Digital Disruptions for Sustainability (D^2S Agenda) Report – Page 3

May 4, 2020

Reading time: 41 minutes

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

* Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

The Digital Disruptions for Sustainability Agenda (D^2S Agenda) was shaped through discussions with and contributions from an Expert Advisory Committee as well as through a series of online and in-person consultations. The views presented in any given section of this report do not necessarily reflect those of all the contributors or their affiliated institutions.

Project team

PROJECT LEAD
Amy Luers, Future Earth

FUTURE EARTH TEAM
Jennifer Garard, Victoria Curl, Martin Deron

FUTURES COLAB CONTRIBUTORS
Co-leads from the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence:
Robert Laubacher, Moritz Woehl, Annalyn Bachmann, Carlos Botelho
178 Futures CoLab participants from 31 countries – partial list provided in Appendix.

EDITING TEAM
Andréa Ventimiglia, Nilufar Sabet- Kassouf, Patrick Lacombe (Future Earth), Amy Larkin

REPORT DESIGN
Paula Monroy (Future Earth), Vill Mak

TECHNICAL RESEARCH CONTRIBUTORS
Dan Hammer, Edward Boyda (Earthrise Alliance), Colin McCormick (Valence Strategic, Georgetown University)

STRATEGIC GUIDANCE
Casey Cronin (ClimateWorks Foundation)

CASE CONTRIBUTORS
Alisa Ferguson (EC-MAP), Sasha Luccioni (Mila – Université de Montréal), Michel Girard (CIGI)

Expert advisory committee*

• Valérie Bécaert – Director of Research and Scientific Programs, Element AI
• Anik Bhaduri – Executive Director, Sustainable Water Future Program; Associate Professor, Griffith University
• Nick Beglinger – Co-Founder and CEO, Cleantech 21 Foundation Mark De Blois – CEO and Founder, Upande
• Owen Gaffney – Global Sustainability Writer and Expert, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
• Dan Hammer – CTO, Earthrise Alliance
• Tom Hassenboehler – Partner, The Coefficient Group; Executive Director and Founder, EC-MAP
• Ravi Jain – VP Search Science and AI, Amazon
• Lucas Joppa – Chief Environmental Officer, Microsoft
• Lyse Langlois – Professor, Université Laval; Director, International Observatory on the Societal Impacts of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies (OBVIA)
• Mats Linder – Founder and CEO, MLSH Consulting
• Kevin Mo – Managing Director, The Paulson Institute
• Mathilde Mougeot – Professor, École Nationale Supérieure d’Informatique pour l’Industrie et l’Entreprise (ENSIIE) & Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
• Per Olsson – Researcher, Stockholm Resilience Centre
• Renata Piazzon – Executive Manager of Climate Change, Arapyaú Institute
• Valérie Pisano – President and CEO, Mila
• Asunción Lera St. Clair – Senior Principal Scientist, DNV GL; Senior Advisor, Barcelona Supercomputing Center
• Gina Ziervogel – Associate Professor, University of Cape Town

Additional contributions from CIFAR workshop participants*

The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), in partnership with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), supported a workshop organized by Future Earth, the UK Office for AI, the International Observatory on the Societal Impacts of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies (OBVIA), and CNRS. The workshop, part of CIFAR’s AI & Society series, took place in Montreal, Canada, from September 18 to 20, 2019. The workshop brought together 29 participants from around the world to explore issues related to the D^2S Agenda, with a particular focus on near-term actions. Below is a partial list of workshop participants.

• Peter Brown (McGill University)
• Benjamin Combes (PwC)
• Casey Cronin (ClimateWorks Foundation)
• John Dryzek (University of Canberra)
• Rohan D’Souza (Kyoto University)
• Anne-Laure Fougères (Université Claude Bernard – Lyon)
• Aarti Gupta (Wageningen University)
• Alexis Hannart (Ouranos)
• John C. Havens (IEEE)
• Keith Jansa (CIO Strategy Council)
• Sana Khareghani (UK Office for AI)
• Myanna Lahsen (Wageningen University)
• Lyse Langlois (OBVIA, Université Laval)
• James Leape (Stanford Woods Institute)
• Sasha Luccioni (Mila – Université de Montréal)
• Marguerite Mendell (Retired, Concordia University)
• Dirk Messner (German Environment Agency)

Reviewers

• Mathilde Mougeot (ENSIIE, CNRS)
• Nebojsa Nakicenovic (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA)
• Jeremy Pitt (Imperial College London)
• Andrew Revkin (Earth Institute of Columbia University) Gilles Savard (IVADO)
• Charlie Smoothy (UK Office for AI)
• Martin Solan (University of Southampton)
• Aaron Williamson (The Value Web)
• Ana Yang (Hoffmann Centre at Chatham House)
• Aarti Gupta (Professor, Wageningen University)
• Alon Halevy (Director of AI, Facebook)
• David Jensen (Head of Policy & Innovation in the Crisis Management, UNEP)
• Tom Kalil (Chief Innovation Officer, Schmidt Futures)
• Karen O’Brien (Professor, University of Oslo)
• Aleem Walji (former CEO, Aga Kahn Foundation)

Suggested citation

Sustainability in the Digital Age (SDA). 2020. Digital Disruptions for Sustainability Agenda (D^2S Agenda): Research, Innovation, Action. Future Earth. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5645146

