Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 205–217 | Cite as

Developing sustainable water and land management options: reflections on a transdisciplinary research process

Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Concepts, Methodology, and Knowledge Management for Sustainability Science

Abstract

Knowledge production for sustainable land management requires close cooperation between research and practice. Drawing on insights from the ELaN project, which has developed a set of products to foster integrated water and land management in Northeast Germany, this paper compares two specific transdisciplinary research processes, seeking to obtain a clearer picture of what influences the acceptance and up-take of generated research products beyond methodological considerations of transdisciplinary research design and stakeholder interaction. We highlight differences in intensity of transdisciplinary interaction and resulting product quality with regard to two main project outcomes: a manual for administrators and a decision-support system (DSS) for farmers. While the development of the manual was characterised by intensive exchange with practitioners, co-production of knowledge and mutual learning, the design and development of the DSS was mainly pushed by researchers with sporadic practice interaction. Beside differences in participatory design, the practical relevance of the manual increased throughout the project due to political changes on the European level, whereas socio-political demand for the DSS did not change substantially. We discuss the relevance of appropriate transdisciplinary project management versus the significance of surrounding context conditions for increasing the societal relevance of outcomes and formulate recommendations for enhancing transdisciplinary research.

Keywords

Transdisciplinary research Participation Knowledge integration Meta-reflection Sustainable land management Risk assessment Decision-support system Water reuse 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge project funding by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research within its Sustainable Land Management Program (2011–2015).

References

  1. Akpo E, Crane TA, Vissoh PV, Tossou RC (2015) Co-production of knowledge in multi-stakeholder processes: analyzing joint experimentation as social learning. J Agric Educ Ext 21(4):369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker E, Jahn T (eds) (1999) Exploring uncommon ground. In: Sustainability and the social sciences. Zed Books, London, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  3. Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2010) Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Überblick mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergmann M, Jahn T, Lux A, Nagy E, Schäfer M (2016) Wirkungsvolle transdisziplinäre Forschung: TransImpact untersucht transdisziplinäre Projekte. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 25(1):59–60Google Scholar
  5. Binder CR, Absenger-Helmi I, Schilling T (2015) The reality of transdisciplinarity: a framework-based self-reflection from science and practice leaders. Sustain Sci 10:545–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borrini-Feyerabend G (2003) Governance of protected areas—innovation in the air. Policy Matters 12:92–115Google Scholar
  7. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeLonge MS, Miles A, Carlisle L (2016) Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environ Sci Policy 55:266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652):1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dressel G, Berger W, Heimerl K, Winiwarter V (2014) Interdisziplinär und transdisziplinär forschen. Praktiken und Methoden, Transcript Verlag, BielefeldCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elzinga A (2008) Participation. In: Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 345–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2000) A framework for Community action in the field of water policy. [www document]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060. Accessed 12 Apr 2016
  13. European Commission (2012) A blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources. [www document]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0673. Accessed 12 Apr 2016
  14. Fazey I, Bunse L, Miska J (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Change 25:204–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flyvbjerg B (2002) Making social sciences matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hessels LK, Grin J, Smits REHM (2011) The effects of a changing institutional environment on academic research practices: three cases from agricultural science. Sci Public Policy 38:555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S (2009) Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared? Circulation 119:2633–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howarth C, Monasterolo I (2016) Understanding barriers to decision making in the UK energy-food-water nexus: the added value of interdisciplinary approaches. Environ Sci Policy 61:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jahn T, Grießhammer R, Hirschl B, Hosang M, Keil F, Schröder W, Walk H (2008) Klimaschutz erfordert Handeln. In: Beiträge der Sozial-ökologischen Forschung. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung BMBF, Bonn, Berlin. https://www.ioew.de/publikation/klimaschutz_erfordert_handeln/. Accessed 08 June 2016
  21. Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. Am J Prev Med 35(2):116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klerkx L, Leeuwis C (2008) Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands. Res Policy 37(3):460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kröger, M, Rückert-John, J, Schäfer, M (2012) Wissensintegration im nachhaltigen land management. ElaN Discussion paper. [www document]. http://www.elan-bb.de/media/pdf/Publikationen/EDP2_Kroeger_978-3-943679-05-2.pdf. Accessed 07 June 2016
  24. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawrence JR, Despres C (2004) Futures and transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell C, Cordell D, Fam D (2015) Beginning at the end. The outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures 65:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mobjörk M (2010) Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: a refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 42:866–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moss T, Naumann M, Krause K (2016) Turning wastewater into energy: challenges of reconfiguring regional infrastructures in the Berlin–Brandenburg region. Local Environ 15(06):2016 (Online first) Google Scholar
  29. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2008) Methodological changes of transdisciplinary research. Nat Sci Soc 16:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polk M (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relation between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving. Sustain Sci 9:439–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reed MS, Stringer LC, Fazey I, Evely AC, Kruijsen JHJ (2014) Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. J Environ Manag 146:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogga S, Weith T, Aenis T, Müller K, Köhler T, Härtel L, Kaiser DB (2014) Wissenschaft-Praxis-Transfer jenseits der „Verladerampe“. Zum Verständnis von Implantation und Transfer im nachhaltigen Landmanagement. Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF), Diskussionspapier, Nr. 8. Deutschland, MünchebergGoogle Scholar
  34. Romero-Lankao R, Borbor-Cordova M, Abrutsky R, Günther G, Behrentz E, Dawidowsky L (2013) ADAPTE: a tale of diverse teams coming together to do issue-driven interdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 26:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Russell AW, Wickson F, Carew AL (2008) Transdisciplinarity: context, contradictions and capacity. Futures 40:460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schäfer M, Kröger M (2016) Joint problem framing in sustainable land use research. Experience with constellation Analysis as a method for inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge integration. Land Use Policy 57:526–539. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015a) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations. Sustain Sci 10:527–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015b) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II-what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustain Sci 10:653–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Siew TF, Aenis T, Spangenberg JH, Nauditt A, Döll P et al (2016) Transdisciplinary research in support of land and water management in China and Southeast Asia: evaluation of four research projects. Sustain Sci 11:813–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stauffacher M, Flueeler T, Krueli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration. A transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss Prealpine Region. Syst Pract Action Res 21:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thaxton M et al (2015) Landscape partnerships for sustainable development: achieving the SDGs through integrated landscape management. Retrieved (http://peoplefoodandnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LPFN_WhitePaper_112415c_lowres.pdf). Accessed 07 June 2016
  42. Truffer B (2007) Wissensintegration in transdisziplinären Projekten. Flexibles Rollenverständnis als Schlüsselkompetenz für das Schnittstellenmanagement. GAIA 16(1):41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. West PC et al (2014) Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science 345(6194):325–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation—experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA 16(1):52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiek A, Talwar S, O`Shea M, Robinson J (2014) Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Eval 23:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiesmann U, Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffman-Reim H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher DJ, Pohl C, Zemp E (2008) Enhancing transdisciplinary research. A synthesis in fifteen propositions. In: Hirsch Hadorn G (ed) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zierhofer W, Burger P (2007) Disentangling transdisciplinarity. Sci Stud 20:51–74Google Scholar
  48. Zscheischler J, Rogga S (2015) Transdisciplinarity in land use science. A review of concepts, empirical findings and current practices. Futures 65:28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Technology and Society (ZTG)Technische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations