Jens Newig

Achieving the goal of sustainability requires understanding and management of unprecedented and inter- connected challenges. A transdisciplinary approach is a key component of sustainability science. However, there are considerable barriers to implementing transdisciplinary projects. We undertake a mixed quantita- tive and qualitative analysis of peer-reviewed sustainability science studies where the transdisciplinary ap- proach has been applied. We assess the growth and scientific impact of transdisciplinary sustainability research, the methods used and how three key characteristics of transdisciplinarity research—process phases, knowledge types and the intensity of involvement of practitioners—are implemented. While transdisciplin- ary research is growing there is no common glossary, no focused communication platform and no commonly shared research framework. Transdisciplinary research utilizes a broad, but not clearly defined, set of methods for knowledge production. While the intensity of practitioner involvement varied within the case studies analyzed, very few realized empowerment. Based on our review of transdisciplinary case study pa- pers we conclude that transdisciplinary research must be clearly framed, including the use of a common ter- minology and the development of a broad suite of appropriate methods. Despite the challenges highlighted here, science needs to move beyond classical disciplinary approaches and should consider interdisciplinary work that engages with practitioners to achieve sustainable transitions.

The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states
to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via
participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders.
The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional
adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river
basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official
documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member
states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000–2009). Examining the development of participatory
approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU
water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we
map the implementation “trajectories” of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination
of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland
and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general
tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management
in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD
institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river
basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize
stakeholder involvement—often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized
stakeholders into the planning process.

Globalization entails increased interdependence and interconnectivities among distal regions and social-ecological systems. This global interregional connectedness – telecoupling – gives rise to specific sustainability chal- lenges, which require new governance solutions. Moving beyond ‘scaling- up’ governance to address global environmental problems, and exploring the implications of telecoupling for state-led environmental governance, ways the state can effectively address telecoupled environmental issues both within and beyond national borders are addressed, drawing on the example of soy trade between Brazil and Germany. This builds on recent contribu- tions to the literature on governance of interregional ecological challenges to elaborate potential policy and governance options, ranging from classical bilateral, multilateral, and international agreements, to information-based, economic, and hybrid governance modes. While telecoupled environmental problems create governance challenges related to scale, knowledge gaps, coordination, and state capacity, the state has an important role to play. To explore this further, interdisciplinary inquiry is required that includes but moves beyond the state.

The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000–2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation " trajectories " of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement—often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.

By Jens Newig & Michael Rose.

This paper suggests that the field of environmental governance, Policy and planning (EGPP) may be seen as an (emerging) scientific field, which can be characterised as 'fragmented adhocracy', explaining the widespread failure to produce robust and cumulative knowledge. We argue that in order to produce reliable knowledge and to become credible in the realm of policy and planning praxis, EGPP research Needs a major reform impetus. To this end, we propose three areas for reform, which cover (1) an agreed canon of definitions shared within the community, while being open to reinterpretations and novel concepts; (2) the stronger use of meta-analytical methods such as the case Survey methodology, or systematic reviews, to cumulate published case-based evidence; (3) a systematic recognition of the institutional, political and social context of governance interventions, which becomes increasingly important to the extent that meta-analyses reveal general patterns and trends which nonetheless vary with context. For each agenda item, we briefly formulate the motivating problem and an ideal-typical vision to strive for, and sketch out the pragmatic, epistemological and normative limits to its realisation. We close with overall reflections on our Research reform agenda and suggest pathways for implementation.