Integrating disciplinary research into an interdisciplinary framework: A case study in sustainability research

The complexity of today’s research problems increasingly demands that scientists move beyond the confines of their own discipline. In this special issue, the basics of a transdisciplinary framework are established and problems analyzed in a specific discipline are successfully integrated in this transdisciplinary network. The intent has been to go beyond only statements about the importance of enabling early stage researchers to work across disciplinary boundaries, and to show that important discoveries are being made at the intersection of disciplines. Embedding various research projects in a more global framework can meet the demands of an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approach (especially for early stage researchers) and contribute significantly to sustainable research.     

A Review of Environmental Sociology and the Sociology of Natural Resources： Insights for the Development of Environmental Sociology in China

Environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources are two key subdisciplines of the sociological study on the interactions between nature and human society. Previous discussion on the relationships of these two fields has largely focused on their distinctions and synthesis in western （particularly American） academia. Environmental sociology emerged as an important sociological subdiscipline in China in the early 1990s and is under vigorous disciplinary construction at present. By contrast, the sociology of natural resources is still a novel term for most Chinese researchers. This article provides a systematic review of recent literature on the relationships between environmental and natural resource sociologies, which should provide important implications for the further development of environmental sociology in China.     

Putting transdisciplinarity into practice: a mixed mode procedure for stakeholder participation in natural resource management

The definition of management actions in natural resource management requires the integration of all types of knowledge involved. An appropriate approach for such a challenge is the ideal of transdisciplinarity. A transdisciplinary process can be considered “consultative” when knowledge is simply gathered and collated, or “participatory” when knowledge integration is undertaken collectively. In this paper, we present a mixed mode procedure (i.e., using interviews, questionnaires, and group discussions) that empirically demonstrates the difference between consultative and participatory transdisciplinary processes. The mixed mode procedure is used for identifying the most relevant problems occurring in the coastal system of Praia da Vitória bay, Azores, Portugal. This mixed mode procedure is likely to be useful for other studies, because the results highlight the need to promote face-to-face interaction at the earliest opportunity, and because it allows an understanding to be gained of social learning processes, the influence of power, and participant behaviour during interaction with others.     

When Agendas Collide: Human Welfare and Biological Conservation

Abstract:  Conservation should benefit ecosystems, nonhuman organisms, and current and future human beings. Nevertheless, tension among these goals engenders potential ethical conflicts: conservationists' true motivations may differ from the justifications they offer for their activities, and conservation projects have the potential to disempower and oppress people. We reviewed the promise and deficiencies of integrating social, economic, and biological concerns into conservation, focusing on research in ecosystem services and efforts in community-based conservation. Despite much progress, neither paradigm provides a silver bullet for conservation's most pressing problems, and both require additional thought and modification to become maximally effective. We conclude that the following strategies are needed to make conservation more effective in our human-dominated world. (1) Conservation research needs to integrate with social scholarship in a more sophisticated manner. (2) Conservation must be informed by a detailed understanding of the spatial, temporal, and social distributions of costs and benefits of conservation efforts. Strategies should reflect this understanding, particularly by equitably distributing conservation's costs. (3) We must better acknowledge the social concerns that accompany biodiversity conservation; accordingly, sometimes we must argue for conservation for biodiversity's sake, not for its direct human benefits.     

‘Learning by doing’: adaptive planning as a strategy to address uncertainty in planning

Adaptive management, an established method in natural resource and ecosystem management, has not been widely applied to landscape planning due to the lack of an operational method that addresses the role of uncertainty and standardized monitoring protocols and methods. A review of adaptive management literature and practices reveals several key concepts and principles for adaptive planning: (1) management actions are best understood and practiced as experiments; (2) several plans/experiments can be implemented simultaneously; (3) monitoring of management actions are key; and (4) adaptive management can be understood as ‘learning by doing’. The paper identifies various uncertainties in landscape planning as the major obstacles for the adoption of an adaptive approach. To address the uncertainty in landscape planning, an adaptive planning method is proposed where monitoring plays an integral role to reduce uncertainty. The proposed method is then applied to a conceptual test in water resource planning addressing abiotic-biotic-cultural resources. To operationalize adaptive planning, it is argued that professionals, stakeholders and researchers need to function in a genuinely transdisciplinary mode where all contribute to, and benefit from, decision making and the continuous generation of new knowledge.     

Participatory scenario planning to facilitate human–wildlife coexistence

Fostering human–wildlife coexistence requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate multiple sectors, account for complexity and uncertainty, and ensure stakeholder participation. One such approach is participatory scenario planning, but to date, this approach has not been used in human–wildlife contexts. We devised a template for how participatory scenario planning can be applied to identify potential avenues for improving human–wildlife coexistence. We drew on 3 conceptual building blocks, namely the SEEDS framework, the notion of critical uncertainties, and the three-horizons technique. To illustrate the application of the proposed template, we conducted a case study in the Zambezi region of Namibia. We held 5 multistakeholder workshops that involved local people as well as numerous nongovernment and government stakeholders. We identified 14 important wildlife species that generated multiple services and disservices. The subsequent benefits and burdens, in turn, were inequitably distributed among stakeholders. Government actors played particularly influential roles in shaping social-ecological outcomes. We identified 2 critical uncertainties for the future: the nature of governance (fragmented vs. collaborative) and the type of wildlife economy (hunting vs. photography based). Considering these uncertainties resulted in 4 plausible scenarios describing future human–wildlife coexistence. Stakeholders did not agree on a single preferred scenario, but nevertheless agreed on several high-priority strategies. Bridging the remaining gaps among actors will require ongoing deliberation among stakeholders. Navigating the complex challenges posed by living with wildlife requires moving beyond disciplinary approaches. To that end, our template could prove useful in many landscapes around the world.