Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transdisciplinary research partnerships in sustainability science: an examination of stakeholder participation preferences

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustaining coupled natural and human systems requires multiple forms of knowledge, experiences, values, and resources be brought into conversation to address sustainability challenges. Transdisciplinary research partnerships provide the opportunity to meet this requirement by bringing together interdisciplinary scientists with stakeholders in some or all stages of the knowledge production process. However, building partnerships to produce sustainability outcomes is a complex process requiring an understanding of the social psychological and contextual variables impacting partnerships. Here, we explore local government officials’ (LGOs’) preferences for participation in these partnerships. Using data from a statewide survey, we develop a theoretically and empirically derived model to test the relationship between a suite of factors and LGOs’ preferred transdisciplinary partnership style. We find collaboration preferences are influenced by LGOs’ confidence that researchers can help solve problems, experience with researchers, the severity and type of problem(s) occurring in the community, and partner trust. Assessing stakeholder partnership expectations may assist partners with co-designing flexible research processes that address collaboration expectations, foster dialog and social learning among project partners, and that increase the potential of research to influence change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. van Kerkhoff (2014) encourages researchers to think about partnerships in terms of generative relationships, where “new ideas, processes and practices emerge (are generated from) relationships amongst key actors” (148) and partnership structures and interactions are responsive to partner needs and changing partner conditions.

References

  • Allen IE, Seaman CA (2007) Likert scales and data analyses. Qual Prog 40(7):64–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreteau O, Bots P, Daniell K (2010) A framework for clarifying participation in participatory research to prevent its rejection for the wrong reasons. Ecol Soc 15(2):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell K, Lindenfeld L, Speers A, Teisl M, Leahy J (2013) Creating opportunities for improving lake-focused stakeholder engagement: knowledge-action systems, pro-environment behaviour and sustainable lake management. Lakes Reserv 18(1):5–14. doi:10.1111/lre.12018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci Technol Human Values 31(4):465–494. doi:10.1177/0162243906287547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crona BL, Parker JN (2012) Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adapative resource governance. Ecol Soc 17(1):32. doi:10.5751/ES-04534-170132

    Google Scholar 

  • Cundill GNR, Fabricius C, Marti N (2005) Foghorns to the future: using knowledge and transdisciplinarity to navigate complex systems. Ecol Soc 10(2):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christina LM (2009) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christina LM (2014) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Focht W, Trachtenberg Z (2005) A trust-based guide to stakeholder participation. In: Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 85–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS, Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO J Human 31(5):437–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalo-Turpin H, Couix N, Hazard L (2008) Rethinking partnerships with the aim of producing knowledge with practical relevance: a case study in the field of ecological restoration. Ecol Soc 13(2):53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston DH (1999) Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Soc Stud Sci 29(1): 87–111. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285447

  • Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26(4):399–408. http://www.jstor.org/stable/690161

  • Hart DD, Calhoun AJ (2010) Rethinking the role of ecological research in the sustainable management of freshwater ecosystems. Freshw Biol 55(1):258–269. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02370.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höppner C, Frick J, Buchecker M (2007) Assessing psycho-social effects of participatory landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plann 83(2):196–207. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins K, Lindenfeld L, Bell K, Leahy J, Silka L (2013) Strengthening knowledge co-production capacity: examining interest in community-university partnerships. Sustainability 5(9):3744–3770. doi:10.3390/su5093744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB (1998) Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health 19(1):173–202. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman J (2014) Promoting integration and cooperation for sustainability views from the symposium held at UNESCO headquarters September 19, 2013. Sustain Sci 9(4):419–430. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0255-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman J, Arico S (2014) New directions in sustainability science: promoting integration and cooperation. Sustain Sci 9(4):413–418. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0259-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kueffer C, Underwood E, Hirsch Hadorn G, Holderegger R, Lehning M, Pohl C, Edwards P (2012) Enabling effective problem-oriented research for sustainable development. Ecol Soc 17(4):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Label Request Form (2016) Maine municipal association. http://www.memun.org/public/market/labels2.htm. Accessed 31 July 2013

  • Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy JE, Anderson DH (2008) Trust factors in community—water resource management agency relationships. Landsc Urban Plan 87(2):100–107. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy J, Lindenfeld L (2013) Linking knowledge with action: applied social science considerations to improve woody bioenergy research and development effectiveness. In: Jacobson Michael, Ciolkosz Daniel (eds) Wood-based energy in the northern forests. Springer, New York, pp 209–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M (2004) Collaborative watershed management: a view from the grassroots. Policy Stud J 32(3):341–361. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2004.00069.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M (2005) Do watershed partnerships enhance beliefs conducive to collective action? In: Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 201–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M (2007) Familiarity breeds trust: collective action in a policy domain. J Polit 69(1):237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M, Schneider M, Scholz JT, Mete M (2002) Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. Am J Polit Sci 46(1):148–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons P, Leahy J, Lindenfeld L, Silka L (2014) Knowledge to action: implicit knowledge production models held among forest science researchers. Soc Nat Resour 27(5):459–474. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.861552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matson P (2009) The sustainability transition. Issues Sci Technol 25(4):39–42

    Google Scholar 

  • McGreavy B, Lindenfeld L, Bieluch KH, Silka L, Leahy J, Zoellick B (2015) Communication and sustainability science teams as complex systems. Ecol Soc 20(1):2. doi:10.5751/ES-06644-200102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLarty D, Davis N, Gellers J, Nasrollahi N, Altenbernd E (2014) Sisters in sustainability: municipal partnerships for social, environmental, and economic growth. Sustain Sci 9:277–292. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0248-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz-Erickson TA, Cutts BB, Larson EK, Darby KJ, Neff M, Wutich A, Bolin B (2010) Spanning boundaries in an Arizona watershed partnership: information networks as tools for entrenchment or ties for collaboration? Ecol Soc 15(3):22

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyden P (2005) The challenges and opportunities of engaged scholarship. In: Silka L (ed) Scholarship in action. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C., United States of America, pp 9–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver DM, Fish RD, Winter M, Hodgson CJ, Heathwaite AL, Chadwick DR (2012) Valuing local knowledge as a source of expert data: farmer engagement and the design of decision support systems. Environ Model Softw 36:76–85. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.09.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson JC (2010) CBPR in Indian country: tensions and implications for health communication. Health Commun 25(1):50–60. doi:10.1080/10410230903473524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson C, Lindén-Boström M, Eriksson C (2009) Reasons for non-participation in a parental program concerning underage drinking: a mixed-method study. BMC Public Health 9:1–19. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polk M (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving. Sustain Sci 9:1–13. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0247-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prober SM, O’Connor MH, Walsh FJ (2011) Australian Aboriginal peoples’ seasonal knowledge: a potential basis for shared understanding in environmental management. Ecol Soc 16(2):12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich SM, Reich JA (2006) Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: a method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. Am J Commun Psychol 38(1–2):51–62. doi:10.1007/s10464-006-9064-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures 40(1):70–86. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc. (2012) SAS/ETS® 12.1 user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

  • Schneider F, Rist S (2014) Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning process: combining normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches. Sustain Sci 9:463–481. doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0232-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ (2003) Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 16(4):309–326. doi:10.1080/08941920390178874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, McCallie E, Minarchek M, Lewenstein BV, Krasny ME, Bonney R (2012) Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc 17(2):29

    Google Scholar 

  • Silka L, Renault-Caragianes P (2007) Community-university research partnerships: devising a model for ethical engagement. J High Educ Outreach Engagem 11(2):171–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Silka L, Cleghorn GD, Grullón M, Tellez T (2008) Creating community-based participatory research in a diverse community: a case study. J Empir Res Human Res Ethics 3(2):5–16. doi:10.1525/jer.2008.3.2.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Leahy J, Anderson D, Davenport M (2013a) Community/agency trust and public involvement in resource planning. Soc Nat Resour 26(4):452–471. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.678465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Leahy J, Anderson D, Davenport M (2013b) Community/agency trust: a measurement instrument. Soc Nat Resour 26(4):472–477. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.742606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):409–422. doi:10.1007/s11213-008-9107-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton T, Leahy J (2012) Trust in citizen science research: a case study of the groundwater education through water evaluation and testing program. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 48(5):1032–1040. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00670.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins EL, Adger WN (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol Soc 9(2):10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Leeuw S, Wiek A, Harlow J, Buizer J (2012) How much time do we have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 7(1):115–120. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0153-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Kerkhoff L (2008) Making a difference: science, action and integrated environmental research. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kerkhoff L (2014) Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principles-based approach. Sustain Sci 9(2):143–155. doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0203-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ (2008) Survey research and analysis: applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. Venture Publishing, State College

