Publications

@article{Giampietro2020,

title = {From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy},

author = {Mario Giampietro and Silvio O. Funtowicz},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901120302033},

doi = {10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.012},

issn = {14629011},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-07-01},

journal = {Environmental Science & Policy},

volume = {109},

pages = {64--72},

publisher = {Elsevier Ltd},

abstract = {This paper explores the implications of the widespread success of the term circular economy in the institutional and public debate. The concept of circular economy in itself implies a logical contradiction: on the one hand, the concept acknowledges the dependence of the economy on biophysical flows; on the other hand, the proposed solution\textemdasha business model guaranteeing a full decoupling of the economy from natural resources\textemdashseemingly ignores that biophysical processes are subject to thermodynamic constraints. A biophysical view of the sustainability predicament\textemdashthe flows exchanged between the technosphere and the biosphere \textemdash is depicted to show that the idea of a full decoupling is simply due to ignorance of the knowledge generated in (inter)disciplinary scientific fields other than the dominant economic one. The success of economics as an ‘elite folk science' is explained by the need of the establishment to ignore uncomfortable knowledge that would destabilize existing institutions. The success of the term circular economy can be seen as an example of socially constructed ignorance in which folk tales are used to depoliticize the sustainability debate and to colonize the future through the endorsement of implausible socio-technical imaginaries. A strategy that can lead to an irresponsible management of expectation: implausible master narratives are impossible to govern. Rather than continuing to impose technocratic plans, as if we knew the optimal thing to do, Post-Normal Science suggests that it is much more effective and responsible to adopt a flexible management approach, exploring the ability of self-organization of social-ecological systems.},

keywords = {Circular economy, Decoupling, Life-support system, Policy legend, Post-normal science, Uncomfortable knowledge},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Temper2019,

title = {From academic to political rigour: Insights from the ‘Tarot' of transgressive research},

author = {Leah Temper and Dylan McGarry and Lena Weber},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S092180091930031X},

doi = {10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106379},

issn = {09218009},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-10-01},

journal = {Ecological Economics},

volume = {164},

pages = {106379},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {The role of science and knowledge production is at a crossroads, as societal transformation calls for challenging dominant forms of knowledge production that have contributed to marginalizing other ways of knowing. This presents a challenge to mainstream science and invites a deeper reflection on our roles as scientists and exploration of alternative engaged, post-normal and activist approaches to research. This paper examines the diverse ways researchers are meeting this challenge. Employing the device of the Tarot deck we describe seven “characters” to illustrate the variety of roles and approaches that trans-disciplinary, transformative, transgressive and activist researchers are engaging in. These characters are used to introduce and develop the concept of political rigour as a means of expanded academic rigour in new emancipatory scientific paradigms. We demonstrate how these Tarot characters can be used as an activity for collective and personal reflexivity and propose ten principles that frequently emerge in a ‘political' peer review process. We argue that the insights emerging from these strands of radical, critical, engaged and applied forms of scholarship, can significantly improve the understanding of what a “transformative knowledge paradigm” may look like in practice and how it can be mobilized for social change and environmental justice.},

keywords = {Arts-based approaches, Environmental justice, Feminism, Post-normal science, Scholar activism, Transdisciplinarity, Transformation, Transgressive research},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Giampietro2019a,

title = {Facing the tragedy of change in the semiotic process: the role of science},

author = {Mario Giampietro and Zora Kovacic},

url = {http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=104729},

doi = {10.1504/IJSD.2019.104729},

issn = {0960-1406},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development},

volume = {22},

number = {1/2},

pages = {88},

abstract = {Copyright textcopyright 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. We offer an interpretation of the concepts of integrity and quality of science based on semiotics. Science is a key component of the semiotic process in society, its role being the selection of representations of relevant events for guiding policy with the ultimate goal of preserving society's identity. The fitness of scientific information depends on the definition of its usefulness and relevance, and, therefore, on the identity of the 'self' of the semiotic process. Several distinct definitions of identity co-exist that are negotiated across levels (individuals, households, communities). Growing feelings of belonging to a post-truth world signal a failure in the preservation of the integrity of the semiotic process: scientific crises are coupled with social and political crises in an impredicative way. It is concluded that science should evolve from being a mere source of facts to a source of insights about how to deal with the tragedy of change.},

keywords = {Integrity and quality in science, Post-normal science, Post-truth world, Science for governance, Semiotic process, Tragedy of change},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Strand2018,

title = {New narratives for innovation},

author = {Roger Strand and Andrea Saltelli and Mario Giampietro and Kjetil Rommetveit and Silvio Funtowicz},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S095965261631825X},

