Characteristics, emerging needs, and challenges of transdisciplinary sustainability science: Experiences from the german social-ecological research program

Ecology and Society

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2015, Pages

  Ruppert Winkel, Chantal ^a   Arlinghaus, Robert ^b,c   Deppisch, Sonja ^d   Eisenack, Klaus ^e   Gottschlich, Daniela ^c   Hirschl, Bernd ^f,g   Matzdorf, Bettina ^h   Mölders, Tanja ⁱ   Padmanabhan, Martina ^j   Selbmann, Kirsten ^k,l   Ziegler, Rafael ^m   Plieninger, Tobias ⁿ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^c HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d HAFENCITY UNIVERSITY HAMBURG   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^f Institute for Ecological Economy Research (I W)   (Germany)

^g BRANDENBURG UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^h LEIBNIZ CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCH ZALF   (Germany)

ⁱ LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^j UNIVERSITY OF PASSAU   (Germany)

^k RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^l POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

^m UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD   (Germany)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

more..

Author keywords

Early career scientists; Interdisciplinarity; Research practice; Self evaluation; Social ecological research; Sustainability science; Trandisciplinarity

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; RESEARCH PROGRAM; SUSTAINABILITY; TRADE-OFF;

GERMANY;

EID: 84943165811     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-07739-200313     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Albers, M., and S. Deppisch. 2012. Resilience in the light of climate change: useful approach or empty phrase for spatial planning? European Planning Studies 21(10):1598-1610. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722961
2. Amelung, N. 2012. The emergence of citizen panels as a de facto standard. Quaderni 79:13-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/quaderni.616
3. Arlinghaus, R. 2014. Are current research evaluation metrics causing a tragedy of the scientific commons and the extinction of university-based fisheries programs? Fisheries 39(5):212-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2014.903837
4. Arlinghaus, R., L. M. Hunt, J. R. Post, and M. S. Allen. 2014. Not fish not meat: some guidance on how to study fisheries from an interdisciplinary perspective. 223-230 in W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch, and N. J. Léonard, editors. Future of fisheries: perspectives for emerging professionals. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda Maryland, USA
5. Backhouse, M. 2015. Green grabbing — the case of palm oil expansion in so-called degraded areas in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. 167-185 in K. Dietz, B. Engels, O. Pye, and A. Brunnengräber, editors. The political ecology of agrofuels. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
6. Balzer, I., and M. Wächter, editors. 2002. Sozial-ökologische Forschung: Ergebnisse der Sondierungsprojekte aus dem BMBFFörderschwerpunkt. Ökom Verlag, Munich, Germany.
7. Becker, E., and T. Jahn, editors. 2006. Soziale Ökologie: Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt, Germany.
8. Beichler, S. A., S. Hasibovic, B. J. Davidse, and S. Deppisch. 2014. The role played by social-ecological resilience as a method of integration in interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 19 (3): 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-06583-190304
9. Beland Lindahl, K., and E. Westholm. 2014. Transdisciplinarity in practice: aims, collaboration and integration in a Swedish research programme. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 11(3-4):155-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1943815x.2014.945940
10. Bergmann, M., B. Brohmann, E. Hoffmann, M. C. Loibl, R. Rehaag, E. Schramm, and J.-P. Voß. 2005. Quality criteria of transdisciplinary research: a guide for the formative evaluation of research projects. ISOE-Studientexte 13. Institute for Social- Ecological Research, Frankfurt, Germany. [online] URL: http://www.isoe.de/ftp/evalunet_guide.pdf.
11. Bergmann, M., T. Jahn, T. Knobloch, W. Krohn, C. Pohl, and E. Schramm. 2012. Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt, Germany.
12. Bettencourt, L. M. A., and J. Kaur. 2011. Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(49):19540-19545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102712108
13. Betz, L., I. Kunze, P. Prajeesh, T. R. Suma, and M. Padmanabhan. 2014. The social-ecological web: a bridging concept for transdisciplinary research. Current Science 107(4):572-579. [online] URL:http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/04/0572.pdf.
14. Bieling, C., T. Plieninger, H. Pirker, and C. R. Vogl. 2014. Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: an empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics 105:19-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013
