• Energy Research

Transdisciplinary research is a promising approach to address sustainability challenges arising from global environmental change, as it is characterized by an iterative process that brings together actors from multiple academic fields and diverse sectors of society to engage in mutual learning with the intent to co-produce new knowledge. We present a conceptual model to guide the implementation of environmental transdisciplinary work, which we consider a “science with society” (SWS) approach, providing suggested activities to conduct throughout a seven-step process. We used a survey with 168 respondents involved in environmental transdisciplinary work worldwide to evaluate the relative importance of these activities and the skills and characteristics required to implement them successfully, with attention to how responses differed according to the gender, geographic location, and positionality of the respondents. Flexibility and collaborative spirit were the most frequently valued skills in SWS, though non-researchers tended to prioritize attributes like humility, trust, and patience over flexibility. We also explored the relative significance of barriers to successful SWS, finding insufficient time and unequal power dynamics were the two most significant barriers to successful SWS. Together with case studies of respondents’ most successful SWS projects, we create a toolbox of 20 best practices that can be used to overcome barriers and increase the societal and scientific impacts of SWS projects. Project success was perceived to be significantly higher where there was medium to high policy impact, and projects initiated by practitioners/other stakeholders had a larger proportion of high policy impact compared to projects initiated by researchers only. Communicating project results to academic audiences occurred more frequently than communicating results to practitioners or the public, despite this being ranked less important overall. We discuss how these results point to three recommendations for future SWS: 1) balancing diverse perspectives through careful partnership formation and design; 2) promoting communication, learning, and reflexivity (i.e., questioning assumptions, beliefs, and practices) to overcome conflict and power asymmetries; and 3) increasing policy impact for joint science and society benefits. Our study highlights the benefits of diversity in SWS - both in the types of people and knowledge included as well as the methods used - and the potential benefits of this approach for addressing the increasingly complex challenges arising from global environmental change.

Transdisciplinary research is a promising approach to address sustainability challenges arising from global environmental change, as it is characterized by an iterative process that brings together actors from multiple academic fields and diverse sectors of society to engage in mutual learning with the intent to co-produce new knowledge. We present a conceptual model to guide the implementation of environmental transdisciplinary work, which we consider a “science with society” (SWS) approach, providing suggested activities to conduct throughout a seven-step process. We used a survey with 168 respondents involved in environmental transdisciplinary work worldwide to evaluate the relative importance of these activities and the skills and characteristics required to implement them successfully, with attention to how responses differed according to the gender, geographic location, and positionality of the respondents. Flexibility and collaborative spirit were the most frequently valued skills in SWS, though non-researchers tended to prioritize attributes like humility, trust, and patience over flexibility. We also explored the relative significance of barriers to successful SWS, finding insufficient time and unequal power dynamics were the two most significant barriers to successful SWS. Together with case studies of respondents’ most successful SWS projects, we create a toolbox of 20 best practices that can be used to overcome barriers and increase the societal and scientific impacts of SWS projects. Project success was perceived to be significantly higher where there was medium to high policy impact, and projects initiated by practitioners/other stakeholders had a larger proportion of high policy impact compared to projects initiated by researchers only. Communicating project results to academic audiences occurred more frequently than communicating results to practitioners or the public, despite this being ranked less important overall. We discuss how these results point to three recommendations for future SWS: 1) balancing diverse perspectives through careful partnership formation and design; 2) promoting communication, learning, and reflexivity (i.e., questioning assumptions, beliefs, and practices) to overcome conflict and power asymmetries; and 3) increasing policy impact for joint science and society benefits. Our study highlights the benefits of diversity in SWS - both in the types of people and knowledge included as well as the methods used - and the potential benefits of this approach for addressing the increasingly complex challenges arising from global environmental change.

