Sustainability Science

, Volume 7, Supplement 1, pp 25–43 | Cite as

Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges

  • Daniel J. Lang
  • Arnim Wiek
  • Matthias Bergmann
  • Michael Stauffacher
  • Pim Martens
  • Peter Moll
  • Mark Swilling
  • Christopher J. Thomas
Special Feature: Original Article Sustainability science: bridging the gap between science and society

Abstract

There is emerging agreement that sustainability challenges require new ways of knowledge production and decision-making. One key aspect of sustainability science, therefore, is the involvement of actors from outside academia into the research process in order to integrate the best available knowledge, reconcile values and preferences, as well as create ownership for problems and solution options. Transdisciplinary, community-based, interactive, or participatory research approaches are often suggested as appropriate means to meet both the requirements posed by real-world problems as well as the goals of sustainability science as a transformational scientific field. Dispersed literature on these approaches and a variety of empirical projects applying them make it difficult for interested researchers and practitioners to review and become familiar with key components and design principles of how to do transdisciplinary sustainability research. Starting from a conceptual model of an ideal–typical transdisciplinary research process, this article synthesizes and structures such a set of principles from various strands of the literature and empirical experiences. We then elaborate on them, looking at challenges and some coping strategies as experienced in transdisciplinary sustainability projects in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia. The article concludes with future research needed in order to further enhance the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research.

Keywords

Transdisciplinary sustainability research Design principles Challenges Evaluation 

References

  1. Baumgärtner S, Becker C, Frank K, Müller B, Quaas M (2008) Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: the role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research. Ecol Econ 67:384–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker E (2006) Problem transformations in transdisciplinary research. In: Hirsch Hadorn G (ed) Unity of knowledge in transdisciplinary research for sustainability. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) Publishers, Oxford, UK. Available online at: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C04/E6-49-02-01.pdf
  3. Bergmann M, Jahn T (2008) CITY:mobil: a model for integration in sustainability research. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp 89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergmann M, Brohmann B, Hoffmann E, Loibl MC, Rehaag R, Schramm E, Voß J-P (2005) Quality criteria of transdisciplinary research. A guide for the formative evaluation of research projects. ISOE-Studientexte, No 13, Frankfurt am Main, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2010) Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung: Ein Überblick mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkhout FGH (2006) Normative expectations in systems innovation. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 18:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60:726–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world sustainability research: vision and implementation. Innov Higher Education 36:107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunders JFG, Broerse JEW, Keil F, Pohl Ch, Scholz RW, Zweekhorst BM (2010) How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In: in't Veld RJ (ed) Knowledge democracy-consequences for science, politics and media. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 125–152Google Scholar
  10. Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC) et al (2011) Cape Town Central City Provincial Government Regeneration Initiative. Cape Higher Education Consortium, Cape Town. Available online at: http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.net/newsdocs/documents/cat_view/23-research-a-project-outputs
  11. Carew AL, Wickson F (2010) The TD wheel: a heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures 42:1146–1155. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.02 Google Scholar
  12. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Gurston DH et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091Google Scholar
  13. Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8059–8061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM et al (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108
  15. Cloos L, Trutnevyte E, Bening C, Hendrichs H, Wallquist L, Stauffacher M et al (2010) Energiestrategien kleiner Gemeinden und kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen. Der Fall Urnäsch im Kanton Appenzell Ausserrhoden. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2009. TdLab, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox M, Arnold G, Tomás SV (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol Soc 15(4):38Google Scholar
  17. Defila R, Di Giulio A, Scheuermann M (2006) Forschungsverbundmanagement. Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte. vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunn CE, Le Mare A, Makungu C (2011) Malaria risk behaviours, socio-cultural practices and rural livelihoods in southern Tanzania: implications for bednet usage. Soc Sci Med 72(3):408–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res Policy 29:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser MW, Richman JM, Galinsky MJ, Day SH (2009) Intervention research: developing social programs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gatzweiler FW (2005) Institutionalising biodiversity conservation—the case of Ethiopian coffee forests. Conserv Soc 3(1):201–223Google Scholar
  23. Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(6761 Suppl):C81–C84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Gray B (2008) Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership. Am J Prev Med 35:S124–S132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirsch Hadorn G, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hyman K (2011) Economic development, decoupling and urban infrastructure: the role of innovation for an urban transition in Cape Town. Masters Thesis, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Available online at: http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/79
  28. Jahn T (2008) Transdisciplinarity in the practice of research. In: Bergmann M, Schramm E (eds) Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, pp 21–37Google Scholar
  29. Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E et al (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (2003) Public participation in sustainability science: a handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kates RW, Parris TM (2003) Long-term trends and a sustainability transition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8062–8067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 291:641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keil F (2009) Reflexive transdisciplinarity. Producing knowledge for sustainable development. Presentation at the International Conference “Towards a Knowledge Democracy”, Leiden, the Netherlands, 25–27 August 2009Google Scholar
  34. Keller A (2012) Conceptualising an alternative energy trajectory for in situ informal settlement upgrading: the case of Enkanini. School of Public Leadership, thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of Mphil in sustainable development planning and management, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Available online at: http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/79
  35. Kim J, Oki T (2011) Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(2):247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. Am J Prev Med 35:S116–S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krütli P, Flüeler T, Stauffacher M, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2010a) Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland). J Integr Environ Sci 7(3):229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Scholz RW (2010b) Functional–dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 13(7):861–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laws D, Scholz RW, Shiroyama H, Susskind L, Suzuki T, Weber O (2004) Expert views on sustainability and technology implementation. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 11(3):247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maasen S, Lieven O (2006) Transdisciplinarity: a new mode of governing science? Sci Public Policy 33(6):399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2:1–5Google Scholar
  43. Ng’ang’a PN, Jayasinghe G, Kimani V, Shililu J, Kabutha C, Kabuage L et al (2009) Bed net use and associated factors in a rice farming community in Central Kenya. Malar J 8:64. doi:10.1186/1475-2875-8-64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parodi O, Preiser K, Schweizer-Ries P, Wendl M (1998) When night falls on Balde de Leyes—the success story of an integrated approach in PV rural electrification. In: Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, Austria, 6–10 July 1998Google Scholar
  45. Pohl C (2011) What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures 43(6):618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. oekom, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  47. Pregernig M (2007) Impact assessment of transdisciplinary research: in need of a more distanced view. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 16(1):46–51Google Scholar
