Abstract
A huge tension exists between recognizing sustainable development (SD) as a meta-discourse and accepting a limitless interpretational width. We analyse the impacts of diversity of worldviews on the interpretation of SD—as a knowledge-based concept—through a critical literature review, resulting in recommendations on the topic. We apply a social-constructionist approach, appreciating the complex socio-ecological interactions at the heart of SD. Only recently worldviews are recognized as constitutive elements of SD. Little attention has been given to the impacts on generated knowledge for SD. Variety of worldviews induces a variety of knowledge claims and needs. To retain SD’s ‘universal’ appeal as practical decision-guiding strategy for policy and action, we propose an integrative approach towards knowledge for SD—entailing an explicit pluralization of knowledge. SD should be re-interpreted as a joint worldviews construct, embracing a diversity of views in collaborative research and co-production of knowledge. Interpreting SD as a joint endeavour is necessary to overcome historical obstacles like cultural hegemony and a hierarchy of knowledge systems. We identified the following requirements for an inclusive knowledge for SD paradigm: re-interpretation of SD as a worldview constructs in progress; interpretative flexibility; co-production of knowledge; subjectivity awareness and self-reflexivity; respect for a diversity of worldviews/knowledges; identifying shared goals; collaborative research; a systems approach; transdisciplinarity; and recognition of contextuality. Further research—concerning potential methodologies and typologies—to reconcile variety of worldviews and knowledge systems in a joint SD worldviews construct is urgently needed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Our Common Future serves as a vital milestone in the current SD debate for at least four reasons: (1) its famous mission statement, balancing the fulfilment of current human needs with the needs of future generations, is the trigger of the bulk of sustainability initiatives worldwide, (2) it established SD as a substantial component of international development thinking and practice, (3) it initiated an explosion of work on the theme (Sneddon et al. 2006), and (4) it represents the worldwide breakthrough and popularization of the sustainability concept. Picking up ideas from previous milestones, the report might be less intellectually innovative, but it is remarkably so politically (Dresner 2002). (Based on Waas et al. 2011).
Haverkort and Reijntjes (2007: 431) apply worldviews to environmental issues and provide the following definition: ‘Worldview: (or cosmovision) the way a certain population perceives the world (or cosmos). It includes assumed relationships between the human world, the natural world and the spiritual world. It describes the perceived role of supernatural powers, the relationship between humans and nature, and the way natural processes take place. It embodies the premises on which people organise themselves, and determines the moral and scientific basis for intervention in nature’.
Within a worldview, two kinds of assumptions about the world can be distinguished: (1) prescriptive assumptions, which are subjective/personal and refer to value orientations (to the question about the importance of certain things over others); (2) descriptive assumptions—which have a more shared and objective character—refer to mental maps about how the world functions (to belief systems). The latter frame the way in which the ‘chosen’ prescriptive assumptions can be reached or maintained. (Rokeach 1973).
Apostel (2002: 35) based his theory on the following postulates:
-
totality exists
-
we can all partially know and understand this totality
-
we must try (as good as we can) to know and understand this totality as a whole
-
by doing so, we can (1) choose and act in a more correct way; (2) have a more broad and rich value-experience and emotional life; (3) partially and temporarily forget all human suffering by this insight.
-
For an exhaustive overview of the history of the worldviews concept, we refer to Naugle (2002).
Blommaert and Verschueren (1998: 35) suggest (referring to Obermeier 1986 on the notion of ‘human rights’) that the avoidance of definitions entails an enormous strategic potential, because almost any referent can be assigned to ‘undefined’ terms in an ad hoc fashion. ‘One result of this ‘flexibility’ is that terms may acquire a contextual meaning which deviates considerably from the meaning which language users would take for granted, without the deviation being noticed’.
one particular (e.g. majority) vision dominating other (e.g. minority) visions.
‘language profoundly shapes our view of the world and reality, instead of being a neutral medium mirroring it’ (Hajer and Versteeg 2005).
Interpretative flexibility does not have to mean absolute relativism—which is self-contradictory—if it takes place within these interpretational limits.
