Sustain Sci DOI 10.1007/s11625-017-0499-0 ORIGINAL ARTICLE On the road to ‘research municipalities’: analysing transdisciplinarity in municipal ecosystem services and adaptation planning 1,2 1 3 4 Ebba Brink • Christine Wamsler • Maria Adolfsson • Monica Axelsson • 5,6 7 8 9 Thomas Beery • Helena Bjo¨rn • Torleif Bramryd • Nils Ekelund • 10 11 1 5 Therese Jephson • Widar Narvelo • Barry Ness • K. Ingemar Jo¨nsson • 12 13 1,2 7 Thomas Palo • Magnus Sjeldrup • Sanna Sta˚lhammar • Geraldine Thiere Received: 26 July 2016 / Accepted: 18 September 2017 Ó The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract Transdisciplinary research and collaboration is supporting university–municipality collaboration. We widely acknowledged as a critical success factor for solu- show that: (1) selecting the number and type of project tion-oriented approaches that can tackle complex sustain- stakeholders requires more explicit consideration of the ability challenges, such as biodiversity loss, pollution, and purpose of societal actors’ participation; (2) concrete, climate-related hazards. In this context, city governments’ interim benefits for participating practitioners and organi- engagement in transdisciplinarity is generally seen as a key sations need to be continuously discussed; (3) promoting condition for societal transformation towards sustainabil- the ‘inter’, i.e., interdisciplinary and inter-city learning, can ity. However, empirical evidence is rare. This paper pre- support transdisciplinarity and, ultimately, urban sustain- sents a self-assessment of a joint research project on ability and long-term change. In this context, we found that ecosystem services and climate adaptation planning design principles for transdisciplinarity have the potential (ECOSIMP) undertaken by four universities and seven to (4) mitigate project shortcomings, even when transdis- Swedish municipalities. We apply a set of design principles ciplinarity is not an explicit aim, and (5) address differ- and guiding questions for transdisciplinary sustainability ences and allow new voices to be heard. We propose projects and, on this basis, identify key aspects for additional guiding questions to address shortcomings and inspire reflexivity in transdisciplinary projects. Handled by Joanne Kauffman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (retired), France. & Ebba Brink 7 Department of Sustainable Development (Planning Section), [email protected] Lomma Municipality, 234 81 Lomma, Sweden & Christine Wamsler 8 Environmental Strategy, ISM, Lund University, Campus [email protected] Helsingborg, P.O. Box 882, 251 08 Helsingborg, Sweden 9 Department of Science, Environment, Society, Malmo¨ 1 Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies University, 205 06 Malmo¨, Sweden (LUCSUS), P.O. Box 170, 221 00 Lund, Sweden 10 Research and Development, Scania Association of Local 2 Lund University Centre of Excellence for Integration of Authorities (SALA), Box 53, 221 00 Lund, Sweden Social and Natural Dimensions of Sustainability (LUCID), P.O. Box 170, 221 00 Lund, Sweden 11 Comprehensive Planning Unit, City Planning and Technical Services Department, Helsingborg municipality, 3 Department of Sustainable Development, Trelleborg 251 89 Helsingborg, Sweden Municipality, Algatan 13, 231 83 Trelleborg, Sweden 12 Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, 4 Department for Environment and Urban Planning, SLU Umea˚, 901 83 Umea˚, Sweden Kristianstad Municipality, 291 80 Kristianstad, Sweden 13 City Planning Department, Bjuv Municipality, Box 501, 5 School of Education and Environment, Kristianstad 267 25 Bjuv, Sweden University, 291 88 Kristianstad, Sweden 6 Minnesota Sea Grant, University of Minnesota Duluth, 31 W College St, Duluth MN 55812, USA 123 Sustain Sci Keywords Transdisciplinarity Á Ecosystem services Á (Jahn et al. 2012; Mobjo¨rk 2010; Wittmayer and Scha¨pke Project assessment Á Collaborative sustainability research Á 2014), and the incompatibility of transdisciplinary projects Sweden Á Urban planning or findings with traditional (academic or municipal) insti- tutional structures (Brandt et al. 2013;Polk2014; Wiek et al. 2012). Introduction Against this background, the aim of this paper is to assess, through a transdisciplinarity lens, a sustainability Transdisciplinarity is promoted as a solution-oriented research project on ecosystem services planning and cli- research approach for addressing complex sustainability mate adaptation, carried out in collaboration with seven challenges (Brandt et al. 2013; Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2006; Swedish municipalities. The ecosystem services concept Lang et al. 2012; Wiek et al. 2012) such as biodiversity loss, denotes the ‘‘conditions and processes through which nat- pollution