The science community has made efforts for over a half century to address sustainable development, which gave birth to sustainability science at the turn of the twenty-first century. Along with the development of sustainability science during the past two decades, a landscape sustainability science (LSS) perspective has been emerging. As interests in LSS continue to grow rapidly, scholars are wondering what LSS is about and how LSS fits into sustainability science, while practitioners are asking how LSS actually contributes to sustainability in the real world. To help address these questions, this dissertation research aims to explore the currently underused problem-driven, diagnostic approach to enhancing landscape sustainability through an empirical example of urbanization-associated farmland loss (UAFL). Based mainly on multimethod analysis of bibliographic information, the dissertation explores conceptual issues such as how sustainability science differs from conventional sustainable development research, and how the past, present, and future research needs of LSS evolve. It also includes two empirical studies diagnosing the issue of urban expansion and the related food security concern in the context of China, and proposes a different problem framing for farmland preservation such that stakeholders can be more effectively mobilized. The most important findings are: (1) Sustainability science is not “old wine in a new bottle,” and in particular, is featured by its complex human-environment systems perspective and value-laden transdisciplinary perspective. (2) LSS has become a vibrant emerging field since 2004-2006 with over three-decade’s intellectual accumulation deeply rooted in landscape ecology, yet LSS has to further embrace the two featured perspectives of sustainability science and to conduct more problem-driven, diagnostic studies of concrete landscape-relevant sustainability concerns. (3) Farmland preservationists’ existing problem framing of UAFL is inappropriate for its invalid causal attribution (i.e., urban expansion is responsible for farmland loss; farmland loss is responsible for decreasing grain production; and decreasing grain production instead of increasing grain demand is responsible for grain self-insufficiency); the real problem with UAFL is social injustice due to collective action dilemma in preserving farmland for regional and global food sufficiency. The present research provides broad implications for landscape scientists, the sustainability research community, and UAFL stakeholders.

In recent years, the world has debated the idea of biofuels as a solution to energy security, energy independence, and global climate change. However, as the biofuels movement has unfolded, crucial issues emerged regarding biofuels efficacy and efficiency. The deployment of biofuels of marginal benefit has raised questions about how countries like the USA may have found themselves so invested in a potentially failing technology. In order to better understand and evaluate these issues, this study utilizes the Ostrom Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to better evaluate these issues and analyze interacting institutions that shape US biofuel policy. The IAD framework is a model that enables one to study, conceptualize, compare, and make connections across decision arenas that would otherwise be distinct from each other. By analyzing the interactions of relevant institutions, one can see how different dynamic interests interacted to shape biofuel policy in the USA today. Conclusions from this analysis include: the IAD framework is ideal for analyzing the political and economic case for biofuels. The five action arenas identified in this thesis are sufficient to understand corn bioethanol policy. A compelling case for supporting bioethanol is not made. An international agreement to reduce GHG emissions could change the landscape for biofuels. Finally, there is little prospect for biofuels playing a significant role in the near term without greater alignment among the action arenas.