Solving Problems in Social–Ecological Systems: Definition, Practice and Barriers of Transdisciplinary Research

Abstract

Translating policies about sustainable development as a social process and sustainability outcomes into the real world of social–ecological systems involves several challenges. Hence, research policies advocate improved innovative problem-solving capacity. One approach is transdisciplinary research that integrates research disciplines, as well as researchers and practitioners. Drawing upon 14 experiences of problem-solving, we used group modeling to map perceived barriers and bridges for researchers’ and practitioners’ joint knowledge production and learning towards transdisciplinary research. The analysis indicated that the transdisciplinary research process is influenced by (1) the amount of traditional disciplinary formal and informal control, (2) adaptation of project applications to fill the transdisciplinary research agenda, (3) stakeholder participation, and (4) functional team building/development based on self-reflection and experienced leadership. Focusing on implementation of green infrastructure policy as a common denominator for the delivery of ecosystem services and human well-being, we discuss how to diagnose social–ecological systems, and use knowledge production and collaborative learning as treatments.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0372-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts

“…Thus, transformation is used as an umbrella term under which diverse fields of research dealing with responses to GEC-e.g., from studies of natural resource management to livelihood, behavioral, or organizational change, and to energy or water infrastructure innovation-may find space and some common ground and purpose. To be sure, this is an important condition to facilitate interdisciplinary (Newell 2012;Strunz 2012) and transdisciplinary research (Angelstam et al 2013); however, I argue that this is not the most powerful use of the concept. In fact, a second fundamental condition to enable interdisciplinary dialog is precision in identifying the conceptual borders of what transformation means in different studies (Berkhout 2013).…”

“…A vague definition of transformation allows for recognition of the different meanings that the concept might have for different social actors. In addition, prescriptive and value-laden interpretations might be accepted and actually favored as a basis for negotiations and the construction of a common ground for participation (Thompson 2007;Strunz 2012;Angelstam et al 2013). In fact, looseness may be preferred based on the assumption that a precise system representation might imply a level of complexity that is not manageable by decision-makers and consequently discourages action (Thompson 2007).…”

“…It refers to a 'post-normal' science epistemology (Turnpenny 2012), and privileges transdisciplinary and action research methodologies (Angelstam et al 2013;Seidl et al 2013), while also calling for a more active social role for science in the process of social change by directly bringing about change in society, such as in scientist-activist-practitioner networks (Evans 2011).…”

“…Furthermore, it has been shown that concepts with 'loose' meanings that also benefit from a strong metaphoric power can be highly effective to stimulate research and action, and to create a much needed common ground for scholars from different disciplines, as well as among scientists and stakeholders, which facilitates inter-and transdisciplinarity (Thompson 2007;Newell 2012;Strunz 2012;Angelstam et al 2013). Inter-and transdisciplinarity are, in effect, pillars of some of the most recent developments in research on GEC and sustainable development, including Future Earth and the IPCC.…”

Priority areas in municipality planning: ecosystem services, environmental impact assessments and research areas

“…The theoretical basis for the planning concepts and tools described above are not necessarily clear and straight forward, for instance the link between biodiversity and ES is not well understood (Duncan et al 2015) and many ES cannot be directly quantified or valued for economic benefit (Maes et al 2012). ES is suffering much of the same drawbacks as EIA since it is still not well founded in research, for instance when it comes to analysis of tradeoffs and classification systems/indicators of ES (Olander and Maltby 2014, Honrado et al 2013, Baker et al 2013). In addition, the link between ES and human wellbeing is unclear.…”