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Prog Plan 30(4):325–338. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002  

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, Brand FS, Farioli F (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(1):5–24. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Dr. Bridie McGreavy for providing examples of how this research influenced her research collaborations. Portions of the manuscript were presented in a poster presentation at the 2012 Conference on Public Participation in Scientific Research in Portland, Oregon. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation award EPS-0904155 and Maine EPSCoR at the University of Maine. We thank our colleagues at the University of Maine’s Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions for spearheading the research initiative that supported this collaborative work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, 6182 Steele Hall, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Karen Hutchins Bieluch

  2. School of Economics, University of Maine, 200 Winslow Hall, Orono, ME, 04469, USA

    Kathleen P. Bell

  3. School of Economics, University of Maine, 207 Winslow Hall, Orono, ME, 04469, USA

    Mario F. Teisl

  4. Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science and School of Journalism, Stony Brook University, Melville Library N4004, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-3384, USA

    Laura A. Lindenfeld

  5. School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, 241 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME, 04469, USA

    Jessica Leahy

  6. Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, University of Maine, 5710 Norman Smith Hall, Orono, ME, 04469, USA

    Linda Silka

Authors
  1. Karen Hutchins Bieluch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen P. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mario F. Teisl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura A. Lindenfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jessica Leahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Linda Silka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Hutchins Bieluch.

Ethics declarations

This research study was approved by the University of Maine Institutional Review Board and complied with ethical standards for the treatment of human subjects.

Additional information

Handled by Daniel J. Lang, University of Lueneburg, Germany.

Kathleen Bell and Mario Teisl share second author position.

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation award EPS-0904155 and Maine EPSCoR at the University of Maine; Maine Agriculture and Forest Experiment Station; and USDA NIFA.

Appendices

Appendix A: Maine municipal official survey

Economic issues

How much do you consider each of the following to be a problem for your municipality? (Please check one box for each issue.) (Response Scale: Serious Problem-Not a Problem; allowed for responses of Not Sure and Not Applicable)

Declining property tax base

Declining job opportunities

Poor business climate

Mismatch between skills of workforce and jobs

Lack of education and training opportunities for residents

Limited access to communication networks for residents and employers

Rising health care costs for residents and employers

Rising energy costs for residents and employers

Reductions in state funding (e.g. school subsidy, revenue sharing)

Declining transportation infrastructure.

Social issues

How much do you consider each of the following to be a problem for your municipality? (Please check one box for each issue.) (Response Scale: Serious Problem-Not a Problem; allowed for responses of Not Sure and Not Applicable)

Declining quality of public schools

Rising unemployment rate

Rising poverty rate

Increasing drug and alcohol abuse

Decreasing access to social services for elderly and low-income residents

Decreasing recreation opportunities

Increasing crime rate

Increasing migration to your community

Changing ethnic and cultural diversity

Decreasing access to health services

Increasing aging population (persons 65 or older)

Decreasing participation in community groups.

Environmental and natural resource issues

How much do you consider each of the following to be a problem for your municipality? (Please check one box for each issue.) (Response Scale: Serious Problem-Not a Problem; allowed for responses of Not Sure and Not Applicable)

Decreasing lake water quality

Decreasing river and stream water quality

Decreasing coastal water quality

Decreasing ground water quality

Decreasing air quality

Loss of forest land

Loss of farm land

Loss of working waterfront

Decreasing public access to natural resource areas

Increasing risks of flooding

Increasing invasive insects and/or plants

Increasing traffic congestion

Changing climate.