  48. Raven RPJM, Mourik RM, Feenstra CFJ, Heiskanen E (2009) Modulating societal acceptance in new energy projects: towards a toolkit methodology for project managers. Energy 34:564–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Regeer BJ, Hoes A-C, van Amstel-van Saane M, Caron-Flinterman FF, Bunders JFG (2009) Six guiding principles for evaluating mode-2 strategies for sustainable development. Am J Eval 30:515–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reid WV, Chen D, Goldfarb L, Hackmann H, Lee YT, Mokhele K et al (2010) Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 330(6006):916–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robinson J (2003) Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures 35:839–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robinson J, Tansey J (2006) Co-production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: the Georgia Basin Futures Project. Sci Public Policy 33:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rotmans J, Van Asselt M (1996) Integrated assessment: a growing child on its way to maturity. Clim Change 34:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Russell AW, Wickson F, Carew AL (2008) Transdisciplinarity: context, contradictions and capacity. Futures 40(5):460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Savan B, Sider D (2003) Contrasting approaches to community-based research and a case study of community sustainability in Toronto, Canada. Local Environ 8:303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmitt CB, Senbeta F, Denich M, Preisinger H, Boehmer HJ (2010) Wild coffee management and plant diversity in the montane rainforest of southwestern Ethiopia. Afr J Ecol 48:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schneidewind U, Ernst A, Lang DJ (2011) Institutions for transformative research. The formation of the NaWis alliance. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 20:133–135 (editorial material)Google Scholar
  59. Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society. From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  60. Scholz RW, Stauffacher M (2007) Managing transition in clusters: area development negotiations as a tool for sustaining traditional industries in a Swiss prealpine region. Environ Plann A 39:2518–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  62. Scholz RW, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain Higher Educ 7:226–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scholz RW, Spörri A, Lang DJ (2009) Problem structuring for transitions: the case of Swiss waste management. Futures 41:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siebenhüner B (2004) Social learning and sustainability science: which role can stakeholder participation play? Int J Sustain Dev 7:146–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Skagen Ekeli K (2006) The principle of liberty and legal representation of posterity. Res Publica 12:385-409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spoerri A, Lang DJ, Binder CR, Scholz RW (2009) Expert-based scenarios for strategic waste and resource management planning—C&D waste recycling in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. Resour Conserv Recycling 53:592–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stauffacher M (2010) Beyond neocorporatism?! Transdisciplinary case studies as a means for collaborative learning in sustainable development. In: Gross M, Heinrichs H (eds) Environmental sociology. European perspectives and interdisciplinary challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 201–216Google Scholar
  69. Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. System Pract Action Res 21:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stokols D, Hall KL, Moser RP, Feng A, Misra S, Taylor BK (2010) Evaluating cross-disciplinary team science initiatives: conceptual, methodological, and translational perspectives. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) Oxford handbook on interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 471–493Google Scholar
  71. Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Change 14:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38:379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tavener-Smith L (2012) Informal settlements in Stellenbosch. In: Sebitosi B, Swilling M (eds) Stellenbosch 2030. Sun Media, Stellenbosch, South Africa (in press)Google Scholar
  74. Thompson Klein J (2010) A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Thompson Klein J, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 15–30Google Scholar
  75. Trutnevyte E, Stauffacher M, Scholz RW (2011) Supporting energy initiatives in small communities by linking visions with energy scenarios and multi-criteria assessment. Energy Policy 39:7884–7895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van Zeijl-Rozema A, Martens P (2011) Integrated monitoring of sustainable development. Sustain J Rec 4(4):199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plann 30:325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walz A, Braendle J, Lang DJ, Brand F, Briner S, Elkin CH Experience from customising IPCC scenarios to specific national-level focus scenarios for ecosystem service management. Technol Forecast Soc Change (submitted)Google Scholar
  81. Weaver PM, Rotmans J (2006) Integrated sustainability assessment: what is it, why do it and how? Int J Innov Sustain Dev 1:284–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation—experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 16:52–57Google Scholar
  83. Wiek A (2009) Analyzing, evaluating, and designing participatory research in sustainability science. Working paper, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZGoogle Scholar
  84. Wiek A, Walter A (2009) A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems. Eur J Oper Res 197(1):360–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wiek A, Iwaniec D (2011) Creating and crafting sustainability visions. Working paper, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZGoogle Scholar
  86. Wiek A, Binder C, Scholz RW (2006) Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures 38:740–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wiek A, Scheringer M, Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G, Valsangiacomo A (2007) Joint problem identification and structuring in environmental research. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 16:72–74Google Scholar
  88. Wiek A, Ries R, Thabrew L, Brundiers K, Wickramasinghe A (2010) Challenges of sustainable recovery processes in tsunami affected communities. Disaster Prev Manage 19:423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl). doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y
  91. Zajíkovà Z, Martens P (2007) A participatory approach in regional sustainable development of the Slovak Republic: a case study of the Spiš region. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 6:310–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Lang
    • 1
  • Arnim Wiek
    • 2
  • Matthias Bergmann
    • 1
    • 3
  • Michael Stauffacher
    • 4
  • Pim Martens
    • 1
    • 5
  • Peter Moll
    • 6
  • Mark Swilling
    • 7
  • Christopher J. Thomas
    • 8
  1. 1.Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Faculty SustainabilityLeuphana University of LüneburgLüneburgGermany
  2. 2.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Social-Ecological ResearchFrankfurt am MainGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI)ETH ZurichZürichSwitzerland
  5. 5.International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (ICIS)Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Science DevelopmentWuppertalGermany
  7. 7.School of Public LeadershipUniversity of StellenboschBellvilleSouth Africa
  8. 8.Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural SciencesAberystwyth UniversityPenglaisWales, UK

Personalised recommendations