Search

This longitudinal study explores evidence of learning and reflexivity among experts involved in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Values Assessment from 2018 to 2022. As part of an online survey administered at yearly intervals, experts self-reported their views on: i) the aims they attributed to the Values Assessment , ii) their epistemic worldviews, iii) the definition of the multiple values of nature, and iv) their personal learning experiences in the assessment process. The represented epistemic worldviews corresponded to Constructivist, Transformative, Pragmatist, and Post-positivist. Across the three surveys, 59% of the respondents shifted their epistemic worldviews. However, these same experts did not change their core perspectives regarding the motivation behind the Values Assessment. At the same time, experts holding a Post-positivist worldview came to express more engagement-inclined themes and openness to dialogue with diverse knowledge systems. While enhanced reflexivity stimulated overall learning, cutting across all learning dimensions, it was itself a multilayered learning outcome. This study illustrates how diverse experts critically reflected and changed their own underlying assumptions during the inter- and transdisciplinary process of the Values Assessment. It further reveals that learning experiences in the Values Assessment were embedded in epistemic worldviews and connected to cognitive, relational, and transformative dimensions of learning. Our findings have broader implications for the design of inclusive and reflexive learning processes in future work of organisations aiming to facilitate inter- and transdisciplinary practices at the science-policy interface. • The IPBES process challenged experts to reflect active engagement with larger society. • Experts' epistemic worldviews and understandings shifted during a four-year IPBES process. • The degree and limits of reflection were ingrained partly in epistemic worldviews. • Epistemic worldviews connected to cognitive, relational, and transformative learning types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As centres of consumption, knowledge and services under some political and administrative control, cities are acknowledged as strategic food governance transition nodes. Increasing stakeholder coordination and participation, however, means identifying pathways for transformative change and accelerating uptake of innovative and participatory modes of governance. We argue that modelling approaches, by helping to meet the three pre-conditions for participatory governance (relationship-building, shared understanding and experimentation) offer valuable input and can help establish ad hoc institutional space for redesigning food system governance. Based on a selective literature review, we define four key dimensions to consider when modelling for participatory food governance in city-regions: stakeholders' involvement, process phases, capacity for joint action and use of a multi-sectoral and multi-scale approach. The state-of-the-art review presented in this paper focuses on seven modelling approaches that can meaningfully support stakeholder participation in food system transitioning processes, considering the specific context, objectives and available resources. The strengths and limitations of combined modelling approaches are illustrated and critically reviewed, using a concrete example from the Berlin city-region. This highlights the relevant contribution that modelling can make to creating new spaces for participatory food governance. • Modelling can be used to support new spaces for redesigning food system governance. • Modelling can help build relationships and a shared view, and promote experiments. • Dimensions considered: involvement, phase, capacity and multi-scale/multi- sector. • A modelling approach is context-, objective- and resource-dependent. • Comprehensive guidelines for a system-perspective selection are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-Normal Science (PNS) emphasises the need for scientists and policy-makers to iteratively co-analyse and learn together, as part of an extended peer community. However, the roles and implications for scientific experts when interacting with policy-makers are not well understood. Informed by insights from science and technology studies (STS) on modalities of interaction and the multiple potential roles of experts, we reflect on our experiences as scientific experts working on European agricultural policy within the interdisciplinary H2020 MAGIC project. We aimed to analyse and facilitate science-policy dialogue on a variety of European sustainability challenges. Whilst we achieved stimulating interactions on the nexus of issues associated with sustainable agriculture, our experiences did not fully match our deliberative vision. In part this was due to the varied constraints and reactions of policy-makers: many had limited remit for engagement, some expressed scientists should act as 'fact' providers in support of current tasks; others contested scientific analyses when these implied policy approaches were insufficient. Our own roles and reactions also varied across the scientific team and over time: from attempting to foster relationships, to emphasising our relevance to their tasks, or making stronger judgements. This dynamic mix was at times personally uncomfortable and challenging. Navigating such processes needs explicit reflection on the potentially plural roles expected of scientific and other experts working on and for sustainability. Meanwhile, the persistent expectations and institutional constraints that underlie and constrain science-policy interactions need more recognition, including by policy institutions themselves. • Scientists working on agri-food nexus planned policy interactions as per Post-Normal Science (PNS). • Implementing PNS was challenging, due partially to varying scientist and policy-maker expectations. • Scientists' responses ranged from advocacy for change through to downplaying scientific expertise. • Achieving PNS needs reflexivity on expert roles plus reflection on institutional constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real-world laboratories (RwLs) provide research settings to develop and test sustainability solution options and have gained considerable attention in the field of sustainability research since the early 2010s. RwLs, especially those in which urban municipalities are involved as partners, have been linked to promises for fostering sustainable urban development, but they are also critically discussed, e.g., for being used as proof for already doing 'enough' in terms of sustainability and citizen participation. However, these assumptions are rarely empirically investigated. This paper applies a traceable methodological approach. We focus on long-term RwL processes in eight German cities, that were all part of the Cities of the Future funding program (2015–2022/23). Based on policy documents provided in city council information systems, we conducted a qualitative content analysis. By applying deductively and inductively developed codes, we capture the ways in which the RwL processes were a) linked to changes in urban polity, politics and policy, and b) strategically used by city officials. Our findings suggest that most of the RwLs had political impacts in several ways. Further, attempts of strategic use were particularly visible for politically highly impactful RwLs. • We assess impacts for eight Real-world labs on urban policy, politics, and polity. • City council documents such as resolutions and budget plans are analyzed. • Most of the Real-world labs had traceable political impacts. • Many Real-world labs were used to make an argument and for city branding purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In post-normal science (PNS), the emergence of extended peer communities (EPCs) is a key process to deal with problems involving high uncertainty, high stakes, disputed values, and urgent decisions. However, the challenges and opportunities related to the emergence of EPCs in contentious territories—such as many across the Global South—are poorly understood. Therefore, we conducted an investigation to address two research questions: (1) Are there any indispensable social, institutional, and/or techno-scientific conditions for the emergence of EPCs coherent with PNS? and (2) How can EPCs in contentious territories of the Global South overcome adverse contextual conditions for their emergence and development? We addressed our first question through interviews with world-renowned experts in post-normal science. To answer our second question, we conducted a case study and analyzed a public consultation process led by the municipal government of Morelia, Mexico, as an alleged effort to democratize decision-making regarding local environmental conservation strategies. Our results show that (1) In PNS, EPCs can emerge as evolving problem-resolution processes despite adverse contextual conditions, though they don't necessarily solve problems or political controversies; and (2) EPCs are bounded by their contextual conditions, which in some contexts of the Global South—like Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America—can include violence, coercion, and large power imbalances. Yet, contextual conditions aren't inherently challenges or opportunities for the emergence of EPCs. Therefore, we argue that in PNS (and related collaborative science approaches) it is crucial to analyze contextual conditions to strengthen EPCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transdisciplinary Research (TDR) fosters collaboration amongst stakeholders from different academic disciplines and sectors of society, to jointly search for solutions to complex challenges including rapid urbanization. In order to enhance collaboration and ensure reciprocity of expertize amongst stakeholders, flattening the hierarchy of power is critical for working together to develop research agendas and experiment solutions. However, context dependent research on power dynamics in TDR is still limited and yet it is one of the conditions for understanding how to optimize the value and relevance of TDR in transitions to sustainable cities. This paper sheds light on power dynamics in TDR, using a qualitative analysis of case studies in the cities of Accra (Ghana), Durban (South Africa) and Nairobi (Kenya). Learnings from the case studies suggest that researchers should not overstate expert terminologies and illuminate the controversies that stem from stark differences in their methodological domains, during interfaces with stakeholders from policy and local communities, as this can dent the societal credibility and inclusiveness of the TDR process. Secondly, it is important to seize the potential of creating joint learning platforms using micro-level solutions in informal settlements, since it empowers local community representatives to assert themselves as co-researchers with legitimate perspectives on how the research agenda can be reshaped. Local-level solutions also provide scientific and policy windows for discerning expert biases in approaches used by academics and policy-makers to presuppose what can be done about the situation of under-privileged communities, which is key in building consensus when setting the research agenda. • TDR enables scientists collaborate with societal actors to find solutions to global urbanization. • Flatter power hierarchies amongst stakeholders is a condition for optimizing the value of TDR. • Overstating expert terms and converseness in research methods can dent inclusivity in TDR. • Solutions from informal settlements empower local actors to assert themselves as co-researchers. • Research agendas that fuse scientific with societal views demonstrate flatter power hierarchies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, debates on the governance of food, water, and energy resources (FWE nexus) have increased, provoking new insights into social importance in ecological balance. Policymakers, management professionals, and scholars of the FWE nexus call for new approaches that address ranges of social and ecological impacts of uncoordinated sectoral planning. From a theoretical perspective, social-ecological systems (SES) science offers a balanced approach for improved FWE nexus through consolidating knowledge from a wide range of disciplines and providing the opportunity to adapt to the changing environment. However, although increasingly employed, it has been complicated to empirically monitor and evaluate the dynamic social-ecological nexus systems. A framework for translating SES theory into FWE nexus practice is needed. This paper develops an integrated assessment framework of the social-ecological nexus systems governance and presents results from its application to a Dutch smart-eco city. An integrative multi-level analysis scheme is used to analyze intra- and inter- relationships, quantify social and ecological impacts of uncoordinated FWE management, and visualize FWE supply-chain risks posed to cities by the dynamic humans and nature interactions. The evidence-based approach of this study proved advantages of the proposed framework in (i) revealing connections of natural resources and the cultural, regulating, and supporting services of nexus systems, and (ii) making practical recommendations for improved socio-ecologically-balanced nexus interventions. The results can support policymakers and management professionals of the FWE nexus to organize their analytical, diagnostic, and prescriptive capabilities to make development decisions on urban resilience and ecological balance. • A holistic, integrated framework for the governance of food-water-energy (FWE) systems is proposed. • The framework advanced FWE nexus frameworks by explicit dynamic analysis of social-ecological interactions. • The so-called 'NexSESF' framework shapes connections between FWE sectors and the actors facilitating these connections. • We demonstrated the framework