We recognize an inherent difference between worldview and the more linguistic features of discourse. We understand discourse as ‘language-in-use’ (Wetherell et al. 2001) or to cite Van Dijk (1988 cited in Wodak 1996: 14) ‘both a specific form of language use, and as a specific form of social interaction, interpreted as a communicative event in a social situation’. We will—for the sake of clarity—not further elaborate on discourse and its implications for the interpretation of SD. For studies on the relation between SD and discourse we refer to Hajer and Versteeg (2005), Dryzek (2005), Dryzek and Niemeyer (2008) and Van Herzele (2006).
qualifying knowledge as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ in relation to scientific definitions.
Worldview construction needs to be interpreted as an undertaking that corrects and redirects itself constantly, and therefore, it has to renounce every definite character (Apostel and Vanlandschoot 1988: 33). This interpretation can than be linked with the dynamism principle of SD: the idea of SD as a process of directed change or an ongoing evolutionary process, and not as a defined end-state (Lafferty and Meadowcroft 2000; Waas et al. 2011; Robinson 2004).
Anthropologists use the terms emic and etic to refer to the inside and outside perspective on a culture.
This struggle was known as the ‘struggle over methods’ or ‘Methodenstreit’.
Escobar (1995) states that development discourses have coalesced to develop a ‘regime of truth’, an accepted way of describing and interacting with developing countries.
Smith (2009: 77) identifies three principles of ISA: (1) Innovation requires knowledge from multiple sources, including from users of that knowledge; (2) It involves those different sources of knowledge interacting with each other in order to share and combine ideas; (3) These interactions and processes are normally very specific to a particular context, shaped by, for example, worldview.
With ‘effective’ we mean ‘effective in creating an equal and solid basis to enable a constructive dialogue—towards sustainability—between different worldviews’.
Molenaar (2007) sees the so-called ‘global stock of knowledge’ as a misnomer. Notwithstanding the global scope and ‘pretention’ of such knowledge or information, it is nevertheless derived from a social process of knowledge production. ‘… all knowledge systems from whatever culture or time, including the temporary technosciences, are based on local knowledge’ (Turnbull 1997: 485 cited in Molenaar 2007).
We want to emphasize the complementary character of both approaches, instead of creating the idea of an antagonism.
Senge et al. (1994) in Bell and Morse (2008) state that ‘a system is a perceived whole whose elements hang together because they continually affect each other over time and operate toward a common purpose’. A systems approach is often compared to the contrasting reductionist approach where the well-defined problem is in the mind of the scientist and a part of a complex whole is analysed. In a systems approach, the problem is shared by legitimate stakeholders, has flexible boundaries and is reviewed as a whole (Bell and Morse 2008).
It is an evolving process of knowledge construction (through the sharing of approaches) requiring deep co-operation between disciplines to arrive at a shared understanding of issues at hand (Blanchard and Vanderlinden 2010). Hulme and Toye (2006) speak of knowledge communities instead of disciplines. They argue that what matters is consensus on aims and methods within the community.
Blanchard and Vanderlinden (2010) and Jepson Jr. (2004) elaborate on reflexivity: sustainability science’s key interdisciplinarity feature implies that disciplines not only differ in subjects and methods, but also have different visions of the world. One has to transcend unconscious thinking processes by reflecting on one’s personal values, interests and representations. Reconciling different worldviews and assumptions on reality require innovative mechanisms (Sumner and Tribe 2008).
It will actually lead to ‘outside the box’ thinking and to the realisation of innovative solutions to respond to complex societal challenges.
References
Achterhuis, H. (1994). The lie of sustainability. In W. Zweers, & J. J. Boersema (Eds.), Ecology, technology and culture. Essays in environmental philosophy (pp. 198–203). Cambridge: The White Horse Press.
Aerts, D., Apostel, L., De Moor, B., Hellemans, S., Maex, E., Van Belle, H., et al. (1994). World views. From fragmentation to integration. Brussels: VUB Press.
Apostel, L. (2002). Wereldbeelden en ethische stelsels. Brussels: Vubpress. (In Dutch).