8. APPENDIX

Glossary

List of terms

• Algorithm: A process or set of instructions to be followed in calculations, data processing, automated reasoning, or other problem-solving operations performed by a computer.
• Anticipatory governance: A form of data-driven decision-making that employs predictive algorithms and other prediction and foresight mechanisms to anticipate possible outcomes as a means of decreasing risk in decision-making and governing more efficiently by addressing events early or before they even occur.
• Artificial intelligence: The simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. These processes include learning (the acquisition of information and rules for using information), reasoning (using rules to reach approximate or definite conclusions), and problem solving.
• Augmented Engagement: The use of mixed reality tools to develop an interactive experience that enables connection to otherwise remote concepts or experiences.
• Augmented reality: A technology that superimposes a computer- generated image on a user’s view of the real world, thus providing a composite view and an interactive experience of a real-world environment enhanced by computer-generated perceptual information.
• Blockchain: A digital ledger or database in which transactions are recorded chronologically, creating a permanent record that is transparent to anyone connected to the network.
• Bot: Automated software applications that run repetitive programs.
• Business model: A plan or strategy for the way a company seeks to create, capture, and share value.
• Choice architecture: The design of different ways in which choices can be presented to consumers and the impact that this presentation ultimately has on consumer decision-making, derived from behavioural science.
• Circular economy: An economic system aimed at eliminating waste and the continual use of new, finite resources by employing recycling, reuse, re-manufacturing, and refurbishment to create a closed-loop system.
• Cognitive systems: Systems connected with the acquisition and processing of information and knowledge, making decisions, and forming judgements.
• Collaborative governance: Also known as participatory governance. The “processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private, and civic spheres” [198].
• Collective storytelling: The social and cultural activities of sharing stories and narratives scaled up to larger groups and situating their components (including questions, problems, and overarching themes) in relation to a broader context.
• Crowdsourcing: The practice of obtaining input or funding for a question or project by enlisting the services of a large number of people (either paid or unpaid), typically over the internet.
• Digitalization: The process of using digital technologies and digitized data to change how a system functions.
• Digitization: The process of converting from analogue to digital format.
• Digital age: Often cited as beginning in the 1970s, the digital age refers to a period during which the use of digital technology became prevalent and common throughout the world. The digital age is characterized by a rapid shift towards an economy based on information technology and has also led to changes in social relationships, science, politics, and many other facets of societies around the world. Also referred to as the information age.
• Digital disruptors: Capabilities brought about by digital-age technologies and innovations with the potential to drive systems change at a scale and pace unprecedented in human history.
• Digital MRV (measurement, reporting, and verification): Tools for generating data (such as energy attributes) that quantify, communicate, and authenticate outcomes. Digital MRV can improve the speed and accuracy of regulatory reporting, lower reporting and verification costs, and increase the scalability and security of transactions.
• Digital nudge: A set of carefully developed rules, hints, tips, and suggestions that encourage people to change behaviour in small but meaningful ways, where “nudges” are designed based on desired outcomes in terms of behavioural change.
• Governance of Flows: Governance of the embedded flows of goods, services, capital, and information, including both material and virtual flows.
• Informational governance: A new form of governance in which information is the crucial resource used to govern and which has been characterized by transformative changes across governance institutions due to new information flows [163].
• Intelligent systems: Machines with embedded, internet-connected computers with the capacity to gather and analyse data, perform complex activities, perceive and respond to the world around them, learn from experience and adapt, and communicate with other systems.
• Internet of Things: A network of appliances, electronics, mobile devices, and sensors that can communicate and exchange data without requiring human intervention.
• Machine learning: Sometimes referred to as a subset of AI, machine learning is the study of algorithms and statistical models that computer systems use to perform specific tasks without receiving instructions, relying on patterns and inference derived from “training data” instead.
• Microtargeting: Transmitting a tailored message to a subgroup of a broader population on the basis of unique information about the subgroup. This technique is most commonly associated with election campaigns and includes direct marketing, data mining, and predictive market segmentation techniques.
• Mixed reality: The merging of real and virtual worlds to produce new environments and visualizations where physical and digital objects coexist and interact in real time, enabling users to view and manipulate these objects. Sometimes referred to as a combination of augmented and virtual reality.
• Neoliberalism: An economic paradigm often associated with “laissez- faire” economic liberalism and free-market capitalism.
• Platforms: Online frameworks for facilitating transactions, innovation, and collaborations, which have enabled new strategies for how businesses create, deliver, and capture value.
• Precision services: Scalable customized knowledge-intensive services.
• Prosumer: A customer that both produces and consumes a product or service, such as electricity or energy storage.
• Resilience: Most famously, resilience is “a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables” [232]. Resilience has also been referred to as the ability of a system to adapt to change, to recognize or anticipate risks and defend against them before adverse consequences occur, or as a paradigm for safety management [311].
• Sharing economy: An economic model where peer-to-peer online platforms enable community-based acquisition, sales, and/or sharing of goods and services.
• Societal systems: The many anthropogenic systems that together compose and underpin global human society, including, notably, our economic, governance, and cognitive systems.
• Societal transformation: Fundamental changes in structural, functional, relational, and cognitive aspects of societal systems that lead to new patterns of interactions and outcomes.
• Surveillance capitalism: A term popularized by Shoshana Zuboff and based on the premise that capitalism has become focused on collecting and processing data relating to a significantly expanded portion of society’s activities and people’s behaviour. Surveillance capitalism refers to the act of accruing a profit from free digital services by tracking and monitoring behaviour and selling this information (often without the explicit consent of users).
• Systems approach: A change that influences the interactions and interlinkages between different components of one or multiple systems.
• Transparent Supply Chains: Disclosure about social and environmental conditions of the supply chain and open information about buyers’ purchasing practices allow traceability.
• Unprecedented transparency: A phrase used to describe actions and approaches that radically increase the openness of organizational processes and data, making information publicly available and accessible.
• Virtual reality: A simulated experience that enables users to view and move around in an artificial world (though this can mirror the real world) and interact with virtual features.

Futures CoLab exercise

To kick off the development of the D^2S Agenda, the team sought inputs from a broad diversity of experts on the systems keeping us on an unsustainable and inequitable development path and potential levers to disrupt these systems. This was done through a virtual deliberation exercise. Futures CoLab is a network of diverse international experts, a platform for online collaboration, and a process for asynchronous and facilitated dialogue. The goal of Futures CoLab is to enable experts from around the world to collectively explore solutions to global systemic challenges. Futures CoLab is a collaboration between Future Earth and the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence.

Process and participants

The Disrupting Systems for Global Sustainability exercise took place from March 4 to 24, 2019. 178 participants from 31 countries and a diversity of backgrounds were involved (see Figure A1). The two primary goals of the exercise were: (1) to characterize key systems that are sustaining our unsustainability; and (2) to identify disruptions to these systems and mechanisms through which new technologies and associated practices of the digital age could be leveraged to foster these disruptions.

In the first week, participants were asked to broadly identify systems that are preventing society from shifting to a more sustainable and equitable path. After these submissions were received, the Futures CoLab team used a natural language processing tool to suggest ways of grouping the identified systems. In the second week, participants shared ideas about potential disruptions that could lead to the unraveling of today’s unsustainable systems and enable the transformations necessary to steer the world toward sustainability. In the third and final week, participants voted on the disruptions they believed could have the most significant impact on enabling transformations towards sustainability. Throughout the exercise, participants were encouraged to engage in discussions by commenting on each others’ submissions. This deliberative process helpeds both to clarify and expand upon individual contributions while also contextualizing participants’ inputs.

Figure A1. Futures CoLab participants. Regional balance of participants in Futures CoLab: Disrupting systems for global sustainability.

Outcomes

Many of the issues highlighted in the Futures CoLab dialogues were linked broadly to systems of production and consumption, including emissions in urban and food systems, land use changes and trade, as well as issues with consumer behaviour. These were relatively unsurprising and align closely with the findings of the IPCC – for example, with the categories used in the IPCC Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report to explain dominant sources of emissions [312].

A main message of the online dialogues was that underlying these systems of production and consumption, and maintaining unsustainable behaviour, were key social systems which need to be disrupted. Three systems emerged as responsible for reinforcing the rules, power structures, and mindsets that are keeping society on a carbon-intensive, biosphere-degrading, and vulnerable path: economic, governance, and cognitive systems. It became clear over the course of the exercise that finding levers to disrupt these three systems – not those physically contributing to GHG emissions but those underlying societal structures that drive emissions and reinforce unsustainability – will be critical in order to steer society onto a more equitable and sustainable path. This message formed a starting point for the development of the D^2S Agenda.