and climate-related hazards. Although there are ural ecosystems […] sustain and fulfil human life’’ (Daily diverging interpretations of transdisciplinarity (e.g., Max- 1997, p. 3). In this paper, ecosystem services planning Neef 2005), most advocates agree that it is characterised by: describes a place-based approach that focuses on the cre- (1) complex societal problems (often involving multiple ation, restoration, and conservation of ecological structures interests and interacting challenges); (2) collaboration to provide society with specific services from nature (Chan between and among scientific disciplines and societal et al. 2006; Staes et al. 2010), while climate adaptation (or actors; and (3) processes of mutual learning between sci- ‘adaptation’ in short) is ‘‘the process of adjustment to ence and society for joint problem-solving (Brandt et al. actual or expected climate and its effects’’ (IPCC 2014, 2013; Jahn et al. 2012). Closely related to concepts such as p. 1758). participatory action research (Glassman and Erdem 2014; We use a participatory case study methodology (Scholz Streck 2014) and post-normal science (Funtowicz and et al. 2006; Yin 2008) to self-assess the project ‘Imple- Ravetz 1993), it is argued that transdisciplinarity is neces- menting the Ecosystem Services Concept at the Municipal sary for effective science and societal change as it can help Level’ (ECOSIMP 2013–2017). ECOSIMP was based on a uncover underlying assumptions in research and practice, general idea of transdisciplinarity as research collaboration and develop methodologies for working with uncertainties with actors outside academia (which we hereafter shall and disputed values (Jahn et al. 2012; Lang et al. 2012). refer to as participatory research1). ECOSIMP was not, Accordingly, transdisciplinary research, collaboration, however, structured around academic principles of trans- and learning are seen as crucial for achieving urban disciplinarity, nor did it have transdisciplinarity as an transformation towards sustainability (McCormick et al. explicit aim or success criteria. In this paper, we apply the 2013). Transformation, here, refers to a deliberate (while design principles for transdisciplinarity created by Lang not fully steerable) process of structural change in a nor- et al. (2012)—often considered to represent the ‘state of the mative direction (Feola 2014). In this context, municipal- art’ of transdisciplinary research—to assess with project ities are seen as key actors (Roberts 2008; SALA 2016a; stakeholders: (1) how ECOSIMP has approached and Statskontoret 2016). Their influence on urban planning as delivered on its transdisciplinary potential and (2) what well as their vast experience in place-based environmental lessons can be learned for the design and assessment of problem-solving and mediation with other stakeholders similar research collaborations. (Bulkeley and Betsill 2005) makes them key collaboration The following section (‘‘Analysis framework’’) partners for transdisciplinary sustainability research (see describes the framework used for the assessment, before Wiek et al. 2012). we introduce our methodology, including the project While research and governance are becoming increas- description and rationale (‘‘Methodology’’). ‘‘Results’’ ingly intertwined in the pursuit of urban sustainability, presents the assessment of the project’s design and empirical analyses of transdisciplinary approaches that can implementation against prescribed phases for transdisci- (or cannot) produce actionable and rigorous results (i.e., plinary projects. Next, we discuss the lessons learned from results that are useful to social actors and satisfy scientific the appraisal and reflect on the use of the design principles quality criteria) are rare. However, such analyses are cru- (‘‘Discussion’’), before we summarise our contribution in cial, since collaboration with, or co-funding by, societal ‘‘Conclusion’’. actors is increasingly required for securing research fund- ing in the planning and environmental sciences (Jahn et al. 1 While the term ‘participatory’ can be linked to particular literatures 2012). Past studies have pointed towards general chal- and approaches (e.g., Glassman and Erdem 2014; Johansson and lenges, such as differences in professional cultures and Isgren 2017; Streck 2014), we use it here in its general sense to denote research collaboration with actors outside academia, as opposed to rationale between scientists and planners (Ahern et al. ‘transdisciplinary’, which we reserve for the approach described in 2014; Polk 2014), power asymmetries between participants Lang et al. (2012). 123 Sustain Sci Analysis framework Phase B: interdisciplinary integration Transdisciplinary projects can be conceptualised in