15. Binder, C. R., J. Hinkel, P. W. G. Bots, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(4): 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-05551-180426
16. Brandt, P., A. Ernst, F. Gralla, C. Luederitz, D. J. Lang, J. Newig, F. Reinert, D. J. Abson, and H. von Wehrden. 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics 92:1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008
17. Brüntrup, M., D. Anders, R. Herrmann, J. Schmitz, and F. Kaup. 2010. New paths for biofuels in Africa. Rural 21 44(6):25-28. [online] URL: http://www.rural21.com/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/rural_2010_6_25-28_01.pdf.
18. Buizer, M., B. Arts, and K. Kok. 2011. Governance, scale, and the environment: the importance of recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas. Ecology and Society 16(1): 21. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art21/.
19. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, editor. 2000. Rahmenkonzept Sozial-ökologische Forschung. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bonn, Germany. [online] URL: http://www.isoe.de/ftp/rahmenkonzept.pdf.
20. Christinck, A., and M. Padmanabhan, editors. 2013. Cultivate diversity! A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research. Margraf, Weikersheim, Germany.
21. Cundill, G. N. R., C. Fabricius, and N. Marti. 2005. Foghorns to the future: using knowledge and transdisciplinarity to navigate complex systems. Ecology and Society 10(2): 8. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art8/.
22. Defila, R., and A. Di Giulio. 1999. Evaluating transdisciplinary research. Panorama Special issue 1/99. Swiss National Science Foundation, Bern, Switzerland. [online] URL: http://www.ikaoe.unibe.ch/forschung/ip/Specialissue.Pano.1.99.pdf.
23. Defila, R., A. Di Giulio, and M. Scheuermann. 2006. Forschungsverbundmanagement: Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte. Vdf Hochschulverlag and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
24. DeGEval [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Evaluation]. 2004. Empfehlungen zur Anwendung der Standards für Evaluation im Handlungsfeld der Selbstevaluation. Geschäftsstelle DeGEval, Alfter, Germany. [online] URL: http://www.degeval.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/DeGEval_-_Empfehlungen_Selbstevaluation.pdf.
25. Deppisch, S., and S. Hasibovic. 2013. Social-ecological resilience thinking as a bridging concept in transdisciplinary research on climate-change adaptation. Natural Hazards 67(1):117-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9821-9
26. DLR, editor [Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt]. 2007. Sozial-ökologische Forschung: Rahmenkonzept 2007–2010. DLR, Bonn, Germany. [online] URL: https://www.fona.de/mediathek/pdf/B_1_1_SOEF_Rahmenkonzept_de.pdf.
27. Dunkelberg, E., M. Finkbeiner, and B. Hirschl. 2014. Sugarcane ethanol production in Malawi: measures to optimize the carbon footprint and to avoid indirect emission. Biomass and Bioenergy 71:37-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.10.006
28. Eisenack, K., S. C. Moser, E. Hoffmann, R. J. T. Klein, C. Oberlack, A. Pechan, M. Rotter, and C. J. A. M. Termeer. 2014. Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change 4(10):867-872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2350
29. Eisenack, K., and R. Stecker. 2012. A framework for analyzing climate change adaptations as actions. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 17(3):243-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9323-9
30. EvaConsult. 2011. Lessons learnt im Förderschwerpunkt Sozialökologische Forschung (SÖF). Bericht zu Ergebnissen und Perspektiven in der Sozial-ökologischen Forschung workshop. (28 September 2011, Bonn). EvaConsult, Bonn, Germany. [online] URL: https://www.fona.de/mediathek/pdf/B_1_1_SOEF_Bericht_LessonsLearnt.pdf.
31. FAO [Food and Agriculture Organisation]. 2012. Recreational fisheries. FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries 13. FAO, Rome, Italy. [online] URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2708e/i2708e00.pdf.
32. Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2):219-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
33. Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4): 20. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/.
34. Friedrich, B., D. Gottschlich, A. Lindner, T. Mölders, A. Szumelda, and J. Sulmowski. 2010. Normative Verortungen und Vorgehen im Forschungsprozess: Das Nachhaltigkeitsverständnis im Forschungsprojekt PoNa, Lüneburg. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany. [online] URL: http://www2.leuphana.de/pona-eu/data/Downloads/Zusammenfassug%20EN.pdf.
35. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the postnormal age. Futures 25(7):735-755.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
36. Gibbons, M. 1999. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(6761):C81-C84.