While the online dialogues did not delve into the technological aspects deeply, there were still indications of different types of digitally enabled capabilities with the potential to unleash transformative systems change. These discussions led to the development of the four digital disruptors identified in the D^2S Agenda.

More information can be found in the synthesis report Disrupting Systems for Global Sustainability, available online at futureearth.org/initiatives/other-initiatives/futures-colab/.

Partial list of Futures CoLab participants

Disrupting systems for global sustainability exercise

• Dr. Noel M. Bakhtian, Center for Advanced Energy Studies
• Brian Bauer, Algramo
• Dr. Valérie Bécaert, Element AI
• Petra Berg, University of Vaasa
• Pernilla Bergmark, Ericsson
• Prof. Anik Bhaduri, Griffith University
• Dr. Austin Brown, U. of California, Davis
• Prof. Michael Canva, Université de Sherbrooke
• Mark Capron, OceanForesters, Inc.
• Ann Cleaveland, Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity
• Dr. Ferdouz V. Cochran, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Dr. Roger Cremades, Hemholz-Zentrum Geesthacht
• Casey Cronin, ClimateWorks Foundation
• Dr. Arthur Lyon Dahl, International Environment Forum
• Prof. Maxime Darnon, Université de Sherbrooke
• Dr. Peter Denton, greenethics.ca
• Dr. Peter Elias, University of Lagos
• Alisa Ferguson, Energy Consumer Market Alignment Project
• Anna Ferretto, University of Aberdeen
• Owen Gaffney, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
• Dr. Ajay Gambhir, Imperial College London
• Prof. Bruce Goldstein, University of Colorado Boulder
• Dr. Dan Hammer, Earthrise Alliance
• Dr. Adam Hejnowicz, York University
• Lauren Hermanus, Adapt
• Prof. Cecilia Hidalgo, Universidad de Buenos Aires
• Dr. Colin Hill, WeatherForce
• Prof. Matthew Hoffman, University of Toronto
• Prof. Elisabeth Huber-Sannwald, Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
• Prof. Carol Hunsberger, University of Western Ontario
• Jimmy Jia, The Jia Group
• Dr. Joni Jupesta, PT SMART Tbk
• James King, Oxford University
• Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh
• Prof. Teresa Kramarz, University of Toronto
• David Lam, Leuphana University Lüneburg
• Amy Larkin, Nature Means Business Dr. Mats Linder, MLSH Consulting
• Dr. Sasha Luccioni, Mila
• Dr. Christopher Lyon, University of Leeds
• Lesedi Madi, Knowledge Pele
• Eirini Malliaraki, The Alan Turing Institute
• Gavin McCormick, WattTime
• Dr. Heather McShane, McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative
• Colin McQuistan, Practical Action
• Dr. Nezha Mejjad, Université Hassan II de Casablanca
• Douglas Miller, Energy Web
• Dr. Susanne Moser, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting
• Kathryn Myronuk, Singularity University Dr. Kapil Narula, University of Geneva
• Prof. Carlos Nobre, National Institute for Space Research; WRI Brazil
• Dr. Deborah O’Connell, CSIRO
• Dr. Vincent Ogutu, Strathmore University
• Dr. Per Olsson, Stockholm Resilience Centre
• Dr. Richard Pagett, FutureStates Alexandre Gellert Paris, UNFCCC
• Dr. Laura Pereira, City University London
• Kelsey Perlman, Fern
• Elizabeth Renieris, Harvard University
• Prof. Chris Riedy, University of Technology Sydney
• Louis Roy, Optel Group
• Aditi Sahay, European Climate Foundation
• Alicia Seiger, Stanford Law School
• Dr. Viktoria Spaiser, University of Leeds
• Dr. Laurent Spreutels, National Research Council Canada
• Prof. Robin Teigland, Chalmers University of Technology
• Dr. Dave Thau, WWF
• Guillaume Thfoin, Majid Al Futtaim Holding
• Brad Townsend, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
• Prof. Aradhna E. Tripati, UCLA
• Shafqat Ullah, Sourcevo Innovations
• Natalia Vasquez, IDEO
• Anique Vered, anique vered consultation and research practice
• Dr. Steve Waddell, SDG Transformations Forum
• Ambreen Waheed, Responsible Business Initiative
• Prof. Gina Ziervogel, University of Cape Town

