4.7 Article

Developing sustainable water and land management options: reflections on a transdisciplinary research process

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 205-217

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s11625-017-0451-3

关键词

Transdisciplinary research; Participation; Knowledge integration; Meta-reflection; Sustainable land management; Risk assessment; Decision-support system; Water reuse

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research within its Sustainable Land Management Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge production for sustainable land management requires close cooperation between research and practice. Drawing on insights from the ELaN project, which has developed a set of products to foster integrated water and land management in Northeast Germany, this paper compares two specific transdisciplinary research processes, seeking to obtain a clearer picture of what influences the acceptance and up-take of generated research products beyond methodological considerations of transdisciplinary research design and stakeholder interaction. We highlight differences in intensity of transdisciplinary interaction and resulting product quality with regard to two main project outcomes: a manual for administrators and a decision-support system (DSS) for farmers. While the development of the manual was characterised by intensive exchange with practitioners, co-production of knowledge and mutual learning, the design and development of the DSS was mainly pushed by researchers with sporadic practice interaction. Beside differences in participatory design, the practical relevance of the manual increased throughout the project due to political changes on the European level, whereas socio-political demand for the DSS did not change substantially. We discuss the relevance of appropriate transdisciplinary project management versus the significance of surrounding context conditions for increasing the societal relevance of outcomes and formulate recommendations for enhancing transdisciplinary research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据