary research.  
2. Knowledge producers must demonstrate fairness, respect, and a genuine commitment to the values and beliefs of all participants. This can be achieved through collaborative processes that honor the contributions of all parties involved.

Application in CCS context

Definition

• approach of joint knowledge production by bringing together scientists and non-scientists, this knowledge is aimed for action  
• ‘Reflexive, integrative, method-driven scientific principle aiming at the solution or transition of societal problems, and concurrently of related scientific problems, by differentiating and integrating knowledge from various scientific and societal bodies of knowledge’’ (Popa, 2015, p.46) 
• establish agreement for stakeholder, what and how and why was knowledge produced 

Characteristics

• Aim: bridging the gap between solving real world problems & scientific innovation 
• --> Exploration of new options for solving societal problems 

Challenges

1. Lack of problem awareness or insufficient problem framing (-> result: lack of agreement on problem) 
2. Unbalanced problem ownership (partners science & practice) 
3. Insufficient legitimacy of team/ actors involved 
4. Conflicting methodological standards 
5. Lack of integration across knowledge types, organizational structures, communicative styles or technical aspects 
6. Reflexivity, as reflecting on own values and biases is hard 
7. Vagueness and ambiguity of results  
8. Fear to fail (retreating to pre-packaged solution) 
9. Limited case-specific solutions 
10. Tracking scientific and societal impacts (often occur with delay) 

--> Skills/ Mindsets needed to link knowledge to action 

How to address challenges

• Foster understanding & connect different disciplines 
• Boundary work & innovation systems --> current systems not enough to foster this 
• Have open conversations --> might be happy with same solution 
• Being aware how decision goes beyond immediate scope --> e.g glyphosate decision made for EU but affects stakeholders beyond EU; scenario analysis might help 

3 requirements for transdisciplinary research

1. Focuses on societally relevant problems 
2. Enables mutual learning of researchers of various disciplines & other stakeholders 
3. Creates knowledge that is solution oriented, socially robust & transferable 

Application in CCS context

• Joint Knowledge Production for Action in CCS

1. For example, joint knowledge production in CCS could involve:
2. Scientists providing expertise on the technical aspects of CO₂ capture, transportation, and storage.
3. Policymakers contributing insights into regulatory frameworks and public policy requirements.
4. Community leaders bringing in local concerns and values, such as environmental justice and the socio-economic impacts of CCS projects.
5. Industry stakeholders offering practical perspectives on the financial viability and implementation challenges of CCS technologies

• Reflexivity and Integration in CCS Development

1. For example, when considering where to site a CCS facility, reflexivity would prompt participants to think about:
2. Scientists reflecting on the ethical implications of their technical decisions, such as the risks of CO₂ leakage.
3. Policymakers considering how different communities might be disproportionately affected by the siting of CCS infrastructure (e.g., environmental justice concerns).
4. Industry stakeholders acknowledging potential conflicts between profit motives and long-term sustainability goals.

Definition

• Epistemic role of stakeholder involvement (how do we create knowledge): focuses on extending the peer community to better address complexity, uncertainty and values 
• Social role of stakeholder involvement (who are the knowledge holders): emphasizes the dimensions of democratic participation, social relevance and legitimacy-building 
• Descriptive-analytical orientation: understanding 
• Transformational orientation: Change 
• Complex systems approach modelling in order to understand  

1. struggles with reflexivity, focusing on social-ecological issues but neglecting researchers' values and beliefs. 
2. It lacks clarity on how to combine different research models, leading to an unstructured way of knowledge production. 

• technocratic transition management approach: understand + use knowledge to change status quo (non-radical change)  

1. performs moderately well in reflexivity, emphasizing learning and adaptation in socio-technical systems. 
2. It addresses long-term sustainability problems but lacks critical reflexivity on the values guiding social changes. 