by assessing a local synergistic nexus system in a Dutch smart-eco city. • Social-ecological integration boosts systematic, transdisciplinary, adaptive, and monitoring mechanisms for FWE nexus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our study aimed at understanding the utilization of research knowledge generated in sustainable development research. Drawing on a sample of 54 recent research projects, we investigated how and by whom the knowledge was used, what changes were achieved, and how non-academic actors were involved. As a conceptual framework we combined a concept of "stages of knowledge utilization" with a spiral model that co-creates three forms of knowledge – systems knowledge, target knowledge, and transformation knowledge, and which spans from joint problem definition to concrete sustainability transformations. We analysed questionnaires from 94 academic and non-academic actors using cross-tabulation, chi-squared tests, and qualitative content analysis. The early involvement of non-academic actors from key groups such as local enterprises was positively related to the utilization of research knowledge, as was their involvement in diverse roles. However, only little of the research knowledge generated has so far resulted in changes in policy and practice, partly because sustainability transformations are larger societal processes. Utilization of research knowledge for sustainability transformations cannot be achieved without employing a transdisciplinary approach that brings together academic and non-academic actors in a setting that enables discussions on an even footing and the empowering of actors who are often not heard. In such settings, researchers are also part of the change rather than mere observers, an additional factor that came up in our participatory results validation activities and that requires further research. For more influence on policies and practice, research for development requires active participation of non-academic actors from the outset, when the project contents are defined. • Transdisciplinary ways of doing science have become important in the co-production of knowledge to solve societal challenges. • There is a danger that non-academic actors are recipients of information rather than co-creators of knowledge. • The early involvement of non-academic actors in diverse roles in projects increases the utilization of the co-created knowledge. • Incorporating transdisciplinarity into classical research approaches adds openness – and thus uncertainty – to projects. • We recommend a more active engagement with non-academic actors especially from vulnerable groups from the start of a project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the potentials and limitations of transdisciplinary research on sustainability issues characterized by extensive uncertainty and complexity. Transdisciplinary approaches that support the co-creation of knowledge in collaboration between science and society are advocated in research that aims to explore pathways for societal transformations towards sustainability. However, there is limited research on how co-creation research plays out in practice and what are its implications, in particular with regards to how data collection and analysis can be developed to increase the quality and reliability of the research, and to the roles that researchers themselves play in shaping the research. This paper makes two contributions: First, it offers insight into the design and implementation of co-creation endeavors based on scholarly literature as well as experiences from a research program that seeks to support foresight capacity for sustainable development under geopolitical uncertainties. Second, the paper elaborates methodological support for co-creation research by highlighting the potential of co-dissemination for transdisciplinarity and arguing for a systematic approach to reflection and self-reflexivity. Specifically, the paper reflects on experiences from the ongoing Mistra Geopolitics research program, which explores the intersections between geopolitics and sustainable development, and where co-creation has been at the core since the start of the program. We explore three stages in transdisciplinary research: (i) co-design of the research agenda, (ii) co-production of knowledge, and (iii) co-dissemination. Specifically, we examine the role of non-academic partners, the role of knowledge brokers and facilitation, and the need for flexibility, adaptability and reflexivity throughout the process. • Co-creation can support foresight capacity and identification of new challenges. • Flexibility, adaptability and reflexivity are key to transdisciplinary projects. • Co-dissemination can make a relevant contribution in a transdisciplinary program. • Critical assessments should be an integrated part of co-creation processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Knowledge of climate patterns and associated risks is relevant to making planning and resource management decisions at the urban scale. However, available scientific climate information is often poorly suited to decision-making needs. New ways of producing knowledge, both about the climate and urban decision-making, are required to address this disconnect. Transdisciplinarity aims to span the boundaries between scientific research, policymaking and practice to tackle complex problems, including those of urban sustainability and climate change. This paper focuses on the role that intermediaries play in spanning disciplinary, organizational and sectoral boundaries to facilitate collaborative problem-solving and mutual learning to connect knowledge with action. It presents empirical findings of how embedded researchers facilitate the co-production of knowledge on climate-sensitive urban public policy and planning decisions based on the experiences of seven embedded researchers operating in six Southern African cities – Lusaka (Zambia), Maputo (Mozambique), Windhoek (Namibia), Harare (Zimbabwe), Durban and Cape Town (South Africa). Data from the activities, outputs and experiences of these embedded researchers, documented in monthly reports during their tenure in the period 2015 to 2019, were coded for four aspects of transdisciplinary boundary spanning identified in existing literature, namely: trust-based relationships; collaborative agenda-setting and combining different knowledges; promoting reflexivity and innovation; and navigating multiple accountabilities. The analysis reveals that embedded researchers play a key role in supporting other researchers better understand and navigate the policy and practice domain. It also highlights the challenges that embedded researcher face when transitioning out of the role. The paper concludes that creating the inter-organizational agreements to co-host an embedded researcher, and allocating finances, time, intellectual and emotional support to the embedded researchers to effectively span boundaries, can be an effective way to promote the transdisciplinary collaboration needed