Change towards sustainability is arguably the leitmotif in any sustainability assessment, with the endpoint typically being the provision of advice to decision-makers and the presentation this website of findings as a fait accompli (as described

in the review by von Wirén-Lehr 2001, but not included here). Implicit to this approach is a very specific, linear epistemological model that often fails to deliver desirable changes because of the disconnect between the generation of new knowledge, and the needs and values that inform the sustainability goals of individual decision-makers in the farming community. An example from developing countries is the enthusiastic promotion of conservation agricultural practices for sustainability by researchers (e.g. Kassam et al. 2012; Lal 2000, and some literature reviewed as part of our assessment strategy), and the reluctance or refusal of many farmers to adopt this knowledge-intensive technology, which highlights that important agro-ecological and socio-economic constraints and complexities have not been considered in the research (see Giller

et al. 2009 for a review on the suitability of conservation agriculture in small-holder systems in Africa). So, the question arises as how to connect the in silico knowledge generated by our model-based assessment framework with the needs, values and the consequent sustainability goals of individual decision-makers. Firstly, sustainability should be viewed as a process rather than an endpoint of assessment. Secondly, viewing sustainability as a process implies a cyclic epistemological selleck chemicals llc model (in contrast to the linear knowledge model discussed above), which evolves through time, as do the needs and sustainability goals of individuals (see also the ‘adaptation cycle’ described by Meinke et al. 2009). Research that straddles the generation of new

knowledge and the various perceptions of what constitutes reliable and relevant knowledge in the face of complex and changing political, economic, social and bio-physical environments has been described as “boundary work” (Guston 2001; Clark et al. 2011) or “participatory action research” very (Carberry et al. 2002; McCown 2001, 2002). Boundary work using bio-physical modelling has been applied successfully in Australia, where it involved iterative learning cycles in which the participating researchers, policy-makers and farmers (re-)designed and (re-)CB-839 clinical trial evaluated simulation scenarios as informed by practical experience and empirical observations (Meinke et al. 2001; Kokic et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2007, 2010a, b). Such participatory, reflective modelling can cater for the various perceptions of sustainability (other than the single perception put forward in this study), as well as changes in perceptions throughout the participatory learning process. Conflicts and contradictions in respect to “what constitutes a sustainable social, environmental, and economic outcome” that extends beyond the modelled system must be anticipated.