Apostel, L., & Vanlandschoot, J. (1988). Interdisciplinariteit, wereldbeeldenconstructie en diepe verspreiding als tegenzetten in een kultuurcrisis. Brussels: Centrum Leo Apostel (CLEA), Vrije Universiteit Brussel. (In Dutch).
Arts, B., & Buizer, M. (2009). Forests, discourses, institutions. A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 340–347.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143–180.
Banerjee, S. B. (2004). Masking subversion: Neocolonial embeddedness in anthropological accounts of indigenous management. Human Relations, 57(2), 221–247.
Barthes, R. (1973). Le plaisir du texte. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (In French).
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability indicators—measuring the immeasurable (2nd ed.). London: Earthscan.
Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1995). Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. In C. A. Perrings, et al. (Eds.), Biodiversity Conservation (pp. 281–299). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Blanchard, A., & Vanderlinden, J. P. (2010). Dissipating the fuzziness around interdisciplinarity: The case of climate change research. Sapiens, 3, 65–70.
Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (1998). Debating diversity. Analysing the discourse of tolerance. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1981). Le sens pratique. Paris: Ed.Minuit.
Boutilier, R. G. (2005). Views of sustainable development. A typology of stakeholders conflicting perspectives. In M. Starik, Sharma, S. Egri, C., & R. Bunch (Eds.), New horizons in research in sustainable organizations: Emerging ideas, approaches, and tools for practitioners and researchers. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. (downloadable from http://ssrn.com/author=331926).
Burgman, M., Carr, A., Godden, L., Gregory, R., McBride, M., Flander, L., et al. (2011). Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conservation Letters, 4, 81–87.
Buruma, I., & Margalit, A. (2004). Occidentalism: A short history of anti-Westernism. London: Atlantic Books.
Campbell, D. T. (1973). Quasi-experimental research. New York: Rand McNally.
Chambers, R. (1980). Understanding professionals: small farmers and scientists. IADS Occasional Paper, International Agriculture Development Service, New York.
Danek, P., Navratilova, A., Hildebrandova, M., & Stojanov, J. (2008). Approaching the other: The four projects of western domination. Olomouc: Palacky University press.
de Vries, B. J. M., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable development: An assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecological Economics, 68, 1006–1019.
Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E. (2007). Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement. Ecological Economics, 61(4), 617–626.
Dilthey, W. (1977). Gesammelte Schriften VIII, Weltanschauungslehre. Göttingen: B.G. Taubner Stuttgart, Vandenhecke en Ruppucht. (In German).
Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. New York: Pantheon Books.
Dresner, S. (2002). The principles of sustainability. London: Earthscan.
Dryzek, J. S. (2005). Politics of the earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 481–493.
DuPisani, J. (2006). Sustainable development—historical roots of the concept. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 3, 83–96.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development. The making and unmaking of the third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, A., & Young, J. C. (2007). Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation, 136, 271–282.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability. New York: Colombia University Press.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky, & D. Golden (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–273). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., & O’Connor, M. (1998). Challenges in the use of science for sustainable development. International Journal for Sustainable Development, 1, 99–107.
Geertz, C. (1994). The use of diversity. In R. Borofsky (Ed.), Assessing cultural anthropology (pp. 454–467). New York: McGrawhill.
Gibbons, M., Limogenes, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gill, J. H. (2002). Native American worldviews: An introduction. New York: Humanity Press.
Graham, T. C. (2002). Using reason for living to connect American Indian healing traditions. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXIX(1), 55–75.
Grist, N. (2008). Positioning climate change in sustainable development discourse. Journal of International Development, 20, 783–803.
Gross, L. W. (2003). Cultural sovereignty and Native American hermeneutics in the interpretation of the sacred stories of the Anishinaabe. Wicazo Sa Review, 18(3), 127–134.
Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7, 175–184.
Hart, M. A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of an indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1), 1–16.
Haverkort, B., & Reijntjes, C. (Eds.). (2007). Moving worldviews. Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable development. Leusden: ETC./Compas, Compas series on Worlviews and sciences 4.