to tackle climate risks in cities. Furthermore, it suggests that having embedded researchers operating within a cohort of peers, enhances their reflexivity, learning and thereby effectiveness as intermediaries. • Embedded researchers (ERs) make research and policy processes more legible. • A cohort approach enhances learning to navigate multiple accountabilities. • Trust and mutual understanding underpin climate-sensitive decision-making. • Career-pathing for ERs remains a challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The term "citizen science" is adopted in 58 % of initiatives. • 55 % of initiatives include public participation exclusively in data collection. • 17 % of projects are co-produced between researchers and the public. • Cases monitor biodiversity (terrestrial and aquatic), water and land cover. • Funding comes from Government and/or NGO (90 %) and the private sector (25 %). Citizen science has gained momentum in the past two decades as a participatory research approach. However, it is necessary to analyze when and how this participation takes place within the knowledge generation process. We analyzed 36 cases of citizen science in Mexico to describe the relationship between the stages and levels of public participation in knowledge generation and the geographic, temporal, and thematic scope of the initiatives. We also characterized the participants and initiatives' sources of financing. We found that 21 initiatives called themselves citizen science, the rest were described as participatory monitoring or community monitoring. Furthermore, 55 % of the cases were contributory projects, in which citizens participated exclusively in the process of data collection. Only 17 % of cases were co-created, where the public participated along with scientists throughout the process of knowledge generation: from framing of the problems, research design, data collection, and analysis, to the dissemination of the results. In this article, we highlight that citizen science can achieve its greatest transformative potential when public participation takes place throughout the multiple stages of the knowledge generation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The analysis offers a detailed case study of knowledge integration and co-production that involves scientific and Indigenous knowledge. • The ethnoecological approach used recognizes that knowledge is entangled with practices and worldviews. • Uneven power relations and dichotomies between knowledge systems form a challenge for co-production processes. • Knowledge outcomes are seen as legitimate and usable if they include terms and meanings that their users recognize. • Practical ethics, continuous reflection, and adaptation and bricolage are paramount in guiding knowledge integration and co-production. Environmental policies that aim to enhance nature conservation, biodiversity, and well-being of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) rely on knowledge integration and co-production processes that include both science and Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems. While these processes are expected to safeguard the diversity of knowledge systems, uneven power relations among participants often prevent them from achieving this which can affect the legitimacy and usability of the outcomes of these processes. Using a case study in the Acre state (Brazil), where policy practitioners implemented the REDD + policy System of Incentives for Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Kaxinawá Nova Olinda Indigenous Land, we investigate how participants manage challenges to safeguard knowledge diversity and usability during policy assessment and planning. Our findings show how, despite the use of participatory approaches, knowledge diversity ended up being compromised because policy practitioners were insufficiently attentive to power asymmetries and their implications. This, however, did not negatively affect the usability of the knowledge outcomes. Rather than focusing on the perfection of participatory methods, we call for a practical ethics that relies on culturally and ethically sensitive dialogues and that include continuous reflection. Such reflection will enable adaptation and improvisation to be able to respond to emerging power dynamics in an adequate and timely manner, thereby ensuring both the legitimacy and the usability of the outcomes of knowledge integration and co-production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Results show divergences between planning and implementation. • Many projects follow a consensual deliberative ideal but struggle to implement it. • Functional, expert-driven participation dominates, despite other intentions. • Many projects insufficiently present and evaluate their participatory process. • Projects focus on measurable outputs instead of possible (long-term) societal effects. The impact of collaborative research approaches on science and society has been subject to much debate and speculation. However, empirically grounded analyses of the process-impact link remain the exception. That includes comparing participation planning, intended processes, expectations and implementation. This paper delivers a theoretically informed comparison between different approaches to participation that are practised. It does so by performing a criteria-guided analysis of 31 participatory sustainability studies covering different areas of study and spatial levels. This provides an understanding of how participation is translated from theory into practice, what challenges occur that contradict initial aims, and how these potentially influence expected effects. The results show stark divergences between planning and implementation: persistent normative ideals in the planning phase, echoing deliberative and emancipatory claims, contrast with an emphasis on effectiveness during implementation. This leads to a systematic over-representation of experts and an under-representation of diverse societal actors in the studies. The focus is on producing directly measurable results rather than promoting possible (long-term) societal effects. These findings facilitate a deeper discussion of which conditions and procedures could aid the design and delivery of high-impact collaboration in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Non-linear stages of knowledge utilization are useful indicators for impact pathways from transdisciplinary research. • It is possible to assess non-linear stages of utilization of knowledge from early stages of transdisciplinary research. • Co-created knowledge is used simultaneously in science and policy-making and in a continuum of geographic scales. • We found preliminary evidence about the process of co-creation of knowledge as empowerment tool. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on how to attribute and evaluate the contribution of transdisciplinary research to sustainable development. As co-created knowledge is a key product of transdisciplinary research, we tested the hypothesis that the extent to which this knowledge is utilized beyond the project consortia, in different areas – from scientific methods and insights to policy decisions – and across a continuum of geographical scales can be used to identify potential impact pathways. For this purpose, we developed an analytical framework that links the transdisciplinary process to six possible utilization stages, which we used as indicators of the usability of co-created knowledge. We gathered data from 22 research projects active in 36 countries using a survey and semi-structured interviews. Our results show that even during implementation of the projects, co-created knowledge is utilized by multiple actors at different stages, in all areas and at all scales simultaneously, suggesting multiple impact pathways. Project knowledge is predominantly utilized for national-level policymaking, and research partners named co-creation of knowledge with key stakeholders as the most frequently used mechanism for promoting knowledge utilization. Closer analysis revealed different understandings of and approaches to knowledge co-creation. These can be linked to weaker or stronger definitions of transdisciplinarity. The analysis shows that researchers using strong transdisciplinarity approaches typically face challenges in encompassing multiple epistemologies and facilitating dialogue. Some results suggest that inclusion and collaboration in co-creating knowledge can empower actors otherwise excluded. Our research shows that although transdisciplinary projects have nonlinear impact pathways, these can be partially assessed using the proposed analytical framework. Further, our results indicate a link between usability, inclusion, and collaboration in transdisciplinary research. We conclude with the observation that transdisciplinarity and its requirements still need to be better understood by actors within and beyond the research community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Transdisciplinarity has become mainstream in resource management. • We review recent contributions to transdisciplinary resource management to identify the methods and processes applied. • The concept of transdisciplinary resource management yet lacks empirical developments. • Potential practical contribution of transdisciplinary resource management to sustainable development is proposed. The burgeoning food-water-energy (FWE) nexus discussion for sustainable development reflects the ongoing transition from a silo-thinking to a transdisciplinary perspective in order to address challenges of the nexus practicability in real-world. Approaches to putting the FWE nexus into practice have failed to respond to the interdependent issues of resources appropriately and to devise the way societies are coordinated for such responses. Societies are critically important for advancing sustainable development and are thus placed at the center of the FWE nexus. Transdisciplinarity allows challenges to be framed and viable solutions to be found at the outset in an extensive and equal contribution of societies. This paper provides a systematic literature review to debate the current concepts and methods of the transdisciplinary research on the FWE nexus with the aim of developing a guide for socially inclusive sustainable development. Although the concept of transdisciplinarity has been widely accepted by nexus research, an explicit cognition of its practicability in real-world is still lacking, and sophisticated methodological development is required. As such, we proposed a conceptual framework to explore the potential contribution of transdisciplinarity towards linking FWE nexus practices and sustainability outcomes in real-world situations. This framework is useful in steering the management of nexus issues with integrative perspectives. Relying on the proposed framework, we made recommendations for successful transdisciplinary nexus practices. The future nexus research should be directed towards communication mechanisms and governance transition for balanced power relations among nexus actors, their representative selection, and timely involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We test how different research modes influence societal and academic outcomes. • Early Involvement of non-academic actors appears to benefit societal project outcomes. • Academic performance is lower in projects with non-academic actor involvement. • Careful project design may reduce trade-offs between academic and societal outcomes. Sustainability-oriented research has increasingly adopted "new" modes of research promoted under labels such as 'post-normal science', 'mode 2 knowledge production' or 'transdisciplinarity', aiming to address societally relevant problems and to produce 'socially robust' knowledge by involving relevant scientific disciplines and non-academic actors into the research. We present the results of a comparative quantitative analysis of 81 completed sustainability-oriented research projects, coupled with an in-depth study of six projects, to empirically investigate the assumed connections between research modes and societal and academic project outcomes. Statistical analysis suggests that contributions from practitioners in early phases of research projects positively influence certain societal and practice-relevant outcomes. By contrast, including non-academic actors and practitioner knowledge into research negatively impacts academic outputs and citations, indicating a trade-off between academic and societal impacts. Yet projects which apply structured methods of knowledge integration score generally higher on academic outputs and citations. Moreover, the funding context affects both research mode and research outcomes. Finally, practitioner involvement negatively affects completing of PhD projects. Findings from the in-depth study reinforce a trade-off between the societal and academic impact of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary sustainability-oriented research. We find that projects which had a double research objective on academic and societal outcomes but which did not specify how to realize both, neglected either the academic or the societal impact during the research process. Moreover, we find that a well-designed combination of disciplinary as well as inter- and transdisciplinary project phases helped projects to meet both demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Fostering societal effects in transdisciplinary research should focus on enhancing the potential for such effects. • The relations between framework conditions and research processes are vital as effects can rarely be facilitated in isolated projects. • Recommendations for an adaptive shaping of research processes are provided to strengthen the potential for societal effects. • The early stages of a transdisciplinary endeavour are crucial for creating leeway to evolve potential effectiveness. Transdisciplinary sustainability research aims to mitigate or to solve complex societal problems and advance the