Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems (SDEWES2024)

1. Introduction

Since the first conference on the Sustainable Development of Energy, Water, and Environment Systems (SDEWES) was held in Dubrovnik in 2002, this conference series has been providing a global forum for scientists and other stakeholders interested in sustainability to share their research and contribute towards meeting the grand challenges that we face both in the present and the future. An important part has been enabling this state-of-the-art, multi-disciplinary research to be communicated so that it can contribute towards the discussion around future directions and priorities in sustainable development.

Sustainability has emerged as a defining grand challenge of the 21st century, encompassing environmental, economic, technological, political, and social concerns. The ten studies that comprise this Special Issue reflect the diversity and complexity of sustainability research, each contributing distinct insights into how societies, systems, and technologies can evolve toward more resilient and equitable futures. While the thematic scope of these papers is broad (e.g., built environment, energy systems, agriculture, artificial intelligence, and circularity), they together share a commitment to advancing sustainability research.

At its core, sustainability is a systems concept, concerned not only with resource efficiency and environmental stewardship but also with the interdependencies between human well-being, economic performance, technological progress, and governance. Several papers in this collection emphasise the importance of systemic thinking (contribution 1; contribution 8) and/or interdisciplinary (contribution 2; contribution 8) research. All papers addressed the importance of the economic dimension, and almost all addressed the political dimension, highlighting the importance of the ‘political economy’ in sustainability (e.g., contribution 2).

Various sub-themes emerged from the articles including the integration of digital technologies, especially in the context of agriculture (contribution 2; contribution 8; contribution 10) and ‘circularity’ (contribution 4; contribution 6; contribution 7). These efforts reflect a growing recognition that sustainability is not merely about minimising harm but about rethinking production and consumption systems to enable long-term regeneration. Unsurprisingly, artificial intelligence (AI) emerged as a potential enabler, including in construction to predict microstructural changes in materials (contribution 9), and in agriculture for supporting precision farming (contribution 2). However, the deployment of AI also raises ethical and governance questions, particularly around data privacy, security and equity, and this will undoubtedly become a rich area for future sustainable development research.

Finally, the theme of policy, equity, and governance runs throughout the collection. There is a general theme within many of these articles that advocate (or at least allude to this) for participatory, transparent, and context-sensitive approaches to sustainability. They highlight the need for policies that not only incentivise innovation but also safeguard social justice and environmental ethics.

In summary, these ten papers offer a rich tapestry of sustainability research, weaving together diverse methodologies, disciplines, locations, and perspectives. They demonstrate that sustainability is not a singular goal but a multidimensional process, one that requires collaboration across sectors, integration of technologies with values, and continuous reflection on the systems we inhabit and shape.

2. Sustainability in the Built Environment

The built environment is a critical frontier in the pursuit of sustainability, given its substantial contributions to global energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource use. Within this domain, several articles offered perspectives on how planning, construction practices, material selection, and energy systems can be reimagined to support climate-neutral development.

Ferrante et al. (contribution 6) examined the role of Green Building Rating Systems in facilitating the transition to Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) whilst Del-Busto et al., (contribution 5) demonstrated how temporary street experiments could reconfigure urban public spaces to promote active mobility, reduce car dependency, and enhance environmental quality. Several papers focused on transformative approaches: Several addressed the issue at a ‘large’ scale. For example, Yin et al. (contribution 10) analysed how agricultural infrastructure and resource planning in Heilongjiang Province could be optimised to support sustainable development whilst Calcagni and Battisti (contribution 3) examined floating urban development (FUD) as a sustainable solution for climate-threatened coastal zones in Italy. This latter paper emphasising integration with energy systems like solar and wind while considering environmental and social impacts. Alongside this, Patel et al., (contribution 8) discussed the transformation of degraded peatlands into multifunctional landscapes. Meanwhile, Rudenko et al. (contribution 9) explored the potential of non-autoclaved aerated concrete (NAAC) enhanced with ash-and-slag waste (ASW) as a sustainable construction material, whilst Gasik-Kowalska and Koper (contribution 7) demonstrated how recycled ceramic waste could be used to reduce resource extraction and supporting energy-efficient construction practices. These studies converge on the principle that sustainability in the built environment requires a holistic approach, emphasising the need for policy frameworks that incentivise sustainable procurement and certification (contribution 6) and the role of innovation (contribution 9).

