Explore the vast range of titles available.

Biodiversity inventory, monitoring, and species-recovery efforts can be advanced by a dynamic collaboration of Western, citizen, and ethnoscience. Indigenous and local traditional knowledge of place-based biodiversity is perhaps the oldest scientific tradition on earth. We illustrate how an all taxa biodiversity inventory network of projects in collaboration with the Comcaac (Seri people) in northwestern Mexico is advancing not only biosystematics but also species recovery, habitat restoration, language conservation and maintenance, and the maintenance of traditional livelihoods. We encourage scientists to establish collaborations with indigenous and other place-based communities to better understand the wealth of knowledge held in local categorization systems. It is essential to not merely seek out one-to-one correspondences between Western and indigenous knowledge but also to recognize and respect the creative tensions among these different knowledge systems, because this is where the most profound insights and fruitful collaborations emerge.

Addressing complex environmental problems requires the collaboration of stakeholders with divergent perspectives, a goal that is challenged by diverse factors. Challenges hindering multi-stakeholder collaboration (MSC) for sustainability have previously been addressed in the context of transnational partnerships. However, less is known regarding how place-based MSC operates, especially in the context of the Global South. To contribute to addressing the factors that hinder place-based MSC for sustainability in the Global South, we analyzed 38 MSC projects spanning diverse ecological and social contexts across Mexico. In a series of participatory workshops, 128 stakeholders from academia, government, business, local communities, and civil society organizations discussed factors that hinder place-based MSC and co-constructed strategies to strengthen collaboration. Some challenges coincided with those identified in previous studies (e.g., divergent visions, inadequate project planning), whereas other concerns that have not been commonly regarded as important emerged as crucial obstacles for MSC. We discuss these challenges in the context of areas of limited statehood and point to the traditions of popular education and participatory action research as a source of valuable tools for place-based MSC. We identify strategies capable of addressing diverse challenges, a result that could aid prioritizing resource allocation to strengthen MSC.

In this paper we focus on the governance, in particular evaluation and monitoring, of the growing number of transdisciplinary collaborations (TDC’s). Researchers and a variety of stakeholders collaborate in such TDC’s, the purpose of which is to address societal challenges, like renewable energy, healthy aging or better language teaching in schools. Commonly used practices for evaluation of scientific research (accountability, rankings and benchmarking, dedicated to scientific excellence) do not fit the goals of TDC’s. A bottom up or stakeholder oriented approach is better suited; one that stimulates mutual learning as well as the development of socially robust knowledge. We introduce the participatory impact pathways analysis (PIPA), as a method that suits the requirements. It has been developed in the context of development research. Two crucial features are the involvement of stakeholders from the start, and the joint development of a theory of change. This narrates what one wants to achieve and how that will be achieved. From this, stakeholders construct a logical frame that serves as a source for indicators. These indicators enable monitoring ex durante, during the TDC. We present evidence of the use of PIPA for a TDC. From this empirical evidence a number of issues with regard to evaluation, monitoring and indicators can be identified that require attention. Most prominent is the change of function of indicators. Instead of looking back and a focus on past performance, indicators look forward, in the short, intermediate and more distant future.

Meaningful transdisciplinary collaborations that weave diverse ways of knowing, doing, and feeling are increasinglyrecognized as central for enabling just and sustainable transformations. This Special Feature explores the unique contributions of art-science transdisciplinary collaborations in addressing complex social-ecological challenges. Drawing from a series of transdisciplinaryprojects, we examine how co-created processes between scientists, artists, and local knowledge holders foster new relational dynamics,challenge entrenched power structures, and expand the space for transformative action. The collaborations documented here highlightinnovative approaches that emphasize local identities, shared values, emotional and aesthetic engagement, and long-term, caringrelationships. We identify key mechanisms, such as participatory visioning, storytelling, material deliberation, and arts-based boundaryobjects, that facilitate individual and collective agency and deepen connection with place and community. Despite significant challenges,such as time constraints, power imbalances, and institutional inertia, these experiences illustrate the transformative potential of art-science collaborations when designed ethically, reflexively, and with epistemological pluralism. This editorial offers critical insights intothe practices, conditions, and innovations that support meaningful art-science engagement, providing guidance for evaluating theirimpacts. As planetary crises intensify, such collaborations offer hopeful, grounded, and imaginative pathways toward more just andsustainable futures.