production of scientific knowledge. Reflexive approaches to transdisciplinary research processes are outlined to systematically strengthen the potential for societal effectiveness. So far, it is rare to find empirically based analyses of the links between the quality of the research process and the methods applied on the one hand and the effects achieved on the other. This paper thus addresses the issue of heightening the societal effects of transdisciplinary sustainability research. The objective is to explore ways of consciously promoting societal effectiveness in transdisciplinary research. We argue that these possibilities evolve at the intersection between the general project framework and an adaptive shaping of transdisciplinary research processes. A reflexive approach of this kind proactively considers the dynamics of interests and concerns, roles and responsibilities, the collaboration culture within a project, and the connectivity to the context of action addressed. Its deployment presupposes an appreciation of the basic conditions, i.e. the historical development of the respective problem, the heterogeneity of actors involved, the general environment and, finally, the funding conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Long-term reviews are necessary to appreciate the full outcomes and impacts of the scientific, societal and policy perspectives of transdisciplinary projects. Here, thirteen years after its completion, we assess the significance of a five-year (1999–2004) Swiss research project. The Fischnetz project aimed to identify the causes of fish catch decline and propose remedial measures. Engineers and scientists from different disciplines collaborated with practitioners and policy makers to approach this real-world problem and develop and implement policy interventions. Fischnetz proved to be an exemplarily successful case of how transgressive and socially robust research can be conducted and result in high-quality scientific outputs and policy impacts. As a result of Fischnetz , The Swiss Federal Water Protection Act was fully revised, two by-laws were changed, and several parliamentary interventions were launched. Fischnetz produced 68 scientific ISI-papers with higher than average citations. In this report, the project setup and its overall outcomes were analysed via a Mode-2 knowledge production approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate risks in African cities are complex. Actors must adopt new, collaborative practices to respond to such risks. The theory of expansive learning was deployed in this study to investigate the process and nature of change emanating from transdisciplinarity for navigating such risks. Expansive learning is concerned with the transformative agency practiced by actors to redefine their practices, which are rooted in a particular cultural and historical context, towards novel collaborative navigation of complex problems. Expansive learning actions taken by local authorities in Lusaka (Zambia) during their participation in the Future Resilience of African CiTies and Lands (FRACTAL) project were explored. Like other actors in African cities, these authorities are dealing with critical development challenges. FRACTAL enabled a learning environment in which local authorities worked with other actors to grapple with drivers of climate risks, which stem from complex development histories. Learning actions taken by these actors indicate transformative agency on their part to begin breaking out of historical patterns of work. Findings suggest that the potential for change for navigating climate risks in African cities lies in actor groups transforming these complex issues into contextually-relevant problems that are characterised by historicity, and transforming themselves (i.e. their practices) to act on these. Principles of transdisciplinarity enabled this in FRACTAL, namely: learning processes rooted in real-world problems, valuing participation and collaboration, including different evidence and perspectives, and embracing emergence. Tensions associated with the work environments of actors in Lusaka need to be overcome before complex climate risks can be collaboratively navigated. • Actors practice agency to expand their work practices during transdisciplinarity. • Transdisciplinary learning supports learning actions towards expansion. • Transdisciplinarity must allow for collaboratively articulating contextual issues • Actors must collectively brainstorm means to overcome contextual issues [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global challenges have exacerbated a search for solutions to poverty and environmental degradation. Integration it was argued would help address the twin challenge. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was supposed to be that magic bullet and was embraced by scientists because of the clinical efficiency with which it argued for integrated analysis of sectors and resources and of systems and scale conditions. This paper argues that effective implementation of the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus can be supported by robust science. The corollary that robust science automatically leads to effective implementation is not always known to be true. The nexus approach sheds light on the challenges of implementation by introducing concepts of trade-offs and thresholds and consequently emphasizes the importance of transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development. This paper reviews the results of recent research to offer tentative answers to the following questions: (a) Why is the governance dimension important to undertake an integrated analysis of water-energy-food challenges? (b) What does the nexus approach connote in normative and institutional terms? (c) What does implementation mean in nexus terms? (d) How can we establish if the nexus approach is an improvement over business as usual? and (e) What tools are available that would enable translation of results of scientific research to create an evidence base that would enable decision makers to act in support of sustainable development? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existence of a water-energy-food ‘nexus’ has been gaining significant attention in international natural resource policy debates in recent years. We argue the term ‘nexus’ can be currently seen as a buzzword: a term whose power derives from a combination of ambiguous meaning and strong normative resonance. We explore the ways in which the nexus terminology is emerging and being mobilised by different stakeholders in natural resource debates in the UK context. We suggest that in the UK the mobilisation of the nexus terminology can best be understood as symptomatic of broader global science-policy trends, including an increasing emphasis on integration as an ideal; an emphasis on technical solutions to environmental problems; achievement of efficiency gains and ‘win-wins’; and a preference for technocratic forms of environmental managerialism. We identify and critique an ‘integrative imaginary’ underpinning much of the UK discourse around the concept of the nexus, and argue that attending to questions of power is a crucial but often underplayed aspect of proposed integration. We argue that while current efforts to institutionalise the language of the nexus as a conceptual framework for research in the UK may provide a welcome opportunity for new forms of transdisciplinary, they may risk turning nexus into a ‘matter of fact’ where it should remain a ‘matter of concern’. In this vein, we indicate the importance of critique to the development of nexus research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the aim to embed ecology more forcefully into decision-making, the concept of Ecosystems Services (ES) has gained significant ground among policy-makers and researchers. The increasing recognition of the importance of urban green areas for the quality of life in growing cities has led proponents of ES approaches to argue for an uptake of the approach in urban environmental decision-making. However, the ES approach has been criticized for standing too much at a distance from local communities and their day-to-day practices and for insufficiently taking into account the potential trade-offs between different qualities or preferences. In this paper we argue that other concepts, doing other work, need to be added to the debate about futures of urban governance and research. Biocultural diversity is suggested as one such alternative concept. By its emphasis on diversity, biocultural diversity can account for the many ways in which people live with green areas in the urban landscape, acknowledges the different knowledges this involves, and can reveal conflicts and ambivalence that may be at stake. This sets up for a reflexive, transdisciplinary research process that questions and contextualizes knowledge and worldviews including those of researchers. A reflexive, transdisciplinary research, then, is a productive catalyst for forms of reflexive urban governance that recognise and respond to this diversity and provide platforms for contestation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of complex and unprecedented issues of global change, calls for new modes of knowledge production that are better equipped to address urgent challenges of global sustainability are increasingly frequent. This paper presents a case study of the new major research programme “Future Earth”, which aims to bring ‘research for global sustainability’ to the mainstream of global change research. A core principle of Future Earth is the co-production of knowledge with extra-scientific actors. In studying how the principle of co-production becomes institutionalised in the emerging structure of Future Earth, this paper points to the existence of three distinct rationales (logics) on the purpose and practice of co-production. Co-production is understood as a way to enhance scientific accountability to society (‘logic of accountability’), to ensure the implementation of scientific knowledge in society (‘logic of impact’), and to include the knowledge, perspectives and experiences of extra-scientific actors in scientific knowledge production (‘logic of humility’). This heterogeneous conception of knowledge co-production provides helpful ambiguity allowing actors with different perspectives on science and its role in society to engage in Future Earth. However, in the process of designing an institutional structure for Future Earth tensions between the different logics of co-production become apparent. This research shows how logics of accountability and impact are prominent in shaping the development of Future Earth. The paper concludes by pointing to an essential tension between being inclusive and transformative when it comes to institutionalising new modes of knowledge production in large research programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transdisciplinarity is a demanding paradigm, considered by many in the literature as the way to move forward in terms of science and policy integration. In this paper we present the example of a tailored transdisciplinary (TD) process to tackle a key topic of European policy – the future of agriculture at the regional level. This phased process was followed in seven regions across Europe and involved the co-construction of future visions, engaging both researchers and a range of relevant stakeholders. This paper presents results based on a critical reflection made by researchers and stakeholders in Portugal and Scotland, throughout the participatory process. These results provide insights into the roles and responsibilities of researchers and stakeholders in TD processes. One main conclusion is that accumulated social capital can be essential to initiate and maintain a TD process, and requires a commitment between the research community and the surrounding society. Our analysis demonstrates the challenges of implementing a TD process within the temporal frame/boundaries of a research project and the added value of having transdisciplinarity as part of the long term strategy of a research group, not just one part of a specific project. Not acknowledging this may lead to disappointment and fatigue amongst those connecting with researchers. We also found that researchers position themselves differently in a TD process depending on their soft skills, experience and knowledge about transdisciplinarity; hence we call attention to the need to work more explicitly with these skills in the research environment and to present this concept in an early stage of researcher training, if better transdisciplinarity is to be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] We studied transdisciplinary climate adaptation projects. [•] Organisational embedding positively influences performance. [•] Active project management during the project does not ease diversity. [•] Upfront designing partner diversity, project structure and size enhance performance. [•] Transdisciplinary research balances diverging and converging epistemic contributions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: With the challenges of researching complex topics such as those related to environmental sustainability and land use, there is a growing interest in transdisciplinary research promoting collaboration between research and industry, between different disciplines in research, and between different types of research organisations. However there is a need to know more about how collaboration is operating and approaches to building trust in these relations. This paper uses the detailed analysis of 10 case studies of research collaborations related to sustainability and environmental land-use to examine the different professional cultures among research collaborators, the incentives they have to cooperate, and the processes of building trust. The paper shows that trust is vital when crossing professional cultural boundaries as people are opening themselves to vulnerability and risk. The results show how trust is