• extended peer community approach: scientific + non-scientific stakeholders are involved 

1. performs moderately well in reflexivity, emphasizing learning and adaptation in socio-technical systems. 
2. It addresses long-term sustainability problems but lacks critical reflexivity on the values guiding social changes. 

• critical-transformational approach: address underlying societal structures to change (radical change, a lot of reflexivity) (mainly theoretical) 

1. performs moderately well in reflexivity, emphasizing learning and adaptation in socio-technical systems. 
2. It addresses long-term sustainability problems but lacks critical reflexivity on the values guiding social changes. 

Definition

• Collaborative Enterprise: The challenge of "mutual incomprehension" between knowledge producers (scientists) and users (practitioners) leads to irrelevant solutions.  
• Success is achieved when both groups collaborate to identify needs, co-design solutions, and evaluate outcomes together, creating mutual trust and ownership. 
• Systems Enterprise: Fragmentation in the innovation process—where different parts of a system (e.g., research, technology, policy) don’t align—prevents solutions from being effective. 
• A systems approach integrates diverse pieces of knowledge and innovation to ensure the solution addresses the whole system's needs. 
• Adaptive Enterprise: Resistance to learning from failure and adapting to changing conditions creates barriers.  
• An adaptive enterprise focuses on embracing errors, learning from past mistakes, and creating environments that encourage risk-taking and innovation for dynamic, tailored solutions. 
• Political Enterprise: Sustainability challenges are often seen as technical problems, but they are deeply political.  
• Researchers must acknowledge the political nature of knowledge production and engage with stakeholders to navigate power dynamics and foster change for sustainable outcomes.  

Application in CCS context

• Collaborative Enterprise

1. Barrier: In CCS, a significant gap often exists between the scientists who develop the technology and the practitioners (e.g., policymakers, industry stakeholders) who are responsible for implementing it. This "mutual incomprehension" can lead to solutions that are technically feasible but practically irrelevant or difficult to implement due to regulatory, financial, or social concerns.
2. Bridge: To overcome this, a collaborative enterprise in CCS should prioritize co-designing solutions with both knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (industry, policymakers, and communities).

• Systems Enterprise

1. Barrier: Fragmentation in the CCS development process—where research, policy, finance, and industrial implementation are often siloed—hinders the scalability and effectiveness of the technology. For example, researchers may focus on the technical efficiency of carbon capture without considering how it integrates into the broader energy system or aligns with existing regulatory frameworks.
2. Bridge: A systems enterprise approach to CCS emphasizes the integration of various sectors involved in its deployment. It would involve bringing together technical researchers, policymakers, industry leaders, and financial institutions to ensure that all aspects of the system—from technology development and financing to policy frameworks and public acceptance—are aligned. This can be done through cross-sector collaborations and the creation of governance frameworks that coordinate action across different parts of the system. By considering the entire value chain (from carbon capture to transportation and storage) and linking it to economic and policy frameworks, CCS solutions can be designed to meet the holistic needs of the entire system, rather than functioning as disconnected parts.

• Adaptive Enterprise

1. Barrier: One of the key barriers in CCS is the reluctance to acknowledge failures or adapt to new conditions. In many cases, setbacks in CCS projects (e.g., higher costs than expected, public opposition to CO₂ storage sites) are seen as disincentives rather than learning opportunities. Additionally, as CCS technologies develop, there can be resistance to changing course or adapting to new regulatory, financial, or technical realities.
2. Bridge: An adaptive enterprise approach would encourage learning from past mistakes and promoting flexibility in CCS project development. This involves creating an environment where failure is viewed as a critical step toward innovation. For example, if a particular CO₂ storage project encounters public opposition, this experience should be used to develop better community engagement strategies for future projects. Similarly, as new technologies emerge or regulations change, CCS projects should be able to adapt quickly. By creating feedback loops that allow for continuous learning and iteration, CCS projects can evolve in response to both successes and failures, ensuring they remain viable and effective over time.

