Explore the vast range of titles available.

Transdisciplinary research practice has become a core element of global sustainability science. Transdisciplinary research brings with it an expectation that people with different backgrounds and interests will learn together through collective problem solving and innovation. Here we introduce the concept of “transdisciplinary communities of practice,” and draw on both situated learning theory and transdisciplinary practice to identify three key lessons for people working in, managing, or funding such groups. (1) Opportunities need to be purposefully created for outsiders to observe activities in the core group. (2) Communities of practice cannot be artificially created, but they can be nurtured. (3) Power matters in transdisciplinary communities of practice. These insights challenge thinking about how groups of people come together in pursuit of transdisciplinary outcomes, and call for greater attention to be paid to the social processes of learning that are at the heart of our aspirations for global sustainability science.

Adaptive management is often advocated as a solution to understanding and managing complexity in social-ecological systems. Given the centrality of learning in adaptive management, it remains unclear how learning in adaptive management is understood to occur, who learns, what they learn about, and how they learn. We conducted a systematic review using the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and searched specifically for examples of the practical implementation of adaptive management between 2011 and 2013, i.e., excluding articles that suggested frameworks, models, or recommendations for future action. This provided a subset of 22 papers that were analyzed using five elements: the aims of adaptive management as stated in each paper; the reported achievements of adaptive management; what was learned; who learned; and how they learned. Our results indicate that, although most published adaptive management initiatives aimed at improvements in biological conservation or ecosystem management, scholars of adaptive management tend to report on learning more about governance and about learning, than about ecosystems or biological conservation. Whereas almost all the papers (91%) listed improvements in biological conservation and ecosystem management as aims, 59% reported these as achievements. Whereas only 27% listed improved governance as an aim, 73% mentioned this as an achievement. Conservation scientists and academics reporting on adaptive management tend to learn among themselves, and very seldom (18%) with external stakeholders. Adaptive ecosystem management is dominated by direct assessment and single-loop learning aimed at improving existing practices (86%), with about 50% engaged in double-loop learning and a similar number in deutero-learning (learning about learning). Some adaptive managers (36%) combined double-and single-loop learning and the majority of these (6/8) reported on conservation achievements. A possible explanation for these findings is that adaptive management is an evolutionary process and in most instances is still in an early pioneering stage, possibly held back by participants’ capacity for learning. The constraint of learning capacity may also explain why so few adaptive management initiatives reported on learning with societal stakeholders.

Learning provides the basis for fostering transitions toward adaptive comanagement. Understanding the ways in which arenas for collaboration and learning are created, and the outcomes of these processes in different contexts, is therefore crucial. This paper presents the results of an experimental research process that identified a small set of key variables that influence effective collaboration and learning, and tested a methodology for monitoring these in a collaborative way in three case studies in South Africa. The small set of key variables tested in this study was sensitive enough to register change over a period of 18 months. Results suggest that the background conditions necessary for social learning can be externally managed during an initiative, with positive outcomes for collaboration and learning. Monitoring outcomes suggest that for learning to be effective, a balance needs to be sought between maintaining key individuals within the system, preventing rigidity and vulnerability when this is achieved, and encouraging active participation within communities of practice. Effective facilitation by an ‘honest broker’ is one of the ways in which this can be achieved. The results point to an over simplification in the rhetoric that currently surrounds the learning outcomes of multilevel networks, and challenges the idea that democratic structures are necessarily important for effective natural resource management at the community level.

Concerns about ecological degradation and social inequalities have prompted increasing calls for stewardship in the social–ecological systems and sustainability science literature. However, how can the ideals of stewardship be realised in practice? The links between the theory and practice of stewardship are under-developed, and research to support place-based stewardship practice is limited. We therefore bring together complementary perspectives to guide research on place-based stewardship practice in the context of multifunctional landscapes. We unpack and synthesise literature on stewardship, landscapes, and collaboration for natural resource management, and highlight the ways in which the pathways approach can deepen research on collaboration and stewardship practice. We propose landscapes as a suitable level of analysis and action for stewardship. Since all landscapes are multifunctional, we argue that collaboration among multiple stakeholders is a necessary focus of such research. Our analysis reveals that existing theory on collaboration could be deepened by further research into the agency of individual human actors, the complex social–relational dynamics among actors, and the situatedness of actors within the social–ecological context. These factors mediate collaborative processes, and a better understanding of them is needed to support place-based stewardship practice. To this end, the pathways approach offers a waymark to advance research on collaboration, particularly in the complex, contested social–ecological systems that tend to characterize multifunctional landscapes.

Social learning is increasingly becoming a normative goal in natural resource management and policy. However, there remains little consensus over its meaning or theoretical basis. There are still considerable differences in understanding of the concept in the literature, including a number of articles published inEcology & Society. Social learning is often conflated with other concepts such as participation and proenvironmental behavior, and there is often little distinction made between individual and wider social learning. Many unsubstantiated claims for social learning exist, and there is frequently confusion between the concept itself and its potential outcomes. This lack of conceptual clarity has limited our capacity to assess whether social learning has occurred, and if so, what kind of learning has taken place, to what extent, between whom, when, and how. This response attempts to provide greater clarity on the conceptual basis for social learning. We argue that to be considered social learning, a process must: (1) demonstrate that a change in understanding has taken place in the individuals involved; (2) demonstrate that this change goes beyond the individual and becomes situated within wider social units or communities of practice; and (3) occur through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network. A clearer picture of what we mean by social learning could enhance our ability to critically evaluate outcomes and better understand the processes through which social learning occurs. In this way, it may be possible to better facilitate the desired outcomes of social learning processes.

