Search

Abstract Transdisciplinary research has been introduced as an approach to integrate different bodies of knowledge to learn and to develop solutions towards socio-ecological transformations. In these concepts, broad stakeholder involvement is intended to promote knowledge integration, consensus formation and activation of local actors to initiate and advance learning and change processes. In doing so, however, transdisciplinary processes enter societal battlegrounds and meet conflicting interest and knowledge claims. Thus, building on the discussion on transdisciplinarity in the context of sustainability-related research, the paper seeks to understand when and why which types of conflicts emerge in sustainability-related transdisciplinary research, how they affect knowledge integration, and how they can be resolved. It develops a categorization of conflicts including differing values, conflicting interests, dissimilar claims of legitimacy, and diverse knowledge claims. They are applied empirically in the analysis of a project on regional adaptation to climate change in Northwestern Germany. It studies processes and outcomes with regard to the societal impact of the project and discusses experiences of conflicts and relevant solutions. The paper finds that societally relevant transdisciplinary research processes need to be prepared for conflict resolution and overcoming resistance and blockages in cases when consensus formation and mutual agreement is not attainable. Highlights • Analyses types of conflicts in sustainability-related transdisciplinary research • Finds that conflicts are rarely addressed in this literature • Identifies conflicts from differing values, interests, claims of legitimacy, and knowledge claims • Studies conflicts in an adaptation case in Northwestern Germany • Finds conflicts between values and legitimacy claims in the case study [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International attempts have not succeeded in addressing climate change, leaving an even heavier responsibility on countries, firms and people. As tourism is an expanding branch in the world economy, it is crucial to focus on how climate change issues are addressed in this industry as well. This paper analyses a group of tourism firms in Norway that join together to promote growth and profitability in winter tourism. The span in how these firms deal with environmental issues ranges from ecotourism till not addressing the subject at all. Although the majority of the firms have environmental issues on the agenda, environmental issues are not included in the cooperation. We use critical discourse theory to explore how this stance on environmental issues within a cooperation has come about, and categorize the firms into three discourses: neoclassical economics, environmental economics and ecological economics. Our data indicate that the hegemonic power of neoclassical economics hampers an environmental focus in the network. This power is exerted through the position of being environmentally indifferent. The paper adds knowledge to economic discourses on firm level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“Ecosystem services” is a phrase with many meanings, yet very few studies have primarily focused on comparing different definitions of the term. Ecosystem services are now generally used in identifying an appropriately wide range of environmental variables for policy and management as well as better understanding the benefits provided by those aspects of the environment. A review of the dominant definitions of ecosystem services reveals the term is comprehensive in its scope and requires further specification for most purposes. Analysis further reveals that there are four main categories of conceptual definitions. The paper concludes that ecosystem services can be identified at various points along the spectrum of nature-human interaction depending on which specific definition is chosen and that the term was not created to identify a novel set of environmental objects or processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]