Living labs are an extremely attractive open innovation landscape for collaborative research and development activities targeting the complexity of today’s societal challenges. However, although there is plenty of support for collaboration, we still lack clear guidelines to direct transdisciplinary stakeholder networks of academics and practitioners through collaboration processes in the living lab ecosystem. In other words, we lack answers to the question of “how to collaborate?” In the present paper we propose a conceptual framework defining relevant stages to initiate and facilitate transdisciplinary collaboration processes. We base our framework on collaboration challenges described in the literature, specifically the need for stakeholder alignment, as well as challenges experienced in practice, which we report through exploratory case studies. In the proposed conceptual framework, we advocate the application of co-creation methods, both at the level of the living lab (macro) and in projects (meso) within the living lab, in order to define, with all involved parties and stakeholders, the scope and strategy of the living lab and to facilitate stakeholder alignment. Additionally, we integrate an iterative approach and a feedback loop in order to account for the dynamic nature of the collaboration process and to enable reflection and evaluation.

Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration (TDC) continue to address complex societal problems such as sustainable development, global environmental change, and public health challenges. Nature-based design (NBD) methods including biomimicry, biomorphism, biophilia, bio-utilization and zoomorphism are essential for the design of the sustainable built environment (SBE). Currently, there is no transdisciplinary collaboration framework (TCF) to support the NBD of the SBE. The first step to fill this gap is through systematically exploring the applications of multidisciplinary research (MDR) in building design and by conducting a case study on the challenges to the MDR in the application of NBD methods for the SBE in the Faculty of Engineering and the Faculty of Science at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. The systematic literature review and the survey results of academics on MDR collaboration showed a lack of transdisciplinary research (TDR) due to limited communication between disciplines. The research findings showed a lack of communication between academia and the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry to advance NBD innovations for the SBE. The findings indicated that a TCF for research on NBD is needed to support knowledge exchange within academia and with industry for reducing the negative impacts of the building industry. Findings from the current research and future research will be used to develop and test a general TCF and then to develop a TCF for the NBD of the SBE aligned with the RIBA Plan of Work.

Local implementation projects for sector coupling play an important role in the transformation to a more sustainable energy system. Despite various technical possibilities, there are various barriers to the realisation of local projects. Against this backdrop, we introduce an inter- and transdisciplinary approach to identifying and evaluating different power-to-X paths as well as setting up robust local implementation projects, which account for existing drivers and potential hurdles early on. After developing the approach conceptually, we exemplify our elaborations by applying them to a use case in the German city of Wuppertal. It can be shown that a mix of several interlinked interdisciplinary methods as well as several participatory elements is suitable for triggering a collective, local innovation process. However, the timing and extent of end-user integration remain a balancing act. The paper does not focus on a detailed description of power-to-X (PtX) as a central pillar of the sustainable transformation of the energy system. Rather, it focuses on the innovative methodological approach used to select a suitable use path and design a corresponding business model. The research approach was successfully implemented in the specific case study. However, it also becomes clear that the local-specific consideration entails limitations with regard to the transferability of the research design to other spatial contexts.