Definition

• Critically assessing values, assumptions, normative orientations that shape research processes 

Characteristics

• “Without an explicit reflexive dimension, transdisciplinary is confronted with the risk of either being reduced to formal social consultation, with no real impact in how knowledge is generated or integrated into policy-making, or evolving towards a politicized form of ‘democratic science’ in which epistemic aspects are subordinated to procedures of social legitimation.” (Popa, p. 47) 
• Jahn et al.: ‘‘bringing reflexivity into processes of knowledge production is both the claim and main purpose of the transdisciplinary research practice’’ (pp. 2–3)(Popa p. 48) 
• encouraging researchers to critically examine their own values, assumptions, and the socio-institutional structures that influence their work.  
• critical self-awareness is essential for ensuring that research is relevant and accountable to societal needs. 
• allows researchers to engage with stakeholders, facilitating mutual learning and co-production of knowledge 
• emphasizing the interconnectedness of epistemic, normative, and organizational aspects of science, reflexivity helps address complex social and ecological challenges, ensuring that scientific inquiry is responsive to real-world issues 
• Main Aspects of Reflexivity: Social Learning; Experimentation; critical acknowledgment of the values and assumptions 

Challenges

• Complexity of Stakeholder Engagement: Engaging diverse stakeholders with varying values, interests, and knowledge systems à need for consensus among participants often leads to challenges in maintaining open dialogue and genuine collaboration 
• Psychological Barriers: Participants may face significant psychological barriers when asked to question their own beliefs and values. Hard to reflect on own values; Complication: rooted biases are non-negotiable for some which can hinder working when trying to dismantle  
• Institutional Resistance: Established institutional norms and practices may resist changes brought about by reflexive processes.  
• Ambiguity in Reflexivity Concepts: The lack of a clear and universally accepted definition of reflexivity 

Pragmatist Perspective on Reflexivity

• scientific development is rooted in collaborative problem-solving not in criteria of rationality. 
• participants question and reframe their values and understandings through social interaction and experimentation 
• Reflexivity is not a passive reflection but a creative process where participants co-generate new meanings and understandings, fostering social innovation and experimentation 
• critiques the traditional segregation between facts and values, --> knowledge production as a social and reflexive process where credibility and legitimacy are defined collectively  
• integrate epistemic, normative, and organizational aspects of science, promoting a more democratic and socially relevant approach to sustainability research 

Definition

• research approach, real world issue, there should be room for experimentation in urban context. Include different Stakeholders
• Provides a forum for different KT to collaborate (s.h Joint knowledge production) 

Success factors

1. find the right balance between scientific and societal aims -> goal of scientists is writing papers, other SH want to change the status-quo  
2. address the practitioners needs and restrictions: knowledge is salient; how and to what degree can stakeholders be involved (time/funding,..) 
3. make use of the experimentation concept; dealing with failures, hard for decision makers (acknowledge if something didn’t work) 
4. actively communicate, internal and external communication 
5. develop a ‘collaboration culture’, about power balances and  
6. be attached to concrete sites, linked to urban projects, make it tangible and accessible, function as boundary object 
7. create lasting impact and transferability, continuing beyond project and results transferred to other situations 
8. plan for sufficient time and financial means, challenge: all SH have different time schedules, researches take time while policy makers want fast results 
9. adaptability, conditions change you have to change as well 
10. research-based learning, society and science learn from and with each other 
11. recognize dependance on external actors 

Challenges

• Within success factors are assumptions which will not work with other cultures, institutions and contexts (Collaboration Culture, governmental institutions, Linear model of science,…) 

Application in CCS context

1. Concrete Sites and Boundary Objects: CCS real-world labs could be attached to specific urban sites, such as waste incineration plants, power plants, or even urban infrastructure projects. These sites would act as "boundary objects," making CCS tangible and accessible to all stakeholders. The visible presence of CCS technology in urban settings can also help demystify the technology and facilitate public engagement.