9. REFERENCES

1. IPCC, 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).
2. Rockström, J. et al. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355, 1269–1271 (2017).
3. Smil, V. Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects. (Praeger, 2010).
4. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2019. Earth System Science Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).
5. Pacala, S. & Socolow, R. Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. Science 305, 968–972 (2004).
6. Hawken, P., ed. Drawdown, The Book. (Penguin Books, 2017).
7. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project. Pathways to Deep Decarbonization. http://deepdecarbonization.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DDPP_2015_REPORT.pdf (2015).
8. Meadows, D. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ (1999).
9. Rahwan, I. et al. Machine behaviour. Nature 568, 477 (2019).
10. The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. The New Climate Economy: Unlocking the inclusive growth story of the 21st century. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsiCaoQe7LI&feature=youtu.be (2018).
11. Wilson, C. et al. Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection. Nature Climate Change 2, 780–788 (2012).
12. International Telecommunication Union. ICT Facts and Figures 2019: Measuring Digital Development. 14 https://itu.foleon.com/itu/measuring-digital-development/contents/ (2019).
13. Feola, G. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts. Ambio 44, 376–390 (2014).
14. Westley, F. et al. Tipping toward sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio 40, 762–780 (2011).
15. DeFries, R. S. et al. Planetary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change Science to Contribute to a Sustainable Future. BioScience 62, 603–606 (2012).
16. Hackmann, H. & St. Clair, A. L. Transformative Cornerstones of Social Science Research for Global Change. 32 (2012).
17. Shove, E. et al. The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. (SAGE Publications, 2012).
18. O’Brien, K. L. Climate change and social transformations: is it time for a quantum leap? WIREs Climate Change 7, 618–626 (2016).
19. Sachs, J. D. et al. Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Sustain 2, 805–814 (2019).
20. Edelman. Edelman Trust Barometer 2020. 78 https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-01/2020%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report.pdf (2020).
21. Olsson, P. et al. Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11, 18 (2006).
22. O’Brien, K. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography 36, 667–676 (2012).
23. Loorbach, D. & Rotmans, J. The practice of transition management: Examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42, 237–246 (2010).
24. Vermeulen, S. J. et al. Addressing uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture. PNAS 110, 8357–8362 (2013).
25. Gliessman, S. A global vision for food system transformation. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39, 725–726 (2015).
26. McCormick, K. et al. Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production 50, 1–11 (2013).
27. Revi, A. et al. Towards transformative adaptation in cities: The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment. Environment and Urbanization 26, 11–28 (2014).
28. Olsson, P. et al. Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecology and Society 19, 1 (2014).
29. Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36, 399–417 (2007).
30. Leach, M. et al. Between social and planetary boundaries: Navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity. In World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments 84–89 (OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, 2013).
31. Stirling, A. Emancipating transformations: From controlling ‘the transition’ to culturing plural radical progress. In The Politics of Green Transformations (eds. Scoones, I. et al.) 54–68 (Routledge, 2015).
32. Hopwood, B. et al. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development 13, 38–52 (2005).
33. O’Brien, K. & Sygna, L. Responding to climate change: The three spheres of transformation. Proceedings of the Conference Transformation in a Changing Climate 16–23 (2013).
34. Sharma, M. Personal to planetary transformation. Kosmos 7 (2008).
35. TWI2050 – The World in 2050. The Digital Revolution and Sustainable Development: Opportunities and Challenges. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/twi/Report2019.html (2019).
36. WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change. Towards our Common Digital Future. 486 https://www.wbgu.de/en/publications/publication/towards-our-common-digital-future (2019).
37. Meadows, D. H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. (Earthscan, 2008).
38. Olsson, P. et al. The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: a new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability. (2017) doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09310-220231.
39. United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 35 https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (2015).
40. Bai, X. et al. Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: A new research agenda – ScienceDirect. Global Environmental Change 39, 351–362 (2016).
41. Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).
42. Rauschnabel, P. A. et al. Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: A closer look at privacy risks. Journal of Business Research 92, 374–384 (2018).
43. Bennett, C. Voter Surveillance, Micro-Targeting and Democratic Politics: Knowing How People Vote Before They Do. SSRN (2014).
44. Heemsbergen, L. From radical transparency to radical disclosure: Reconfiguring (in)voluntary transparency through the management of visibilities. International journal of communication 10, 138–151 (2016).
45. Herweijer, C. et al. How AI can enable a sustainable future. https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/sustainability-climate-change/insights/how-ai-future-can-enable-sustainable-future.html (2019).
46. Cruz-Jesus, F. et al. The Global Digital Divide: Evidence and Drivers. JGIM 26, 1–26 (2018).
47. Pick, J. B. & Sarkar, A. The global digital divide. In The Global Digital Divides: Explaining Change 83–112 (Springer, 2015).
48. Future Earth. Our Future On Earth 2020. https://futureearth.org/publications/our-future-on-earth/ (2020).
49. Rolnick, D. et al. Tackling climate change with machine learning. arXiv Preprint (2019) doi:arXiv:1906.05433 [cs.CY].
50. Fang, F. et al., eds. Artificial Intelligence and Conservation. (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
51. Lin, Y.-P. et al. Blockchain with Artificial Intelligence to Efficiently Manage Water Use under Climate Change. Environments 5, 34 (2018).
52. Strubell, E. et al. Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. arXiv:1906.02243 [cs] (2019).
53. Lacoste, A. et al. Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learning. arXiv:1910.09700 [cs] (2019).
54. Falk, J. et al. Exponential climate action roadmap. (2018).
55. Stoll, C. et al. The Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin. Joule 3, 1647–1661 (2019).
56. Chapron, G. The environment needs cryptogovernance. Nature 545, 403–405 (2017).
57. Howson, P. Tackling climate change with blockchain. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 644–645 (2019).
58. UN Science Policy Business Forum Working Group on Big Data, Analytics and Artificial Intelligence. The Case for a Digital Ecosystem for the Environment: Bringing Together Data, Algorithms and Insights for Sustainable Development. https://un-spbf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Digital-Ecosystem-final.pdf (2019).
59. MacKinnon, R. Liberation technology: China’s ‘Networked Authoritarianism’. Journal of Democracy 22, 32–46 (2011).
60. Glasius, M. & Michaelsen, M. Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Age | Illiberal and Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Sphere — Prologue. International Journal of Communication 12, 19 (2018).
61. Kenney, M. & Zysman, J. The Rise of the Platform Economy. Issues in Science and Technology (2016).
62. Cobham, A. & Jansky, P. Global Distribution of Revenue Loss from Tax Avoidance. https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/wp2017-55.pdf (2017).
63. Escajeda, H. G. Zero Economic Value Humans? Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy (2019).
64. Jensen, D. et al. Are these the 20 top priorities in 2020 for a digital ecosystem for Earth? https://medium.com/@davidedjensen_99356/digital-planet-20-priorities-3778bf1dbc27 (2020).
65. Myers West, S. Data Capitalism: Redefining the Logics of Surveillance and Privacy. Business & Society 58, (2019).