37. Gottschlich, D. 2015. Kommende Nachhaltigkeit: Bausteine für ein kritisch-emanzipatorisches Konzept nachhaltiger Entwicklung aus feministischer, diskurstheoretischer Perspektive. Nomos, Baden-Baden, Germany, in press.
38. Gottschlich, D., and T. Mölders, editors. 2015. Politiken der Naturgestaltung: Ländliche Entwicklung und Agro-Gentechnik zwischen Kritik und Vision. Springer, Wiesbaden, Germany, in press.
39. Gottschlich, D., T. Mölders, B. Friedrich, R. Schrader, Y. Sulmowski, and A. Szumelda. 2014. Politik machen - Natur gestalten: Theoretische Perspektiven und praktische Erfahrungen in den Politikfeldern Ländliche Entwicklung und Agro-Gentechnik. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany. [online] URL: http://www2.leuphana.de/pona-eu/data/Downloads/PoNa-Broschuere_DE.pdf.
40. Hauber, J., and C. Ruppert-Winkel. 2012. Moving towards energy self-sufficiency based on renewables: comparative case studies on the emergence of regional processes of socio-technical change in Germany. Sustainability 4(4):491-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su4040491
41. Hirsch Hadorn, G., D. Bradley, C. Pohl, S. Rist, and U. Wiesmann. 2006. Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics 60(1):119-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.002
42. Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4(5):390-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5
43. Huber, R., H. Bugmann, A. Buttler, and A. Rigling. 2013. Sustainable land-use practices in European mountain regions under global change: an integrated research approach. Ecology and Society 18(3): 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-05375-180337
44. Hühn, D., K. Lübke, C. Skov, and R. Arlinghaus. 2014. Natural recruitment, density-dependent juvenile survival, and the potential for additive effects of stock enhancement: an experimental evaluation of stocking northern pike (Esox lucius) fry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71 (10):1508-1519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2013-0636
45. Huutoniemi, K., J. Thompson Klein, H. Bruunc, and J. Hukkinen. 2010. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Research Policy 39(1):79-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011
46. Jacobs, M. 1999. Sustainable development as a contested concept. 21-45 in A. Dobson, editor. Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198294891.003.0002
47. Jahn, T. 2002. Konzept und Genese des Förderschwerpunktes “Sozial-ökologische Forschung”. In Zukunft gewinnen: der Beitrag der sozial-ökologischen Forschung. (May 2002, Berlin). Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung, Frankfurt, Germany. [online] URL: http://www.isoe.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Downloads/Soziale_Oekologie/jahn-soef-berlin-2002.pdf.
48. Jahn, T. 2005. Soziale Ökologie, kognitive Integration und Transdisziplinarität. Zeitschrift des ITAS zur Technikfolgenabschätzung 2(14):32-38. [online] URL: http://www.tatup-journal.de/tatup052_jahn05a.php.
49. Jahn, T., M. Bergmann, and F. Keil. 2012. Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics 79:1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
50. Kates, R. W., W. C. Clark, R. Corell, J. M. Hall, C. C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J. J. McCarthy, H. J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N. M. Dickson, S. Faucheux, G. C. Gallopin, A. Gruebler, B. Huntley, J. Jäger, N. S. Jodha, R. E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H. Mooney, B. Moore III, T. O’Riordan, and U. Svedin. 2001. Sustainability science. Sustainability science. KSG Faculty Research Working Paper RWP00-018. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.257359
51. Kaup, F., and K. Selbmann. 2013. The seesaw of Germany’s biofuel policy — tracing the evolvement to its current state. Energy Policy 62:513-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.024
52. Klein, J. T. 2008. Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(2S):S116-S123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010
53. Komiyama, H., and K. Takeuchi. 2006. Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1(1):1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-006-0007-4
54. Krohn, W. 2008. Epistemische Qualitäten transdisziplinärer Forschung. 21-38 in M. Bergmann and E. Schramm, editors. Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt, Germany.
55. Krütli, P., M. Stauffacher, T. Flüeler, and R. W. Scholz. 2010. Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research 13(7):861-875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669871003703252
56. Lang, D. J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C. J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7(1):25-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
57. Lélé, S., and R. Norgaard. 2005. Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55(11):967-975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0967:pi]2.0.co;2