Biodiversity experts now widely acknowledge that transformative change is best supported through transdisciplinary collaborations. Yet, such collaborations rarely successfully occur in major biodiversity research institutions and those that do rarely achieve the paradigmatic effects they aim to deliver. To gain some insight into this global phenomenon, we surveyed Swiss-based researchers and non-academic stakeholders addressing global change and biodiversity. In this article, we connect our findings to global patterns in transdisciplinary transformative change initiatives (TTCIs) and heuristically divide collaboration barriers into two categories: lack of resources and lack of vital functional elements. Two of the major themes that emerged from this research were the continued difficulties with (1) establishing a common ‘language’, understanding, and goals, and (2) meaningful pluralization of knowledge in transdisciplinary collaborations aimed at addressing global change and biodiversity loss. The former is widely cited in the literature as contributing to the failure of TTCIs in the form of incoherent problem-framing, while the latter is often identified as contributing to the lack of structural transformative change (e.g., paradigmatic shifts) in completed initiatives. Another major theme reflected in TTCI literature was limited time. Moreover, based on our own extensive inter- and transdisciplinary experience, we agree with other experts that there is a persistent lack of understanding of the potential contributions of critical social science (CSS) to TTCIs. We thus argue that enhancing resource availability for TTCIs, especially tools for improving CSS literacy, could save time and support both problem-framing alignment and delivery of the structural/paradigmatic changes we aspire to.

Current knowledge creation and mobilization efforts are concentrated in academic institutions. A community-engaged knowledge hub (CEKH) has the potential for transdisciplinary and cross-sectorial collaboration between knowledge producers, mobilizers, and users to develop more relevant and effective research practices as well as to increase community capacity in terms of knowledge production. Objective: To summarize existing original research articles on knowledge hubs or platforms and to identify the benefits, challenges, and ways to address challenges when developing a CEKH. Methods: This study followed a systematic integrative review design. Following a comprehensive search of academic and grey literature databases, we screened 9030 unique articles using predetermined inclusion criteria and identified 20 studies for the final synthesis. We employed thematic analysis to summarize the results. Results: The focus of the majority of these knowledge mobilization hubs was related to health and wellness. Knowledge hubs have a multitude of benefits for the key stakeholders including academics, communities, service providers, and policymakers, including improving dissemination processes, providing more effective community interventions, ensuring informed care, and creating policy assessment tools. Challenges in creating knowledge hubs are generally consistent for all stakeholders, rather than for individual stakeholders, and typically pertain to funding, resources, and conflicting perspectives. As such, strategies to address challenges are also emphasized and should be executed in unison. Conclusions: This study informs the development of a future CEKH through the identification of the benefits, challenges, and strategies to mitigate challenges when developing knowledge hubs. This study addresses a literature gap regarding the comparisons of knowledge hubs and stakeholder experiences.

Sustainability transformations are most meaningful when communities take ownership of their collective futures and guide transformative processes that are rooted in their local traditions and value systems. Yet, researcher–community collaborations aimed at facilitating meaningful transformations can fall short of their objectives if they do not explicitly recognize bottom-up transformative processes that already exist in the community that enable grassroots ways of knowing and addressing sustainability challenges prevalent in the community. This paper addresses this gap in researcher–community partnerships by illustrating a transdisciplinary collaboration that emerged among researchers, educators, and advocates in South Phoenix, Arizona that sought to center recognitional and epistemic justice from the start. These collaborations led to the co-designing and execution of school curriculums in three learning centers in South Phoenix aimed at developing researcher capabilities among learners for exploring the pasts, presents, and futures, and contributing to transformative action in their community. This paper outlines the approaches that this group of collaborators, who are all co-authors in the paper, took toward forming reciprocal relationships and facilitating just transformations in the community. First, we describe our collaboration process, which was mindful of activating existing spaces of community leadership as well as cultivating spaces of reciprocal knowledge exchange and reflection among the collaborators. Next, we outline our approach toward facilitating just transformations, which we call “barrio” innovation, which is based on principles of embracing a mindframe of abundance, enabling transformative pathways, and focusing on the micro-scale. We further illustrate, through case studies, how our approaches to collaborations and transformations manifested in different learning centers and with different collaborators in South Phoenix. We conclude with our collective reflections and the practices that worked for us toward facilitating just transformations through meaningful researcher–community collaborations.