66. Zuboff, S. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. (PublicAffairs, 2019).
67. Mittu, R. & Lawless, W. F. Human Factors in Cybersecurity and the Role for AI. In 2015 AAAI Spring Symposium Series (2015).
68. Stevens, T. Global Cybersecurity: New Directions in Theory and Methods. Politics and Governance 6, 1–4 (2018).
69. Datta, A. et al. Algorithmic Transparency via Quantitative Input Influence: Theory and Experiments with Learning Systems. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) 598–617 (2016). doi:10.1109/ SP.2016.42.
70. Dignum, V. Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Designing AI for Human Values. ITU Journal Special Issue No.1, (2017).
71. Mountford, H. et al. Unlocking the inclusive growth story of the 21st century: Accelerating climate action in urgent times. https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/ (2018).
72. OECD. Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research. http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm (2014).
73. Price, C. C. Why inequality harms economic growth. World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/12/why-inequality-harms-economic-growth/ (2014).
74. Business Roundtable. Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation. https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment/ (2019).
75. Cortada, J. The Digital Hand: How Computers Changed the Work of American Manufacturing, Transportation, and Retail Industries. (Oxford University Press, 2003).
76. Van Dijck, J. et al. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. (Oxford University Press, 2018).
77. Van Dijck, J. Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society 12, 197–208 (2014).
78. Srnicek, N. Platform Capitalism. (Polity, 2016).
79. De Reuver, M. et al. The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda. Journal of Information Technology 33, 124–135 (2018).
80. Pasquale, F. The Black Box Society. (Harvard University Press, 2015).
81. Fay, R. Digital Platforms Require a Global Governance Framework. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/digital-platforms-require-global-governance-framework (2019).
82. OECD Council on AI. Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449 (2019).
83. Galloway, S. The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. (Random House Large Print, 2017).
84. Zuboff, S. Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2594754 (2015).
85. DePillis, L. At the Uber for home cleaning, workers pay a price for convenience. Washington Post (2014).
86. Apesteguía, A. et al. Collaboration or Business? Collaborative consumption: From value for users to a society with values. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/collaboration_or_business_cc_p2p_2016.pdf (2016).
87. Smith, A. Shared, Collaborative and On Demand: The New Digital Economy. https://www.pewinternet.org/2016/05/19/the-new-digital-economy/ (2016).
88. Gorenflo, N. How Platform Coops Can Beat Death Stars Like Uber to Create a Real Sharing Economy. Shareable https://www.shareable.net/how-platform-coops-can-beat-death-stars-like-uber-to-create-a-real-sharing-economy/ (2015).
89. Yaraghi, N. & Ravi, S. The Current and Future State of the Sharing Economy. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/sharingeconomy_032017final.pdf (2017).
90. Koetsier, J. The sharing economy has created 17 billion-dollar companies (and 10 unicorns). VentureBeat https://venturebeat.com/2015/06/04/the-sharing-economy-has-created-17-billion-dollar-companies-and-10-unicorns/ (2015).
91. Martin, C. J. et al. Commercial orientation in grassroots social innovation: Insights from the sharing economy. Ecological Economics 118, 240–251 (2015).
92. Wosskow, D. Unlocking the sharing economy: An independent review. http://collaborativeeconomy.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Wosskow-D.2014.Unlocking-the-UK-Sharing-Economy.pdf (2014).
93. Mi, Z. & Coffman, D. The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nat Commun 10, 1–3 (2019).
94. Acquier, A. et al. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 125, 1–10 (2017).
95. Richardson, L. Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum 67, 121–129 (2015).
96. Schor, J. B. et al. Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy. Poetics 54, 66–81 (2016).
97. Murillo, D. et al. When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 125, 66–76 (2017).
98. Martin, C. J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics 121, 149–159 (2016).
99. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circular Economy – Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Ellen MacArthur Foundation – Circular Economy https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ (2017).
100. Schwab, K. Davos Manifesto 2020: The universal purpose of a company in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/davos-manifesto-2020-the-universal-purpose-of-a-company-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution (2019).
101. Denning, S. Why maximizing shareholder value is finally dying. Forbes Leadership Strategy https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/08/19/why-maximizing-shareholder-value-is-finally-dying/#528d69be6746 (2019).
102. Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017).
103. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Artificial intelligence and the circular economy – AI as a tool to accelerate the transition. (2019).
104. Rueda, X. et al. Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability: Selecting instruments in the agri-food industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 2480–2492 (2017).
105. Bruckner, M. et al. Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: A review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods. Ecological Economics 114, 11–21 (2015).
106. Gardner, T. A. et al. Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Development 121, 163–177 (2018).
107. Bartels, W. et al. Carrots & Sticks: Global Trends in Sustainability Reporting Regulation and Policy. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/05/carrots-and-sticks-may-2016.pdf (2016).
108. Why Transparency Matters. Fashion Revolution https://www.fashionrevolution.org/about/transparency/.
109. Arnone, N. WattTime chosen as Google AI Impact Grantee. WattTime News https://www.watttime.org/news/watttime-chosen-as-google-ai-impact-grantee/ (2019).
110. Drèze, J. & Stern, N. Policy reform, shadow prices, and market prices. Journal of Public Economics 42, 1–45 (1990).
111. Newton, P. et al. Enhancing the sustainability of commodity supply chains in tropical forest and agricultural landscapes. Global Environmental Change 23, 1761–1772 (2013).
112. Grimard, A. et al. Supply chain transparency network: State of play. 115 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326508527_Supply_chain_transparency_network_State_of_play (2017).
113. Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).
114. Ferguson, A. et al. The Role of Digitalization in Driving Demand for Industrial Decarbonization. (2020).
115. The Precision Medicine Initiative. The White House – President Barack Obama https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/precision-medicine (2015).
116. Goldstein, A. et al. The private sector’s climate change risk and adaptation blind spots. Nature Climate Change 9, 18–25 (2019).
117. Schulten, A. et al. Getting Physical: Scenario Analysis for Assessing Climate-Related Risks. 20 https://www.blackrock.com/ca/institutional/en/literature/whitepaper/bii-physical-climate-risks-april-2019.pdf (2019).
118. Ford, J. D. et al. Opinion: Big data has big potential for applications to climate change adaptation. PNAS 113, 10729–10732 (2016).
119. Eriksen, S. H. & O’Brien, K. Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable adaptation measures. Climate Policy 7, 337–352 (2007).
120. Pelling, M. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. (Routledge, 2010). doi:10.4324/9780203889046.
121. Eriksen, S. H. et al. Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change 35, 523–533 (2015).
122. Brown, K. Resilience, Development and Global Change. (Routledge, 2015). doi:10.4324/9780203498095.
123. Klein, N. This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate. (Simon and Schuster, 2015).
124. Stirling, A. Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Research & Social Science 1, 83–95 (2014).
125. Schaefer, L. & Waters, E. Climate Risk Insurance for the Poor and Vulnerable: How to Effectively Implement the Pro-Poor Focus of Insuresilience. 208 http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5956/MCII_CRI_for_the_Poor_and_Vulnerable_meta.pdf (2016).
126. GIZ. InFocus: Innovation & Technology – Ghana. (2019).
127. Meier, P. Digital Humanitarians: How Big Data is Changing the Face of Humanitarian Response. (Routledge, 2015).