3. Agriculture and the Nexus of Technology and Values

Agriculture is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by digital technologies and shaped by evolving societal values. The concept of Agriculture 5.0, as addressed by Bergier et al. (contribution 2) encapsulates this shift, moving beyond the data-centric focus of Agriculture 4.0 to embrace a value-oriented framework that integrates technological innovation with socio-environmental sustainability.

Patel et al. (contribution 8) examined how peatland degradation from agricultural land use can be mitigated through restoration strategies, supported by technological interventions such as drainage control and remote sensing for monitoring ecosystem recovery. They found that this can significantly contribute to climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and resilient energy and agricultural systems, but importantly, success depends on integrated policy, technological innovation, and stakeholder collaboration.

Yin et al. (contribution 10) applied advanced machine learning and optimisation techniques to evaluate agricultural sustainability in Heilongjiang Province. While the focus was primarily technological, it supported sustainability values such as resource conservation, environmental protection, and equitable development through data-driven planning and system coordination. The future of agriculture lies in its ability to integrate cutting-edge technologies with deep cultural and ethical insights. By mapping the semantic landscape of sustainability and constructing a value-oriented framework.

Finally, Bergier et al. (contribution 2) provided a compelling vision for how agriculture can evolve to meet the demands of a complex, interconnected world. Their work serves as a model for how research can illuminate the pathways toward a more just, resilient, and sustainable food system.

4. Circularity

Circularity, which is the principle of designing systems that regenerate resources and minimise waste, is increasingly recognised as a foundational pillar of sustainability. Within the ten studies, circularity emerges not only as a material strategy but also as a conceptual and policy-oriented framework that intersects with construction, agriculture, and education. In the built environment, circularity is evident in the reuse and valorisation of industrial by-products. Carrasco and May (contribution 4) analysed life cycle and circular economy aspects of photovoltaic modules and lithium-ion batteries to increase the efficiency of used material at the design. Rudenko et al. (contribution 9) demonstrated how a by-product of coal combustion can be repurposed into non-autoclaved aerated concrete. In a similar vein, Gasik-Kowalska and Koper (contribution 7) showcased how recycled ceramic waste can be repurposed into durable concrete, reducing environmental impact and resource consumption in the construction sector. Ferrante et al. (contribution 6) extended the concept of circularity to the district scale through their analysis of Positive Energy Districts. By integrating green building rating systems, the authors showed how material selection criteria (recycled content, local sourcing, and life cycle assessment) can promote circular construction practices. In agriculture, circularity is embedded in the design of integrated systems that recycle nutrients, biomass, and knowledge. Bergier et al. (contribution 2) discussed how crop–livestock–forestry systems and agroforestry models can transform degraded lands into productive landscapes while maintaining ecological balance. These systems exemplify circularity by fostering synergies between different components of the agricultural ecosystem, such as using livestock manure to enrich soils or integrating tree cover to enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Finally, circularity was also shown to intersect with education and policy with Abina et al. (contribution 1) highlighting how digital learning tools could support circular competency development by enabling learners to reflect on their skills, interests, and career trajectories. Similarly, Ferrante et al. (contribution 6) argued that policy frameworks such as Green Public Procurement and Minimum Environmental Criteria can institutionalise circularity by embedding it into procurement and certification processes.

5. Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognised as a transformative force in sustainability research and practice. AI emerges not only as a tool for optimisation and prediction but also as a catalyst for rethinking how knowledge is generated, decisions are made, and systems are governed. From construction materials and agriculture to education and semantic data systems, AI is deployed in diverse contexts to enhance efficiency, precision, and adaptability while also raising critical questions about ethics, equity, and epistemology. In the domain of sustainable construction, Rudenko et al. (contribution 9) demonstrated how convolutional neural networks can be used to predict microstructural changes in non-autoclaved aerated concrete enhanced with ash-and-slag waste. By training neural models on chemical composition and physical parameters, the study achieved high accuracy in forecasting material performance, thereby supporting the industrial-scale application of low-impact building materials. This use of AI exemplifies how machine learning can contribute to circularity and resilience in the built environment by optimising resource use and reducing waste.