built between university researchers, environmental NGOs, private businesses and commercial advisory companies. Trust is shown to be built by having information on others, prior experience of working together, norms of cooperation, and sanctions exerted on those who might transgress norms of behaviour. Having incentives is a necessary but not adequate basis for having trust. These relationships are built up through existing relationships, building trust through progression of projects and the use of intermediaries or guarantors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: There is growing recognition that humans are faced with a critical and narrowing window of opportunity to halt or reverse some of the key indicators involved in the environmental crisis. Given human activities’ scale and impact, as well as the overly narrow perspectives of environmental research''s dominant natural sciences, a major effort is necessary to place the perspectives and insights of the humanities’ and social sciences’ perspectives and insights at the forefront. Such effort will require developing integrated approaches, projects, and institutions that truly do so. This article''s goal is to help mobilize the social sciences and the humanities on the topic of sustainability transitions, but also call for a meaningful research agenda to acknowledge the profound implications of the advent of the Anthropocene epoch. We formulate the need for an innovative research agenda based on a careful consideration of the changing human condition as linked to global environmental change. The humanities and social sciences will need to change and adapt to this pressing, historic task. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Matching supply and demand for knowledge in the fields of global change and sustainability is a daunting task. Science and public policy differ in their timeframes, epistemologies, objectives, process-cycles and criteria for judging the quality of knowledge, while global change and sustainability issues involve value pluralities and large uncertainties. In literature and in practice, it is argued that joint knowledge production in projects through collaboration between (and within) science and policy serves as a means to bridge the gap between the two domains. However, an assessment framework for analysing the merits and limitations of such projects, identifying good practices and enabling adaptive management as well as social learning had not yet been developed. This paper aims to develop such a framework. We portray joint knowledge production projects as policy arrangements in which the degree of success depends on the actors involved, contents of dominant discourses, presence of rules and the availability of resources. Literature was discussed to specify these four dimensions into seven success conditions for joint knowledge production. Scholars, boundary organizations and actors in projects can use the framework for retrospective analyses of projects, providing joint knowledge production with the empirical basis it still requires. The framework can also be used for promoting reflection in action as well as for formative assessments enabling social learning. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Integrative research concepts such as interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are gaining currency in landscape research as well as in the broader context of environmental science. Hence an increasing number of projects apply these approaches. Nonetheless, several epistemological and structural barriers hamper the operationalization of integrative research. Difficulty in publishing results from integrative research is referred to as one of the key problems for operationalization. Researchers and authors claim that it is difficult to publish findings from integrative research in international peer-reviewed journals and that suitable journals cannot be found. This paper analyses the editorial policies of international peer-reviewed journals towards publishing work resulting from integrative efforts in the field of landscape research. It investigates whether an editorial publication bias against integrative papers exists in scientific journals publishing landscape research articles. The study is based on an analysis of the aims and scope sections as published on the websites of 156 selected journals publishing landscape-related papers and on an E-mail survey of the editors of these journals. The editors were asked whether they accept integrative papers and what criteria they use for selecting reviewers. The majority of editorial policies as published on the journal websites ask explicitly or indirectly for integrative paper submissions. Almost all journal editors accept integrative papers and more than half of the editors select reviewers in part due to their knowledge of integrative research processes. We discuss the question of bias against integrative papers by editors, reviewers and authors and suggest some reasons why publishing integrative research can be difficult. This is due to the additional time needed to compile and write up integrative results, conceptual differences across research fields, lack of common terminology and difficulty in selecting the right journal. This study found no evidence to support the claim of an editorial bias against publishing integrative landscape research papers. The majority of editors of our sample welcome integrative research papers and encourage authors to submit their results from integrative landscape research to peer-reviewed journals. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The article reflects the theoretical concept of transdisciplinarity by presenting the successive work stages of a research project conducted in the Piedmont Alps from 1998 to 2004. It demonstrates why and how transdisciplinary methodology was applied, and the experiences gained from its use. The transdisciplinary strategy was adopted since it enables researchers to cross disciplinary borders and to deal with extra-scientific “real world problems”. The Piedmont Project, therefore, focussed on the expected solutions to the undesired negative ecological and social effects of land abandonment in the south-western Alps. The problem-solving strategy has been divided into five steps: problem definition, problem comprehension, problem analysis, treatment of sub areas and their integration in order to achieve overlapping results. The end of the research was marked by the development and implementation of applicable solutions. Experiences with transdisciplinarity were both negative and positive in nature. On the one hand, the necessity of including the local population was a particularly significant and exhausting challenge, requiring a great deal of openness, patience and communication skills. On the other hand, the ‘real world’ research did bring forth a great amount of practical and theoretical knowledge for the researchers as well as for the stakeholders. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]