128. Patterson, J. et al. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24, 1–16 (2017).
129. Hajer, M. et al. Beyond cockpit-ism: Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 7, 1651–1660 (2015).
130. Biermann, F. Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene. (MIT Press, 2014).
131. Scoones, I. The politics of sustainability and development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41, 293–319 (2016).
132. Galaz, V. et al. Finance and the Earth system – Exploring the links between financial actors and non-linear changes in the climate system. Global Environmental Change 53, 296–302 (2018).
133. Folke, C. et al. Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 1396–1403 (2019).
134. Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nature Climate Change 6, 570–575 (2016).
135. Kennel, C. F. et al. Making climate science more relevant. Science 354, 421–422 (2016).
136. Biermann, F. et al. The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics 9, 14–40 (2009).
137. Ostrom, E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20, 550–557 (2010).
138. Hardin, G. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248 (1968).
139. Cole, D. H. & Ostrom, E., eds. Property in Land and Other Resources. (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012).
140. Ostrom, E. A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. 56 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/480171468315567893/pdf/WPS5095.pdf (2009).
141. Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. (Harvard University Press, 1971).
142. Morrison, T. H. et al. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Global Environmental Change 57, 101934 (2019).
143. Vasconcelos, V. V. et al. A bottom-up institutional approach to cooperative governance of risky commons. Nature Climate Change 3, 797–801 (2013).
144. Carattini, S. et al. Cooperation in the Climate Commons. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13, 227–247 (2019).
145. Ostrom, E. Toward a behavioral theory linking trust, reciprocity, and reputation. In Trust & Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research (eds. Ostrom, E. & Walker, J.) 19–79 (Russell Sage Foundation, 2003).
146. Ostrom, E. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
147. GOVLAB. GOVLAB. GOBLAB https://www.thegovlab.org/ (2020).
148. MacArthur Foundation. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Opening Governance. Opening Governance http://opening-governance.org/ (2020).
149. Rainie, L. & Perrin, A. Key findings about Americans’ declining trust in government and each other. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/22/key-findings-about-americans-declining-trust-in-government-and-each-other/ (2019).
150. Global Challenges Foundation. Global challenges require global cooperation. Global Challenges Foundation https://globalchallenges.org/ (2020).
151. CIGI. About CIGI. Centre for International Governance Innovation https://www.cigionline.org/about (2020).
152. Earth System Governance. About the Project. Earth System Governance Project https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/about-the-project/ (2020).
153. Kahler, M. et al. Innovations in Global Governance: Peace-Building, Human Rights, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity, and Climate Change. https://www.cfr.org/report/innovations-global-governance (2017).
154. Decide Madrid. Apoya las mejores ideas ciudadanas para Madrid. Decide Madrid https://decide.madrid.es/ (2020).
155. Kickbusch, I. & Gleicher, D. Governance for Health in the 21st Century. 128 http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/171334/RC62BD01-Governance-for-Health-Web.pdf (2012).
156. Choi, J. et al. Web-based infectious disease surveillance systems and public health perspectives: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 16, 1238 (2016).
157. Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN). International Health Regulations. 2 https://www.who.int/ihr/about/IHR_Global_Outbreak_Alert_and_Response_Network_respond.pdf (2015).
158. Mackenzie, J. S. et al. The global outbreak alert and response network. Global Public Health 9, 1023–1039 (2014).
159. Slaughter, R. A. Beyond the global emergency: Integral futures and the search for clarity. World Futures Review 7, 239–252 (2015).
160. Esty, D. C. Environmental protection in the information age. N.Y.U. L. Rev. 79, 115–211 (2004).
161. Fung, A. et al. Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
162. Mol, A. P. J. Environmental governance in the information age: The emergence of informational governance. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 24, 497–514 (2006).
163. Mol, A. P. J. Environmental Reform in the Information Age: The Contours of Informational Governance. (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
164. Potters, J. I. et al., eds. Organising Sustainability in the Digital Age. (Wageningen University, 2016).
165. Gupta, A. & van Asselt, H. Transparency in multilateral climate politics: Furthering (or distracting from) accountability? Regulation & Governance 13, 18–34 (2019).
166. Northon, K. NASA Announces First Geostationary Vegetation, Carbon Mission. NASA http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-first-geostationary-vegetation-atmospheric-carbon-mission (2016).
167. Fuessler, J. et al. Navigating Blockchain and Climate Action: An Overview. https://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/cli_report-january19.pdf (2018).
168. Aganaba-Jeanty, T. Satellites, Remote Sensing and Big Data Legal Implications for Measuring Emissions. (Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), 2017).
169. Braden, S. Blockchain Potentials and Limitations for Selected Climate Policy Instruments. https://www.bivica.org/file/view/id/5393 (2019).
170. Floridi, L. & Taddeo, M. What is data ethics? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 374, (2016).
171. Egels-Zandén, N. et al. Trade-offs in supply chain transparency: The case of Nudie Jeans Co. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 95–104 (2015).
172. Mol, A. P. J. Transparency and value chain sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 154–161 (2015).
173. Gupta, A. & Mason, M. Transparency and international environmental politics. In Advances in international environmental politics (eds. Betsill, M. M. et al.) 356–380 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).
174. Gupta, A. Is climate change the most important challenge of our time? No: Because we cannot address climate change without addressing inequality. In Contemporary Climate Change Debates (ed. Hulme, M.) 12–19 (Routledge, 2020).
175. Gupta, A. et al. Transparency in global sustainability governance: To what effect? Journal of Environmental Politics and Planning (In press).
176. Kendall-Taylor, A. et al. The digital dictators. Foreign Affairs (2020).
177. Smith, B. Facial recognition technology: The need for public regulation and corporate responsibility. Microsoft on the Issues – Official Microsoft Blog https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/07/13/facial-recognition-technology-the-need-for-public-regulation-and-corporate-responsibility/ (2018).
178. Birnbaum, E. Google CEO: ‘Artificial intelligence needs to be regulated’. The Hill (2020).
179. Zhao, X. et al. Physical and virtual water transfers for regional water stress alleviation in China. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112, 1031–1035 (2015).
180. Frankel, J. A. Environmental Effects of International Trade. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4481652 (2009).
181. Adger, W. N. et al. Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 150–157 (2009).
182. Kissinger, M. et al. Interregional sustainability: governance and policy in an ecologically interdependent world. Environmental Science & Policy 14, 965–976 (2011).
183. Young, O. R. et al. The globalization of socio-ecological systems: An agenda for scientific research. Global Environmental Change 16, 304–316 (2006).
184. Eakin, H. C. et al. Significance of telecoupling for exploration of land- use change. In Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era (eds. Seto, K. C. & Reenberg, A.) vol. 14 141–161 (MIT Press, 2014).
185. Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).
186. Gupta, J. et al. Climate Change, Forests and REDD: Lessons for Institutional Design. (Routledge, 2013). doi:10.4324/9780203077221.
187. Hein, J. et al. Deforestation and the Paris climate agreement: An assessment of REDD+ in the national climate action plans. Forest Policy and Economics 90, 7–11 (2018).
188. Ghazoul, J. et al. REDD: a reckoning of environment and development implications. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25, 396–402 (2010).