58. Luks, F., and B. Siebenhüner. 2007. Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance. Ecological Economics 63(2-3):418-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.007
59. Maasen, S. 2010. Transdisziplinarität revisited - Dekonstruktion eines Programms zur Demokratisierung der Wissenschaft. 247-268 in A. Bogner, K. Kastenhofer, and H. Torgersen, editors. Inter- und Transdisziplinarität im Wandel? Neue Perspektiven auf problemorientierte Forschung und Politikberatung. Nomos, Baden- Baden, Germany.
60. Mann, C., and J. D. Absher. 2014. Adjusting policy to institutional, cultural and biophysical context conditions: the case of conservation banking in California. Land Use Policy 36:73-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.007
61. Mattor, K., M. Betsill, C. Huayhuaca, H. Huber-Stearns, T. Jedd, F. Sternlieb, P. Bixler, M. Luizza, and A. S. Cheng. 2014. Transdisciplinary research on environmental governance: a view from the inside. Environmental Science and Policy 42:90-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.002
62. Matzdorf, B., and C. Meyer. 2014. The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed countries’ environmental policies: a comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy 38:509-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.011
63. Matzdorf, B., C. Biedermann, C. Meyer, K. Nicolau, C. Sattler, and S. Schomers. 2014. Paying for green? Payments for ecosystem services in practice: successful examples of PES from Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung, Müncheberg, Germany. [online] URL: http://www.civiland-zalf.org/download/PayingforGreen_PESinpractice.pdf.
64. McDonald, D., G. Bammer, and P. Deane. 2009. Research integration using dialogue methods. ANU E Press, Canberra, Australia.
65. Mölders, T. 2014. Multifunctional agricultural policies: pathways towards sustainable rural development? International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 21(1):97-114. [online] URL: http://ijsaf.org/archive/21/1/moelders.pdf.
66. Müller, C. 2013. Bilanzierung der Fördermaßnahme Nachwuchsgruppen in der Sozial-ökologischen Forschung Förderphasen I & II (2002– 2014). Sozial-ökologische Forschung, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bonn, Germany. [online] URL: https://www.fona.de/mediathek/pdf/Bilanzierungsbericht_SOEF_Nachwuchsgruppen_2013.pdf.
67. Nagabhatla, N., M. Padmanabhan, P. Kühle, S. Vishnudas, L. Betz, and B. Niemeyer. 2015. LCLUC as an entry point for Btransdisciplinary research — reflections from an agriculture land use change study in South Asia. Journal of Environmental Management 148:42-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.03.019
68. Nicholls, A. 2010. The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34(4):611-633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00397.x
69. Nölting, B., J.-P. Voß, and D. Hayn. 2004. Nachhaltigkeitsforschung - jenseits von Disziplinierung und anything goes. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 13(4):254-261.
70. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. T. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Ostrom, E. 2007. Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. 21-64 in A. Sabatier, editor. Theories of the policy process. Second edition. Westview Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
71. Pade-Khene, C., R. Luton, T. Jordaan, S. Hildbrand, C. Gerwel Proches, A. Sitshaluza, J. Dominy, W. Ntshinga, and N. Moloto. 2013. Complexity of stakeholder interaction in applied research. Ecology and Society 18(2): 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-05405-180213
72. Partzsch, L., and R. Ziegler. 2011. Social entrepreneurs as change agents: a case study on power and authority in the water sector. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 11(1):63-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-011-9150-1
73. Pechan, A., and K. Eisenack. 2014. The impact of heat waves on electricity spot markets. Energy Economics 43:63-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.02.006
74. Plieninger, T., C. Bieling, B. Ohnesorge, H. Schaich, C. Schleyer, and F. Wolff. 2013. Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecology and Society 18(3): 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-05802-180339
75. Plieninger, T., C. Schleyer, H. Schaich, B. Ohnesorge, H. Gerdes, M. Hernández-Morcillo, and C. Bieling. 2012. Mainstreaming ecosystem services through reformed European agricultural policies. Conservation Letters 5(4):281-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2012.00240.x
76. Pohl, C., and G. Hirsch Hadorn. 2006. Gestaltungsprinzipien für die transdisziplinäre Forschung: Ein Beitrag des td-net. Oekom Verlag, Munich, Germany.
77. Pregernig, M. 2007. Impact assessment of transdisciplinary research: in need of a more distanced view. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 16(1):46-51.
78. Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Weber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2):155-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01405730