In agriculture, AI plays a central role in the transition from Agriculture 4.0 to Agriculture 5.0. Bergier et al. (contribution 2) mapped the semantic landscape of sustainability concepts using bipartite network analysis, revealing how high-centrality keywords such as “deep learning,” “remote sensing,” and “precision agriculture” dominate the technological discourse. Yin et al. (contribution 10) applied machine learning techniques to evaluate agricultural sustainability using an enhanced Random Forest model to analyse complex interactions in water-land-energy systems. AI was also highlighted as supporting personalised learning and competency development (contribution 1) whilst Del-Busto et al. (contribution 5) discussed AI as a tool for urban mobility monitoring.

Overall, AI was shown to be a powerful enabler of sustainability, offering tools for optimisation, prediction, and personalisation across multiple domains. However, it was also highlighted that its effectiveness depends on how it is embedded within broader systems of values, governance, and inclusion. The studies advocated for a balanced approach one that harnesses the capabilities of AI while remaining attentive to its limitations and ethical implications.

6. Policy, Equity and Governance

Sustainability is fundamentally shaped by the structures of policy, equity, and governance that determine how resources, knowledge, and opportunities are distributed. Across the ten studies in this Special Issue, these themes emerge as critical enablers and constraints. Whether through certification systems, youth empowerment, or cultural recognition, the governance of sustainability is shown to be deeply intertwined with questions of justice, participation, and institutional design.

The study by Del-Busto et al. (contribution 5) used street experiments to inform urban policy shifts, promote spatial justice and accessibility for vulnerable users, and foster participatory governance through collaborative evaluation frameworks with city stakeholders. Patel et al., (contribution 8) analysed how EU and national frameworks were guiding peatland restoration, emphasising the need for coordinated governance and equitable strategies that balance ecological goals with socioeconomic realities. Calcagni and Battisti (contribution 3) emphasised the importance of public engagement, regulatory compliance, and adaptive management in floating urban development, whilst also highlighting equity concerns, warning that without inclusive planning, such developments risk becoming exclusive luxury enclaves rather than accessible, socially integrated urban solutions. Yin et al. (contribution 10) highlighted the role of government policies in shaping water, land, and energy resource management and advocating for coordinated planning and regulation whilst also discussing regional disparities in resource capacity and the need for interdepartmental collaboration and data-driven governance to support equitable and sustainable agricultural development. Ferrante et al. (contribution 6) provide a compelling example of how policy frameworks can institutionalise sustainability in the built environment. Bergier et al. (contribution 2) extended the discussion of governance into the domain of agriculture, where they argue for a value-oriented framework that integrates both material and immaterial assets. In the context of education and youth development, Abina et al. (contribution 1) explored how digital tools can support equitable access to sustainability competencies, demonstrating how governance can be enacted through designs that are accessible, responsive, and attuned to diverse learner needs.

Across these studies, governance is shown to be both a structural and a relational process. It involves the creation of standards, the design of platforms, and the negotiation of values. In summary, policy, equity, and governance are not peripheral concerns in sustainability, they are central to its realisation. The articles in this Special Issue demonstrate that sustainable transitions require more than technical solutions; they demand institutional innovation, cultural recognition, and ethical reflection.

7. Summary and Conclusions

Overall, the ten articles synthesised in this Editorial collectively show the multifaceted nature of sustainability, offering insights that span the built environment, digital education, agriculture, circularity, artificial intelligence, and governance. While each paper addresses distinct challenges and contexts, they are unified by a shared commitment to systemic thinking, innovation, and inclusivity. Together, these studies advocate for a sustainability agenda that is not only technically robust but also socially just and culturally attuned. The synthesis presented here underscores the importance of integrating diverse perspectives and methodologies in sustainability research. It calls for a future in which technology is guided by values, systems are designed for regeneration, and governance is rooted in equity.