Haverkort, B., & Rist, S. (2007). Endogenous development and bio-cultural diversity. The interplay of worldviews, globalization and locality. Leusden: Compas/CDE.
Hawley, A. W. L., Sherry, E. E., & Johnson, C. J. (2004). A biologists’ perspective on amalgamating traditional environmental knowledge and resource management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 5(1), 36–50.
Heylighen, F. (2000). World View. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Principia Cybernetica Web. http://pcp.lanl.gov/WORLVIEW.html. Accessed February 27, 2012.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52.
Hulme, D., & Toye, J. (2006). The case for cross-disciplinary social science research on poverty, inequality and well-being. Journal of Development Studies, 42, 1085–1107.
ICS - International Council for Science. (2002). Science and traditional knowledge. ISCU.
IPCC. (2007). In R. K. Pachauri, & A. Reisinger (Eds.), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Core Writing Team IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.
Jepson, E. J., Jr. (2004). Human nature and sustainable development: A strategic challenge for planners. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(1), 3–15. doi:10.1177/0885412204264529.
Kayikawa, Y., Ohno, J., Takeda, Y., Matsushima, K., & Komiyama, H. (2007). Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: An analysis of the citation network. Sustainability Science, 2, 221–231.
Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2007). Sustainable development: how to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 3, 5–14.
Laes, E., & Maes, F. (2008). Sustainability assessment: concepts and methodology. SEPIA Deliverable 1.1a. Research Programme ‘Science for a Sustainable Development’. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy.
Lafferty, W. M., & Meadowcroft, J. (2000). Implementing sustainable development. Strategies and initiatives in high consumption societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged worldview collide. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. 77–89). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press.
Lynam, A. (2012). Navigating a geography of sustainability worldviews: A developmental map. Journal of Sustainability Education, 3.
Maffi, L. (2006). Bio-cultural diversity for endogenous development: Lessons from research and on-the-ground experience. In Paper presented at the international conference on endogenous development and bio-cultural diversity, October 3–5, 2006, Geneva, Switzerland. www.bioculturaldiversity.net/papers.htm (last retrieved 9-6-2012).
Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: Science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice and policy, 2, 36–41.
McEwen, C. A., & Schmidt, J. D. (2007). Leadership and the corporate sustainability challenge: Mindsets in action. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1118071.
McKenzie, B., & Morrissette, V. (2003). Social work practice with Canadians of aboriginal background: Guidelines for respectful social work. In A. Al-Krenawi & J. R. Grahams (Eds.), Multicultural social work in Canada: Working with diverse ethno-racial communities (pp. 251–282). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Meadows, D. H. (1998). Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. Hartland Four Corners, VT: Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.
Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories, global designs. Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Molenaar, H. (2007). Communicating worldviews: articulating global and local knowledge. In B. Haverkort, & C. Reijntjes (Eds.), Moving worldviews. Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable development (pp. 117–135). Leusden: ETC./Compas, Compas series on Worlviews and sciences 4.
Müller, A. (2003). A flower in full blossom? Ecological economics at the crossroads between normal and post-normal science. Ecological Economics, 45, 19–27.
Nader, L. (1993). Comparative consciousness. In R. Borofsky (Ed.), Assessing cultural anthropology. New York: MacGrawhill.
Nakashima, D., & Roué, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge, peoples and sustainable practice. In T. Munn (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global environmental change. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Naugle, D. K. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
NUFFIC (IK-Unit) and MOST. (1999). Best practices using indigenous knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/most/Bpindi.htm.
NUFFIC (IK-Unit) and MOST. (2002). Best practices using indigenous knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/most/Bpikpub2.pdf.
Nurse, K. (2006). Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 19–27.
O’Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M., & Fiske, J. (2006). Key concepts in communication and cultural studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Obermeier, K. K. (1986). Human rights: An international linguistic hyperbole. In N. Schweda-Nicholson (Ed.), Languages in the international perspective (pp. 105–114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Olsen, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically. San Francisco: Westview Press.
