Search

Abstract Transdisciplinary research has been introduced as an approach to integrate different bodies of knowledge to learn and to develop solutions towards socio-ecological transformations. In these concepts, broad stakeholder involvement is intended to promote knowledge integration, consensus formation and activation of local actors to initiate and advance learning and change processes. In doing so, however, transdisciplinary processes enter societal battlegrounds and meet conflicting interest and knowledge claims. Thus, building on the discussion on transdisciplinarity in the context of sustainability-related research, the paper seeks to understand when and why which types of conflicts emerge in sustainability-related transdisciplinary research, how they affect knowledge integration, and how they can be resolved. It develops a categorization of conflicts including differing values, conflicting interests, dissimilar claims of legitimacy, and diverse knowledge claims. They are applied empirically in the analysis of a project on regional adaptation to climate change in Northwestern Germany. It studies processes and outcomes with regard to the societal impact of the project and discusses experiences of conflicts and relevant solutions. The paper finds that societally relevant transdisciplinary research processes need to be prepared for conflict resolution and overcoming resistance and blockages in cases when consensus formation and mutual agreement is not attainable. Highlights • Analyses types of conflicts in sustainability-related transdisciplinary research • Finds that conflicts are rarely addressed in this literature • Identifies conflicts from differing values, interests, claims of legitimacy, and knowledge claims • Studies conflicts in an adaptation case in Northwestern Germany • Finds conflicts between values and legitimacy claims in the case study [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Growing globalisation and climate change are challenging the sustainability of our societies. It is now clear that climate change and its devastating impacts cannot be resolved by new technology or governance alone. They require a broader, cultural shift. As a result, the role of human beings' ‘inner dimensions’ and related transformations is attracting increased attention from researchers. Recent advances in neuroscience suggest for instance that mindfulness can open new pathways towards sustainability. However, the role of mindfulness in climate adaptation has been largely ignored. This paper is the first exploratory empirical investigation into linking individuals' intrinsic mindfulness (as opposed to outside mindfulness interventions) to pro- and reactive climate adaptation. Based on a survey of citizens at risk from severe climate events, we explore if, and how individual mindfulness is correlated with climate adaptation at different scales. The results show that individual mindfulness coincides with higher motivation to take climate adaptation actions or to support them, especially actions that are ‘other-focused’ or support pro-environmental behaviour. Mindfulness may also corroborate the acknowledgement of climate change and associated risk perception, and it may steer people away from fatalistic attitudes. We conclude with a call for more research into the relationship between human beings' inner dimensions and climate adaptation in the wider public domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to contribute towards moving the predominant situation of weak sustainable development (WSD) in the direction of strong sustainable development (SSD). More people – academics, politicians, bureaucrats and laymen alike – need to recognize SSD as an alternative to WSD. A joint discourse of WSD and SSD is suggested, called reflexive sustainable development. Here, advocates of WSD and SSD must argue for each specific case why their solution is better. This will expose, amongst other things, the ethical foundations which form part of resulting policy advice. Reflexive sustainable development is to be framed in discourse ethics, thereby remedying the power imbalance and allowing for substantial discussion. Reflexive sustainable development builds on a common theoretical base but will not lead to consensus in all matters. A family metaphor is introduced to inspire a discourse of both consensus and compromise. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Ecological economics was formally established in 1989 with the ambitious vision of developing a new economic paradigm embedding the social and economic systems in the biophysical world. Ecological economics had its roots in the biophysical understanding of economics that pioneers of the field Georgescu-Roegen (1971), Odum (1971), Daly (1977), Jansson (1984), Martinez-Alier (1987) and others developed while studying the thermodynamic bedrocks shared by natural and social systems. Subsequently, however, ecological economics has explicitly but controversially adopted a 'big umbrella' approach to methodological pluralism, focusing more on topics such as valuing nature and its functions rather than attempting to understand and quantify the biophysical roots of economic activities. Biophysical economics was established in response to these concerns, focusing more on developing analyses and models of the transformations of nature to generate wealth and approached mostly from an energy and material flows perspective. The present paper argues that to achieve its original vision ecological economics must return to its biophysical roots. Collaboration between the two fields will help the next generation of thinkers to address the socio-ecological challenges of the 21st century requiring an energy transformation called for by aspirations such as the Green New Deal and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. • The biophysical foundation of socio-economic systems must be at the center of the research agenda of ecological economics. • The socio-ecological challenges of the 21st century are biophysical in nature and will require education, management and policy that is based more on these biophysical realities and principles. • Prioritizing these biophysical foundations is fundamental for the next energy transition. • If proper biophysical procedures (such as comprehensive energy analyses) are not undertaken no "sustainable" recommendations can be considered valid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]