189. Sikor, T. et al. Global land governance: from territory to flow? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5, 522–527 (2013).
190. Bailis, R. & Baka, J. E. Constructing sustainable biofuels: Governance of the emerging biofuel economy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101, 827–838 (2011).
191. Auld, G. & Gulbrandsen, L. H. Transparency in Nonstate Certification: Consequences for Accountability and Legitimacy. Global Environmental Politics 10, 97–119 (2010).
192. Meyfroidt, P. et al. Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. PNAS 107, 20917–20922 (2010).
193. Baker, L. Of embodied emissions and inequality: Rethinking energy consumption. Energy Research & Social Science 36, 52–60 (2018).
194. Scott, K. & Barrett, J. An integration of net imported emissions into climate change targets. Environmental Science & Policy 52, 150–157 (2015).
195. Vifell, Å. C. WTO and the Environmental Movement: On the Path to Participatory Governance? In Transnational Actors in Global Governance: Patterns, Explanations and Implications (eds. Jönsson, C. & Tallberg, J.) 110–133 (Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2010). doi:10.1057/9780230283220_6.
196. Birkbeck, C. D. WTO reform: A forward-looking agenda on environmental sustainability. In WTO Reform: Reshaping Global Trade Governance for 21st Century Challenges (eds. Soobramanien, T. et al.) 33–57 (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2019).
197. Mol, A. P. J. & Oosterveer, P. Certification of Markets, Markets of Certificates: Tracing Sustainability in Global Agro-Food Value Chains. Sustainability 7, 12258–12278 (2015).
198. Emerson, K. et al. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. J Public Adm Res Theory 22, 1–29 (2012).
199. Ansell, C. & Gash, A. Collaborative Platforms as a Governance Strategy. J Public Adm Res Theory 28, 16–32 (2017).
200. Kabisch, N. et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. E&S 21, art39 (2016).
201. Fischer, F. Climate Crisis and the Democratic Prospect: Participatory Governance in Sustainable Communities. (Oxford University Press, 2017).
202. Seele, P. Envisioning the digital sustainability panopticon: a thought experiment of how big data may help advancing sustainability in the digital age. Sustain Sci 11, 845–854 (2016).
203. Helbing, D. New Ways to Promote Sustainability and Social Well-Being in a Complex, Strongly Interdependent World: The FuturICT Approach. In Why Society is a Complex Matter: Meeting Twenty-first Century Challenges with a New Kind of Science (ed. Ball, P.) 55–60 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29000-8_12.
204. Helbing, D. & Pournaras, E. Society: Build digital democracy. Nature News 527, 33 (2015).
205. Bauer, J. M. & Herder, P. M. Designing Socio-Technical Systems. In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (ed. Meijers, A.) 601–630 (North-Holland, 2009). doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-51667- 1.50026-4.
206. Buckingham Shum, S. et al. Towards a global participatory platform. The European Physical Journal Special Topics 214, 109–152 (2012).
207. Hess, C. & Ostrom, E., eds. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. (MIT Press, 2007).
208. Tarkowski Tempelhof, S. The Keiser Report: Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof (Bitnation) – Decentralized Governance. (2017).
209. Scott, B. et al. Exploring the rise of blockchain technology: Towards distributed collaborative organizations. Strategic Change 26, 423–428 (2017).
210. Gabison, G. Policy Considerations for the Blockchain Technology Public and Private Applications. SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 19, 25 (2016).
211. Borie, M. et al. Mapping (for) resilience across city scales: An opportunity to open-up conversations for more inclusive resilience policy? Environmental Science & Policy 99, 1–9 (2019).
212. Odbert, C. & Mulligan, J. The Kibera Public Space Project: Participation, Integration, and Networked Change. In Now Urbanism: The Future City is Here 176–192 (Routledge, 2014).
213. KDI. Kounkuey Design Initiative. KDI Mission https://www.kounkuey.org/mission (2020).
214. UN Habitat. Global Public Space Programme. 100 https://www.urbangateway.org/system/files/documents/urbangateway/annual_report_2016_global_public_space_programme.pdf (2017).
215. Popper, R. Foresight methodology. In The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practices (eds. Georghiou, L. et al.) 44–89 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008).
216. Vervoort, J. & Gupta, A. Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 degree C era: The link between foresight and governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31, 104–111 (2018).
217. Gambhir, A. et al. Using futures analysis to develop resilient climate change mitigation strategies. 20 https://www.climateworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Grantham-Briefing-Paper-33-Futures-Analysis-for-Climate-Mitigation.pdf (2019).
218. Edenhofer, O. & Kowarsch, M. Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments. Environmental Science & Policy 51, 56–64 (2015).
219. Slavin, K. How algorithms shape our world. (2011).
220. Crichton, D. Algocracy. TechCrunch http://social.techcrunch.com/2015/05/23/algocracy/ (2015).
221. D’Onfro, J. Google Sibling Sidewalk Labs Unveils ‘Smart City’ Plans For Toronto Waterfront. Forbes (2019).
222. Niiler, E. Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So. Wired (2019).
223. Pearsall, B. Predictive Policing: The Future of Law Enforcement? NIJ Journal 16–19 (2010) doi:10.1037/e596372010-007.
224. Greengard, S. Policing the future. Commun. ACM 55, 19 (2012).
225. Beck, C. & McCue, C. Predictive Policing: What Can We Learn from Wal-Mart and Amazon about Fighting Crime in a Recession? The Police Chief Magazine 76, (2009).
226. Bennett Moses, L. & Chan, J. Algorithmic prediction in policing: assumptions, evaluation, and accountability. Policing and Society 28, 806–822 (2016).
227. Brauneis, R. & Goodman, E. P. Algorithmic Transparency for the Smart City. Yale J.L. & Tech. 103–176 (2018).
228. Zouave, E. T. & Marquenie, T. An Inconvenient Truth: Algorithmic Transparency & Accountability in Criminal Intelligence Profiling. In 2017 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC) 17–23 (IEEE, 2017). doi:10.1109/EISIC.2017.12.
229. McCue, C. Data Mining and Predictive Analytics in Public Safety and Security. IT Professional 8, 12–18 (2006).
230. Hill, K. How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did. Forbes (2012).
231. Duhigg, C. How Companies Learn Your Secrets. The New York Times (2012).
232. Helbing, D. et al. Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence? In Towards Digital Enlightenment (ed. Helbing, D.) 73–98 (Springer International Publishing, 2017). doi:10.1007/978-3- 319-90869-4_7.
233. Seele, P. & Lock, I. The game-changing potential of digitalization for sustainability: possibilities, perils, and pathways. Sustain Sci 12, 183–185 (2017).
234. Mann, R. P. & Helbing, D. Optimal incentives for collective intelligence. PNAS 114, 5077–5082 (2017).
235. Gurumurthy, A. & Bharthur, D. Democracy and the Algorithmic Turn. SUR – Int’l J. on Hum Rts. 15, 39–50 (2018).
236. Botsman, R. Big data meets Big Brother as China moves to rate its citizens. Wired UK (2017).
237. Malone, T. W. Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together. (Little, Brown Spark, 2018).
238. Farrow, K. et al. The impact of goals and public rewards on a prosocial behaviour: an exploratory economic experiment. Applied Economics Letters 22, 305–311 (2015).
239. Hawkins, R. X. D. et al. The Emergence of Social Norms and Conventions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23, 158–169 (2019).
240. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics 95, 1082–1095 (2011).
241. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).
242. Hoffman, A. J. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate. (Stanford Briefs, 2015).
243. Eom, K. et al. Cultural Variability in the Link Between Environmental Concern and Support for Environmental Action. Psychological science 27, (2016).
244. Nolan, J. M. et al. Normative Social Influence is Underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2008) doi:10.1177/0146167208316691.
245. Tyszczuk, R. & Smith, J. Culture and climate change scenarios: the role and potential of the arts and humanities in responding to the ‘1.5 degrees target’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31, 56–64 (2018).
246. Assadourian, E. Re-engineering Cultures to Create a Sustainable Civilization. In State of the World: Is Sustainability Still Possible? 113–125 (Island Press, 2013). doi:10.5822/978-1-61091-458-1_10.
247. Bolderdijk, J. W. et al. Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nature Climate Change 3, 413–416 (2013).