79. Ruppert-Winkel, C., J. Hauber, A. Aretz, S. Funcke, M. Kress, S. Noz, S. Salecki, P. Schlager, and J. Stablo. 2013. Cooperative local energy transitions: a guide for socially just and ecologically sound renewable energy self-sufficiency — with an emphasis on bioenergy. ZEE working paper. University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. [online] URL: http://www.ee-regionen.de/fileadmin/EE_Regionen/redaktion/englischer_Wegweiser/RE-Regions_-_Cooperative_Local_ Energy_Transitions.pdf.
80. Ruppert-Winkel, C., J. Hauber, J. Stablo, and M. Kress. 2014. Das World Café als Integrationsinstrument in der transdisziplinären Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 23(3):243-252.
81. Schneidewind, U. 2010. Ein institutionelles Reformprogramm zur Förderung transdisziplinärer Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 19(2):122-128.
82. Schneidewind, U., and K. Augenstein. 2012. Analyzing a transition to a sustainability-oriented science system in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 3:16-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.04.004
83. Scholz, R. W. 2011. Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511921520
84. Schomers, S., and B. Matzdorf. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services 6:16-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002
85. Selbmann, K. 2015. Bio-, agro- or even social fuels: discourse dynamics on biofuels in Germany. Environmental Values, in press.
86. Spangenberg, J. H. 2011. Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation 38(3):275-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892911000270
87. Stockmann, R., and W. Meyer. 2014. Evaluation: Eine Einführung. Budrich, Leverkusen, Germany.
88. Tötzer, T., S. Sedlacek, and M. Knoflacher. 2011. Designing the future—a reflection of a transdisciplinary case study in Austria. Futures 43(8):840-852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.05.026
89. Ukowitz, M. 2014. Towards a theory of transdisciplinary research. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 23(1):19-22.
90. van Poorten, B. T., R. Arlinghaus, K. Daedlow, and S. S. Haertel- Borer. 2011. Social-ecological interactions, management panaceas, and the future of wild fish populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(30):12554-12559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013919108
91. Venghaus, S., and K. Selbmann. 2014. Biofuel as social fuel: introducing socio-environmental services as a means to reduce global inequity? Ecological Economics 97:84-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.11.003
92. Voß, J.-P., and A. Simons. 2014. Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: the social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics 23(5):735-754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.923625
93. Weingart, P. 2000. Interdisciplinarity: the paradoxical discourse. 25-41 in P. Weingart and N. Stehr, editors. Practising interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada
94. Wickson, F., A. L. Carew, and A. W. Russell. 2006. Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38(9):1046-1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011
95. Wiesmann, U., S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, D. Joye, C. Pohl, and E. Zemp. 2008. Enhancing trandisciplinary research: a synthesis in fifteen propositions. 433-441 in G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, and E. Zemp, editors. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
96. Wolf, B., T. Lindenthal, M. Szerencsits, J. B. Holbrook, and J. Heß. 2013. Evaluating research beyond scientific impact: how to include criteria for productive interactions and impact on practice and society. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 22(2):104-114.
97. Wu, J. 2013. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology 28(6):999-1023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9
98. Ziegler, R. 2010. Innovations in doing and being: capability innovations at the intersection of Schumpeterian political economy and human development. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 1(2):255-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2010.511818
99. Ziegler, R., and K. Ott. 2011. The quality of sustainability science: a philosophical perspective. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 7(1):31-44. [online] URL: http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol7iss1/1006-029.ziegler.html.
100. Ziegler, R., L. Partzsch, J. Gebauer, M. Henkel, J. Lodemann, and F. Mohaupt, editors. 2014. Social entrepreneurship in the water sector: getting things done sustainably. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781783471317
101. Zierhofer, W., and P. Burger. 2007. Disentangling transdisciplinarity: an analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Science Studies 20(1):51-74. [online] URL: http://www. sciencetechnologystudies.org/system/files/Zierhofer%20SS_1_2007-3. pdf.