Abstract This paper analyzes the challenges and opportunities entailed in the design, implementation and dissemination of an interdisciplinary project that evolved into a knowledge co-production effort. The project explored the livelihood strategies of coffee growers in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica facing multiple stressors of economic (market shocks and price volatility) and physical nature (climate variability and pest incidence). Our objective was to determine the factors that influence farmers’ decisions and the implications of those decisions for the people and the landscapes of the region. To achieve this objective, we intended to engage farm communities and sector representatives in the research process, and to a large extent this intent was realized. Nevertheless, the project illustrates the difficulties in achieving knowledge “co-production” with stakeholders whose day-to-day existence focuses on issues largely outside the domain of the research program. We adopted decision-analysis tools to integrate our knowledge and hypotheses to find a common language and structure for our research design. In relation to regional and national policy makers and sector experts, we aimed to communicate the decision–environment of the smallholder producer to enhance awareness of the institutional opportunities and constraints in the adaptation process. For the farmers themselves, we aimed to serve as conduits and mirrors of their own knowledge, rather than serving as external authorities on issues that appeared to be of little interest to them. Through the course of the project, we experimented with diverse modes of stakeholder interaction and, through collaboration with local experts in communication strategies, identified a set of tools for successful dissemination of results. The credibility and direct ties of the participating research organizations and collaborating institutes with the local communities were often an asset, sometimes a complication, but always a critical factor in the process of stakeholder interaction. The messages constructed from the collective knowledge of local farmers in distinct regions in four countries with different social and institutional histories represent crucial information for policy makers who are looking to support the adaptation processes of rural people facing changes of a global nature. However, communicating these messages in a usable and useful way to decision makers at various levels proved to be challenging.

Abstract This paper analyzes the challenges and opportunities entailed in the design, implementation and dissemination of an interdisciplinary project that evolved into a knowledge co-production effort. The project explored the livelihood strategies of coffee growers in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica facing multiple stressors of economic (market shocks and price volatility) and physical nature (climate variability and pest incidence). Our objective was to determine the factors that influence farmers’ decisions and the implications of those decisions for the people and the landscapes of the region. To achieve this objective, we intended to engage farm communities and sector representatives in the research process, and to a large extent this intent was realized. Nevertheless, the project illustrates the difficulties in achieving knowledge “co-production” with stakeholders whose day-to-day existence focuses on issues largely outside the domain of the research program. We adopted decision-analysis tools to integrate our knowledge and hypotheses to find a common language and structure for our research design. In relation to regional and national policy makers and sector experts, we aimed to communicate the decision–environment of the smallholder producer to enhance awareness of the institutional opportunities and constraints in the adaptation process. For the farmers themselves, we aimed to serve as conduits and mirrors of their own knowledge, rather than serving as external authorities on issues that appeared to be of little interest to them. Through the course of the project, we experimented with diverse modes of stakeholder interaction and, through collaboration with local experts in communication strategies, identified a set of tools for successful dissemination of results. The credibility and direct ties of the participating research organizations and collaborating institutes with the local communities were often an asset, sometimes a complication, but always a critical factor in the process of stakeholder interaction. The messages constructed from the collective knowledge of local farmers in distinct regions in four countries with different social and institutional histories represent crucial information for policy makers who are looking to support the adaptation processes of rural people facing changes of a global nature. However, communicating these messages in a usable and useful way to decision makers at various levels proved to be challenging.

Interdisciplinary research is understood to be the preferred way for scientific research to deepen understanding about environmental issues and challenges for sustainability. Two well-defined interdisciplinairy research fields, Ecosystems services (ES) and Common-pool resources (CPR), have taken different approaches that integrate the natural and social sciences to address environmental conundrums collaboratively. Several recent studies bring together insight from each, yet little is known about the breadth or directions, of the interdisciplinary conversation between the two fields of research. Moreover, the potential of this interaction to advance theory and practice relevant for sustainability is underexplored. The purpose of this study is to fill this gap by addressing three questions: 1) What are the motives for the interaction between CPR and ES fields?, 2) How are these two fields of research interacting?, and 3) How does the interaction of CPR and ES contribute to research on sustainability? We conducted a systematic map to identify, select, describe and analyse research of our interest. We mapped out motivations for researchers to bring together insights from these two lines of inquiry and examined how they are doing so.

Interdisciplinary research is understood to be the preferred way for scientific research to deepen understanding about environmental issues and challenges for sustainability. Two well-defined interdisciplinairy research fields, Ecosystems services (ES) and Common-pool resources (CPR), have taken different approaches that integrate the natural and social sciences to address environmental conundrums collaboratively. Several recent studies bring together insight from each, yet little is known about the breadth or directions, of the interdisciplinary conversation between the two fields of research. Moreover, the potential of this interaction to advance theory and practice relevant for sustainability is underexplored. The purpose of this study is to fill this gap by addressing three questions: 1) What are the motives for the interaction between CPR and ES fields?, 2) How are these two fields of research interacting?, and 3) How does the interaction of CPR and ES contribute to research on sustainability? We conducted a systematic map to identify, select, describe and analyse research of our interest. We mapped out motivations for researchers to bring together insights from these two lines of inquiry and examined how they are doing so.