Climate change poses a threat to heritage globally. Decolonial approaches to climate change–heritage research and practice can begin to address systemic inequities, recognize the breadth of heritage and strengthen adaptation action globally.

The governance outcomes of natural resource co-management have been neither systematically monitored nor rigorously assessed. We identified system attributes and key variables that could form the basis for monitoring the governance dimension of adaptive co-management. A methodology for collaboratively monitoring these system attributes and key variables was tested in four localities in South Africa. Our results suggest that creating the conditions that facilitate self-organization, and particularly cross-scale institutional linkages, is the major challenge facing attempts to initiate adaptive co-management. Factors requiring greater attention include community perceptions of support from outside agencies, access to long-term funding for adaptive decision making, and access to reliable information about changes in natural resources and legal options for the formation of decision-making bodies. Long-term and well-funded social facilitation is key to achieving this.

We provide a synthesis of the papers in the Special Issue, the Communities Ecosystems and Livelihoods component of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), and other recent publications on the adaptive capacity of communities and their role in ecosystem management. Communities adapt because they face enormous challenges due to policies, conflicts, demographic factors, ecological change, and changes in their livelihood options, but the appropriateness of their responses varies. Based on our synthesis, three broad categories of adaptive communities are identified. “Powerless spectator” communities have a low adaptive capacity and weak capacity to govern, do not have financial or technological options, and lack natural resources, skills, institutions, and networks. “Coping actor” communities have the capacity to adapt, but are not managing social–ecological systems. They lack the capacity for governance because of lack of leadership, of vision, and of motivation, and their responses are typically short term. “Adaptive manager” communities have both adaptive capacity and governance capacity to sustain and internalize this adaptation. They invest in the long-term management of ecosystem services. Such communities are not only aware of the threats, but also take appropriate action for long-term sustainability. Adaptive co-management becomes possible through leadership and vision, the formation of knowledge networks, the existence or development of polycentric institutions, the establishment and maintenance of links between culture and management, the existence of enabling policies, and high levels of motivation in all role players. Adaptive co-managers are empowered, but empowerment is a consequence of the capacity for governance and the capacity to adapt, rather than a starting point. Communities that are able to enhance their adaptive capacity can deal with challenges such as conflicts, make difficult trade-offs between their short- and long-term well-being, and implement rules for ecosystem management. This improves the capacity of the ecosystem to continue providing services.

Collaborative research requires synergy among diverse partners, overall direction, and flexibility at multiple levels. There is a need to learn from practical experience in fostering cooperation towards research outcomes, coordinating geographically dispersed teams, and bridging distinct incentives and ways of working. This article reflects on the experience of the Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA), a multi-consortium programme which sought to build resilience to regional climate change. Participants valued the consortium as a network that provided connections with distinct sources of expertise, as a means to gain experience and skills beyond the remit of their home organisation. Consortia were seen as an avenue for reaching scale both in terms of working across regions, as well as in terms of moving research into practice. CARIAA began with programme-level guidance on climate hotspots and collaboration, alongside consortium-level visions on research agenda and design. Consortia created and implemented work plans defining each organisation’s role and responsibilities and coordinated activities across numerous partners, dispersed locations, and diverse cultural settings. Nested committees provided coherence and autonomy at the programme, consortium, and activity-level. Each level had some discretion in how to deploy funding, creating multiple collaborative spaces that served to further interconnect participants. The experience of CARIAA affirms documented strategies for collaborative research, including project vision, partner compatibility, skilled managers, and multi-level planning. Collaborative research also needs an ability to revise membership and structures as needed in response to changing involvement of partners over time.

In Chile, a Territorial User Rights for Fisheries system was developed to manage benthic fisheries. This system is referred to as Management Areas for the Exploitation of Benthic Resources. Management areas involved a shift from top-down control by governments to comanagement. We have analyzed the effects of a highly variable fishery, characterized by boom-and-bust cycles, on the governance of local institutions designed for resource management. We focused on a case study in north central Chile, in which the surf clam fishery experienced high levels of variability when the fishery was in an open access system. The management areas were established for the fishery in 1999. As a result, a set of rules for the fishery were created and enforced by fishers and local fishery authorities. Despite intense efforts on the part of all stakeholders, the fishery collapsed after three years of management area policy. This approach has been shown to be an effective management option for other species; however, for resources with boom-and-bust cycles, it is important to understand the response pattern of users confronting this spatial and temporal variability before the establishment of territorial user rights. Defining the appropriate spatial scale of the territorial rights could allow fishers to switch among different surf clam beds to maintain their livelihood and support the sustainability of local institutions for resource management.