248. Nyborg, K. & Rege, M. On social norms: the evolution of considerate smoking behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 52, 323–340 (2003).
249. Scott, E. S. Social Norms and the Legal Regulation of Marriage. Virginia Law Review 86, 1901–1970 (2000).
250. O’Rourke, D. & Lollo, N. Transforming Consumption: From Decoupling, to Behavior Change, to System Changes for Sustainable Consumption. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40, 233–259 (2015).
251. Weber, E. U. Breaking cognitive barriers to a sustainable future. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 0013 (2017).
252. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. (Anchor Canada, 2013).
253. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974).
254. Kahneman, D. The human side of decision making: Thinking things through with Daniel Kahneman, PhD. Journal of Investment Consulting 13, 5–14 (2012).
255. Ledoux, J. E. Cognitive-Emotional Interactions in the Brain. Cognition and Emotion 3, 267–289 (1989).
256. Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. vol. 1 (SAGE Publications, 2013).
257. Zaval, L. & Cornwell, J. F. M. Cognitive Biases, Non-Rational Judgments, and Public Perceptions of Climate Change. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (2016) doi:10.1093/ acrefore/9780190228620.013.304.
258. Aboitiz, F. & García V, R. The evolutionary origin of the language areas in the human brain. A neuroanatomical perspective. Brain Res. Rev. 25, 381–396 (1997).
259. Dehaene, S. Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and arithmetic: The “neuronal recycling” hypothesis. In From Monkey Brain to Human Brain (eds. Dehaene, S. et al.) 133–157 (MIT Press, 2005).
260. Loh, K. K. & Kanai, R. How Has the Internet Reshaped Human Cognition? Neuroscientist 22, 506–520 (2016).
261. Bamberg, S. & Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro- environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27, 14–25 (2007).
262. Gifford, R. The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Amer. Psychol. 66, 290–302 (2011).
263. Cai, F. Yoshua Bengio on Human vs Machine Intelligence. Medium – Synced (2019).
264. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. (Yale University Press, 2008).
265. Morris, B. S. et al. Stories vs. facts: triggering emotion and action- taking on climate change. Climatic Change 154, 19–36 (2019).
266. Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 701 (2000).
267. Lin T.-C. Environmental NGOs and the Anti-Dam Movements in China: A Social Movement with Chinese Characteristics. Issues & Studies 43, 149–184 (2007).
268. Taylor, L. Environmentalism and Social Protest: The Contemporary Anti-mining Mobilization in the Province of San Marcos and the Condebamba Valley, Peru. Journal of Agrarian Change 11, 420–439 (2011).
269. Mila. Visualizing the impact of climate change. https://mila.quebec/en/visualizing-the-impact-of-climate-change/ (2019).
270. Schmidt, V. et al. Visualizing the Consequences of Climate Change Using Cycle-Consistent Adversarial Networks. (2019).
271. Bucher, T. et al. Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: a systematic review of positional influences on food choice. Br. J. Nutr. 115, 2252–2263 (2016).
272. Gigerenzer, G. & Brighton, H. Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1, 107–143 (2009).
273. Guilbeault, D. Digital Marketing in the Disinformation Age. Journal of International Affairs 71, 33–42 (2018).
274. Papacharissi, Z., ed. A Networked Self and Human Augmentics, Artificial Intelligence, Sentience. (Routledge, 2018).
275. John, P. All tools are informational now: how information and persuasion define the tools of government. Policy and Politics 41, 605–620 (2013).
276. Kennedy, J. F. Special message to the Congress on urgent national needs. (1961).
277. Both-Nwabuwe, J. M. C. et al. Sweeping the floor or putting a man on the moon: How to define and measure meaningful work. Frontiers in Psychology 8, 1658 (2017).
278. Geertz, A. W. & Jensen, J. S., eds. Religious Narrative, Cognition, and Culture: Image and Word in the Mind of the Narrative. (Routledge, 2011).
279. van der Leeuw, S. The role of narratives in human-environmental relations: An essay on elaborating win-win solutions to climate change and sustainability. Climatic Change (2019) doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02403-y.
280. Vosoughi, S. et al. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 1146–1151 (2018).
281. Royal Society for Public Health. Moving the needle: Promoting vaccination uptake across the life course. 36 https://www.rsph.org.uk/uploads/assets/uploaded/f8cf580a-57b5-41f4-8e21de333af20f32.pdf (2018).
282. Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).
283. Shao, C. et al. The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nat Commun 9, (2018).
284. Avaaz. Why is YouTube broadcasting climate misinformation to millions? 33 https://avaazimages.avaaz.org/youtube_climate_misinformation.pdf (2020).
285. Fake news threatens a climate literate world. Nat Commun 8, 1–2 (2017).
286. Guess, A. et al. Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. (2018).
287. Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, M. Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31, 211–236 (2017).
288. Nielson, R. K. The Power of Platforms. (2019).
289. Van der Linden, S. et al. Improving Public Engagement With Climate Change: Five “Best Practice” Insights From Psychological Science. Perspect Psychol Sci 10, 758–763 (2015).
290. Wang, S. et al. Public engagement with climate imagery in a changing digital landscape. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Climate Change (2018).
291. Milk, C. How virtual reality can create the ultimate empathy machine. (2015).
292. Riva, G. et al. Affective Interactions Using Virtual Reality: The Link between Presence and Emotions. CyberPsychology & Behavior 10, 45–56 (2007).
293. Radu, I. Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Pers Ubiquit Comput 18, 1533–1543 (2014).
294. Bailey, J. et al. The Impact of Vivid Messages on Reducing Energy Consumption Related to Hot Water Use. Environment and Behavior 47, 570–592 (2015).
295. Wiederhold, B. K. Is Augmented Reality the Next Frontier in Behavioral Health? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 22, 101–102 (2019).
296. Muller Queiroz, A. C. et al. Immersive Virtual Environments and Climate Change Engagement. In iLRN 2018 Montana: Workshop, Long and Short Paper, and Poster Proceedings from the Fourth Immersive Learning Research Network Conference 153–164 (2018). doi:10.3217/978-3-85125-609-3.
297. McGarry, C. Tim Cook: Augmented reality is the future, and fake news is ruining everything. Macworld (2017).
298. Kline, K. Journalism needs help – and mixed reality is coming to the rescue. Venture Beat (2019).
299. Steed, A. et al. ‘We wait’ – The imact of character responsiveness and self embodiment on presence and interest in an immersive news experience. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5, 112 (2018).
300. Kang, S. et al. Immersive journalism and telepresence: Does virtual reality news use affect news credibility? Digital Journalism 7, 294–313 (2018).
301. Aronson-Rath, R. et al. Virtual Reality Journalism. (Columbia Journalism School, 2016).
302. Hunt, E. Deepfake danger: What a viral clip of Bill Hader morphing into Tom Cruise tells us. The Guardian (2019).
303. Naffi, N. Deepfakes: Informed digital citizens are the best
     defence against online manipulation. The Conversation https://theconversation.com/deepfakes-informed-digital-citizens-are-the-best-defence-against-online-manipulation-129164 (2020).
304. Girard, M. Canada Needs Standards to Support Big Data Analytics. 8 https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/PB%20no.145web_0.pdf (2018).
305. Girard, M. Standards for digital cooperation. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/standards-digital-cooperation (2020).
306. Malmodin, J. & Lundén, D. The Energy and Carbon Footprint of the Global ICT and E&M Sectors 2010–2015. Sustainability 10, 3027 (2018).
307. Haque, N. et al. Rare Earth Elements: Overview of Mining, Mineralogy, Uses, Sustainability and Environmental Impact. Resources 3, 614–635 (2014).
308. Perkins, D. N. et al. E-Waste: A Global Hazard. Annals of Global Health 80, 286–295 (2014).
309. Smith, B. Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030. Official Microsoft Blog https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/ (2020).
310. Holling, C. S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1–23 (1973).
311. Haimes, Y. Y. On the Definition of Resilience in Systems. Risk Analysis 29, 498–501 (2009).
312. IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).

WITH SUPPORT FROM

PARTNERS