doi = {10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.194},

issn = {09596526},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-10-01},

journal = {Journal of Cleaner Production},

volume = {197},

pages = {1849--1853},

abstract = {textcopyright 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Sociotechnical imaginaries are visions of desired social and technological futures created and sustained by stakeholders in science, industry and politics. Within the dominating innovation narratives there are a number of implicit and explicit beliefs that are both descriptive and normative. Technological optimism is the prevailing discourse, challenged by alternative imaginaries, among them a narrative of degrowth. In this paper we argue for the importance of producing more democratic and sustainable imaginations of future social and technological trajectories. We indicate how new narratives for innovation may include different perspectives and sources of knowledge, including heterodox economics, bio-economics, science and technology studies, and Post-Normal Science. The replacement of policy narratives, however, is not achieved through science speaking truth to power. If that were the case, policies would have changed a long time ago. The present analysis and discussion illustrates how the challenge of replacement is itself one that calls for a reflexive understanding of the relationship between knowledge, belief and agency in complex research and innovation (R & I) systems.},

keywords = {Post-normal science, Sociotechnical imaginaries},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Saltelli2017,

title = {What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?},

author = {Andrea Saltelli and Mario Giampietro},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016328717300472},

doi = {10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012},

issn = {00163287},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-08-01},

journal = {Futures},

volume = {91},

pages = {62--71},

abstract = {textcopyright 2017 The Authors The present crisis of science's governance, affecting science's reproducibility, scientific peer review and science's integrity, offers a chance to reconsider evidence based policy as it is being practiced at present. Current evidence based policy exercises entail forms of quantification \textendash often in the form of risk analysis or cost benefit analyses \textendash which aim to optimize one among a set of policy options corresponding to a generally single framing of the issue under consideration. More cogently the deepening of the analysis corresponding to a single view of what the problem is has the effect of distracting from what could be alternative readings. When using evidence based policy those alternative frames become a kind of ‘uncomfortable knowledge' which is de facto removed from the policy discourse. All the more so when the analysis is supported by extensive mathematical modelling. Thus evidence based policy may result in a dramatic simplification of the available perceptions, in flawed policy prescriptions and in the neglect of other relevant world views of legitimate stakeholders. This use of scientific method ultimately generates \textendash rather than resolving \textendash controversies and erodes the institutional trust of the involved actors. We suggest an alternative approach \textendash which we term quantitative story-telling \textendash which encourages a major effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis as to map a socially robust universe of possible frames, which represent different lenses through which to perceive what the problem is. This is followed by an analysis where the emphasis in not on confirmatory checks or system optimization but \textendash the opposite \textendash on an attempt to refute the frames if these violate constraints of feasibility (compatibility with processes outside human control); viability (compatibility with processes under human control), and desirability (compatibility with a plurality of normative considerations relevant to the system's actors).},

keywords = {Evidence based policy, PNS, Post-normal science, Quantitative story telling, Science and technology studies, Science for governance, STS},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Kovacic2017a,

title = {Investigating science for governance through the lenses of complexity},

author = {Zora Kovacic},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016328717300423},

doi = {10.1016/j.futures.2017.01.007},

issn = {00163287},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-08-01},

journal = {Futures},

volume = {91},

pages = {80--83},

publisher = {Pergamon},

abstract = {This paper assesses the contributions of complexity theory to post-normal science. The oversupply of facts in science for governance is explained as a matter of complexity, defined as irreducible pluralism in the knowledge base. The paper shows how complexity provides an interface to engage with the multiple facts of science through three different examples. First, water narratives are used to show how different scales of analysis produce contradictory scientific representations of the same system. Second, smart electricity grids are assessed to demonstrate how different levels of uncertainty are associated with different representations. Third, the case of slum upgrading is used to discuss the need to take into account stakes in science for governance.},

keywords = {Complexity, Pluralism, Post-normal science, Post-truth, Science for policy, Uncertainty},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Brunori2016,

title = {Are Local Food Chains More Sustainable than Global Food Chains? Considerations for Assessment},

author = {Gianluca Brunori and Francesca Galli and Dominique Barjolle and Rudolf Broekhuizen and Luca Colombo and Mario Giampietro and James Kirwan and Tim Lang and Erik Mathijs and Damian Maye and Kees Roest and Carin Rougoor and Jana Schwarz and Emilia Schmitt and Julie Smith and Zaklina Stojanovic and Talis Tisenkopfs and Jean-Marc Touzard},

url = {http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/5/449},

doi = {10.3390/su8050449},

issn = {2071-1050},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-05-01},

journal = {Sustainability},

volume = {8},

number = {5},

pages = {449},

abstract = {This paper summarizes the main findings of the GLAMUR project which starts with an apparently simple question: is "local" more sustainable than "global"? Sustainability assessment is framed within a post-normal science perspective, advocating the integration of public deliberation and scientific research. The assessment spans 39 local, intermediate and global supply chain case studies across different commodities and countries. Assessment criteria cover environmental, economic, social, health and ethical sustainability dimensions. A closer view of the food system demonstrates a highly dynamic local-global continuum where actors, while adapting to a changing environment, establish multiple relations and animate several chain configurations. The evidence suggests caution when comparing "local" and "global" chains, especially when using the outcomes of the comparison in decision-making. Supply chains are analytical constructs that necessarily-and arbitrarily-are confined by system boundaries, isolating a set of elements from an interconnected whole. Even consolidated approaches, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), assess only a part of sustainability attributes, and the interpretation may be controversial. Many sustainability attributes are not yet measurable and "hard" methodologies need to be complemented by "soft" methodologies which are at least able to identify critical issues and trade-offs. Aware of these limitations, our research shows that comparing local and global chains, with the necessary caution, can help overcome a prioripositions that so far have characterized the debate between "localists" and "globalists". At firm level, comparison between "local" and "global" chains could be useful to identify best practices, benchmarks, critical points, and errors to avoid. As sustainability is not a status to achieve, but a never-ending process, comparison and deliberation can be the basis of a "reflexive governance" of food chains.},

keywords = {Assessment, Food supply chain, Global, Local, Post-normal science, Reflexive governance, sustainability},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Kovacic2015b,

title = {Beyond “beyond GDP indicators:” The need for reflexivity in science for governance},

author = {Zora Kovacic and Mario Giampietro},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1476945X14001494},

doi = {10.1016/j.ecocom.2014.11.007},

issn = {1476945X},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-03-01},

journal = {Ecological Complexity},

volume = {21},

pages = {53--61},

abstract = {"Beyond GDP" initiatives flag the limits of the quantitative indicators of progress currently used for governance. Focusing on the quality assessment of quantitative information used for governance, we use some of the conceptual tools of theoretical ecology and evolutionary biology in order to identify the pre-analytical choices that determine the usefulness and pertinence of a model. Starting from the definition of a model as a formal representation of a specific and necessarily subjective observation, we show that the production of indicators is the final result of a series of decisions on what to observe and how. These choices, in turn, depend on the narrative, or set of narratives, adopted. Narratives provide causality and context to knowledge claims and are needed to select the indicators to be used for policy. Moving beyond the GDP debate requires reflexivity, that is, awareness of the key role that pre-analytical choices play in the definition of both the relevance of the chosen perceptions and narratives (determined by the normative stands of different actors - who defines wellbeing?), and the usefulness of the chosen models and data (determined by the pertinence of the resulting representation - how to measure wellbeing?). Reflexivity is essential in order to take into account the purposes for which different indicators were created and to define new purposes for the "beyond GDP" indicators.},

keywords = {Complexity, Integrated assessment, Post-normal science, Quality assurance, sustainability, Uncertainty},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Giampietro2014a,

title = {Footprints to nowhere},

author = {Mario Giampietro and Andrea Saltelli},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1470160X14000387},

doi = {10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.030},

issn = {1470160X},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-11-01},

journal = {Ecological Indicators},

volume = {46},

pages = {610--621},

abstract = {Crisp numbers make it to the headlines. However, it is unlikely that a single crisp number can capture a complex issue, such as the analysis of the sustainability of human progress both at the local and the global scale. This paper tackles this standard epistemological predicament in relation to a media-friendly model of man's impact on Nature: the Ecological Footprint (EF). The claim made by the proponents of this analytical tool is that EF makes it possible to check “how much is taken” by the economic process versus “how much could be taken” according to ecological processes. In this paper we argue that the ecological footprint assessment \textendash purportedly useful as an argument against the idea of perpetual growth \textendash is fraught with internal contradictions. Our critical appraisal is based on the lack of correspondence between the semantics \textendash the claim about what the EF accounting does \textendash and the syntax \textendash the EF protocol of accounting that should deliver the purported output. We critically examine the various assumptions used in the approach, showing that the EF is in contradiction with its stated purposes and would lead to paradoxes if its prescriptions were used for policy making. We also contend that the laboriousness of EF computation protocols contrasts with its ultimate fragility. In fact the estimate of carbon footprint due to energy production is what determines the assessment of the planet's deficit of virtual land. We show that this estimate cannot be defended in light of the assumptions and simplifications used for its construction. Our conclusion is that the EF does not serve a meaningful discussion on the modeling of sustainability, and that the same media-friendly narrative about the Earth Overshot day is in the end reassuring and complacent when considering other aspects on man's pressure on the planet and its ecosystems.},

keywords = {Ecological economics, Ecological footprint, Post-normal science, Science for governance, Sustainability indicators, Sustainable Development},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}