Peat, F. D. (2002). From certainty to uncertainty. The story of science and ideas in the twentieth century. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Pepper, S. C. (1966). World hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pinxten, R. (2007). Contemporary comparative cultural studies: Theory, contexts and trends. In E. K. Boon & L. Hens (Eds.), Indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable development: Relevance for Africa (pp. 93–99). Delhi: Kamla-Raj Enterprises.
Prigonine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.
Quental, N., Lourenço, J. M., & da Silva, F. N. (2011). Sustainable development policy: Goals, targets and political cycles. Sustainable Development, 19, 15–29.
Ravetz, J. (1999). Post-normal science—an insight now maturing. Futures, 31, 641–646.
Redclift, M. (1992). The meaning of sustainable development. Geoforum, 23(3), 395–403.
Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 212–227.
Rice, B. (2005). Seeing the world with aboriginal eyes: A four dimensional perspective on human and non-human values, cultures and relationships on Turtle Iland. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Aboriginal Issues Press.
Rist, S., & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2006). Ethnosciences—a step towards the integration of scientific and indigenous forms of knowledge in the management of natural resources for the future. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8, 467–493.
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48, 369–384.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Sabau, G. L. (2010). Know, live and let live: Towards a redefinition of the knowledge-based economy—sustainable development nexus. Ecological Economics, 69, 1193–1201.
Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. London: Chatto and Windus.
Said, E. (1995). Orientalism (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Schlitz, M. M., Vieten, C., & Miller, E. M. (2010). Worldview transformation and the development of social consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(7–8), 18–36.
Scholz, R. W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., & Welti, M. (Eds.). (2000). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Zürich: Haffmanns Verlag.
Selin, H. (1977). Encyclopedia of the history of science, technology and medicine in nonwestern cultures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.
Senge, P., Ross, R., Roberts, C., Smith, B., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Simpson, L. (2000). Anishinaabe ways of knowing. In J. Oakes, R. Ries, S. Koolage, L. Simpson, & N. Schuster (Eds.), Aboriginal health, identity and resources (pp. 165–185). Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Native Studies Press.
Smith, J. (2009). Science and technology for development. London: Zed Books.
Sneddon, C., Howarth, R., & Norgaard, R. (2006). Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 57, 253–268.
Stern, N. (2006). Stern review on the economics of climate change (pre-publication edition). Executive summary. London: HM Treasury.
Sumner, A., & Tribe, M. (2008). Development studies and cross-disciplinarity: Research at the social science–physical science interface. Journal of International Development, 20(6), 751–767.
TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity—mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Turnbull, D. (1997). Knowledge systems: Local knowledge. In H. Selin (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology and medicine in Non-Western Cultures (pp. 485–490). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
UN (United Nations). (1993). Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information.
UNESCO. (2002). UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity. France: UNESCO.
Van der Ploeg, J. (1993). Potatoes and knowledge. In M. Hobart (Ed.), An anthropological critique of development (pp. 209–227). London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Egmond, N. D., & de Vries, H. J. M. (2011). Sustainability: The search for the integral worldview. Futures, 43, 853–867.
Van Herzele, A. (2006). A forest for each city and town: Story lines in the policy debate for urban forests in Flanders. Urban Studies, 43, 673–696.
Vertovec, S. (2006). The emergence of super-diversity in Britain. Oxford: Centre for Migration, Policy and Society, working paper nr. 25, University of Oxford.
Vidal, C. (2007). An enduring philosophical agenda. Worldview construction as a philosophical method. Working paper. Brussels: Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Group (ECCO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A., & Wright, T. (2011). Sustainable development: A bird’s eye view. Sustainability, 3, 737–761.
Walker, P. (2004). Decolonizing conflict resolution. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3 & 4), 527–549.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Published as Annex to the General Assembly Document A/42/427, United Nations.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, J. (2001). Discourse theory and practice. A reader. London: Sage.
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Human Ecology Department (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium) for partial financial and other kinds of support. We would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their critical comments and constructive advices that helped us in shaping a revised and improved paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Opstal, M., Hugé, J. Knowledge for sustainable development: a worldviews perspective. Environ Dev Sustain 15, 687–709 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9401-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9401-5