Policy Issues

Public policy issues may generate debate in municipalities. How much debate have you seen on the following policy issues in your municipality? (Please check one box for each issue.) (Response Scale: Serious Debate-No Debate; allowed for responses of Not Sure and Not Applicable)

Storm water regulations

Shorebird habitat regulations

Land use planning/zoning regulations

Shoreland zoning regulations

Siting of commercial wind farms

Siting of residential wind energy systems

Siting of communication towers

Siting of energy transmission lines

FEMA Flood Zone Maps

Regionalization

Do you think researchers from the University of Maine System could be of assistance in resolving some of your municipality’s issues? (Please check one box.) (Response Options: yes, no, not sure)

Do you think other organizations could be of assistance in resolving some of your municipality’s issues? (Please check one box.) (Response Options: yes, no, not sure)

Since you began your position, has your municipality worked with any researchers from a university or college in Maine? (Please check one box for each category.) (Response Options: yes, no, not sure)

How much do you trust researchers (faculty/staff) from the University of Maine System? (Please check one box.) (Response Scale: Not at all-A lot; allowed for response of Not Sure)

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements: “I trust researchers (faculty/staff) from the University of Maine System because they ____.” (Please check one box for each statement.) (Response Scale: Strongly disagree-Strongly agree)

Provide scientific information

Provide unbiased information

Provide reliable information

Use my input

Respect diverse opinions

Work for the University of Maine System

Provide understandable information

Present useful information

Provide timely information

Care about my community

Focus on issues I want to know about

Have high technical competence

Share my values

Community-university partnerships are structured in many ways. We are interested in your opinion about four alternative strategies for community–university partnerships. The alternatives differ according to how municipalities and university researchers share responsibilities.

Type of partnership

Problem identification

Research

Proposed solutions

Implementation

A. University as lead partner

Univ. researchers

Univ. researchers

Univ. researchers

Municipal officials

B. University as consulting partner

Univ. researchers

Univ. researchers

Univ. researchers

Municipal officials

C. University as facilitating partner

Municipal officials

Univ. researchers

Univ. researchers

Municipal officials Univ. researchers

Municipal officials

D. University as full partner

Municipal officials

Univ. researchers

Municipal officials

Univ. researchers

Municipal officials

Univ. researchers

Municipal officials

Univ. researchers

Participation strategy you most prefer: (A, B, C or D) (write-in one letter from the list above).

Appendix B: Discrete choice analysis results: participation strategy preferences

Variable

Coefficient reference = consult

Standard error

Experience-facilitate

−0.652

0.583

Experience-full

−1.938*

1.128

Researchers helpful_yes-Facilitate

0.201a

0.491

Researchers helpful_yes-Full

1.530**a

0.607

Researchers helpful_not sure-facilitate

−0.030a

0.445

Researchers helpful_not sure-Full

0.642a

0.570

Researchers helpful_yes x experience-facilitate

1.288*

0.693

Researchers helpful_yes x experience-full

2.119*

1.189

Researchers helpful_not sure x experience-facilitate

0.783

0.632

Researchers helpful_not sure x experience-full

1.975*

1.163

Others helpful_yes-facilitate

−0.067b

0.482

Others helpful_yes-full

−0.828b

0.599

Others helpful_not sure-facilitate

−0.277b

0.487

Others Helpful_not sure-Full

−0.964b

0.597

Distance from University/College-facilitate

−0.003

0.011

Distance from University/College-full

−0.001

0.013

Municipality population-facilitate

0.001

0.001

Municipality population-full

0.002

0.002

Economic problems-facilitate

0.508**

0.224

Economic problems-full

0.536**

0.249

Environmental problems-facilitate

−0.043

0.195

Environmental problems-full

−0.089

0.222

Social problems-facilitate

−0.506**

0.238

Social problems-full

−0.514**

0.262

Policy problems-facilitate

0.495**

0.204

Policy problems-full

−0.065

0.234

Trust some-facilitate

0.175c

0.267

Trust some-full

−0.077c

0.295

Trust a lot-facilitate

0.559*c

0.287

Trust a lot-full

0.095 c

0.318

Trust properties about interests/values-facilitate

−0.660***

0.196

Trust properties about interests/values-full

−0.359

0.221

Trust properties about technical knowledge-facilitate

0.326*

0.189

Trust properties about technical knowledge-full

0.131

0.213

  1. N = 596, χ df=38 = 95.32, p < 0.001
  2. * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
  3. aResearchers helpful_no is the reference category
  4. bOthers helpful_no is the reference category
  5. cLow Trust is the reference category

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bieluch, K.H., Bell, K.P., Teisl, M.F. et al. Transdisciplinary research partnerships in sustainability science: an examination of stakeholder participation preferences. Sustain Sci 12, 87–104 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0360-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0360-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation