Calls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers’ desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers’ evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers’ interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research–policy–practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond.

Synthesizing heterogeneous findings from different scientific disciplines, thematic fields, and professional sectors is considered to be a critical component of inter- and transdisciplinary research endeavors. However, little is known about the complex interplay between synthesizing heterogeneous findings, leading creative synthesis, and learning about leading and synthesizing. In the present article, we therefore focus on the key interactions between leading and synthesizing, between synthesizing and learning, and between learning and leading in inter- and transdisciplinary contexts and compile a set of 21 principles that guide the interactions between these components. We use these principles to reflect ex post on the benefits and challenges we encountered in developing a nationwide monitoring program for river restoration in Switzerland and draw lessons learned for future inter- and transdisciplinary research endeavors. We conclude that learning and synthesizing do not happen on their own but need to be designed as intentional and purposeful processes.

Integration is often considered the core challenge and the defining characteristic of inter- and trans-disciplinary (ITD) research. Given its importance, it is surprising that the current system of higher education does not provide permanent positions for integration experts; i.e., experts who lead, administer, manage, monitor, assess, accompany, and/or advise others on integration within ITD projects or programs. Based on empirical results of an ITD 2019 Conference Workshop entitled "Is there a new profession of integration experts on the rise?" held in Gothenburg, Sweden, and our own experience in leading and studying ITD integration, the present article sheds light on the overarching question, "What are integration experts?", thus contributing to the emerging literature on integration and integration expertise. We use direct quotes from participants to substantiate workshop results and triangulate them with recent literature on ITD research as well as Science of Team Science (SciTS) and Science and Technology Studies (STS). We conclude our article by discussing possible unintended consequences of establishing academic careers for integration experts, and suggest four complementary ways to support them, while mitigating potentially negative consequences: (a) establishing an international Community of Practice (CoP) to foster peer-to-peer exchange among integration experts, create greater visibility, and develop ideas for transforming academic structures; (b) studying academic careers of integration experts to provide empirical evidence of "successful" examples and disclose different ways of establishing related academic positions; (c) funding respective positions and aligning metrics for ITD research to foster integration within ITD projects or programs; and (d) engaging in collaborative dialog with academic institutions and funding agencies to present empirical results and lessons learnt from (a) and (b) to support them in establishing and legitimating careers for integration experts. If academia is to be serious about addressing the most pressing environmental and societal problems of our time, it needs to integrate its integrators.

The five reflective questions can support leaders of inter- and transdisciplinary projects or programs in better understanding the challenges they experience in meetings or workshops, and in recognizing their own leadership strategies to address them (or not). By assigning explicit time for reflection and considering different integration dimensions, inter- and transdisciplinary research leaders can strengthen their integrative leadership strategies to advance integration in future meetings or workshops.

Theory of Change (ToC) has been promoted as a useful tool in sustainability research for visioning, planning, communication, monitoring, evaluation and learning. It involves a mapping of steps towards a desired long-term goal supplemented with continuous reflection on how and why change is expected to happen in a particular context. However, there is limited reported experience with the development and application of ToCs in inter- and transdisciplinary research contexts. While some previous publications have focused on ex-post application, there has been little discussion about the process of developing and using ToCs in strategic planning and monitoring in large inter- and transdisciplinary research programs. This article reports challenges and lessons learned from the experience of developing and using ToCs in the inter- and transdisciplinary research program Wings (Water and sanitation innovations for non-grid solutions). Challenges include (1) managing time constraints, (2) balancing between concrete and abstract discussions, (3) ensuring diversity in group composition, (4) fluctuating between reservations and appreciation, and (5) fulfilling both service and science roles while leading the ToC process. The experience highlights the importance of alternating formal and informal interaction formats throughout the process, ensuring heterogenous group formation, involving early career scientists, being responsive to emergent needs and making the added value of developing and using ToCs explicit and tangible for all participants. Although these lessons are mainly derived from developing ToCs within the interdisciplinary program team, they can support other programs in both their inter- and transdisciplinary research endeavors.

Integration is a key process in transdisciplinary research and knowledge co-production. Nonetheless, it is often used as a buzzword without specifying what exactly it means or what actually happens during integration. We propose conceptualizing integration as a multidimensional interactive process. We characterize it as an open-ended learning process without pre-determined outcomes. Integration designates relations established throughout a transdisciplinary research process between elements that were not previously related. Those elements are participants in the process and their thought-styles and thought-collectives and more specifically pieces of knowledge, ideas, or practices from different thought-collectives as well as views of individual researchers and practitioners. Integration can happen at manifold instances of a transdisciplinary research process. It can take place among two, several, or all participants and can be one-sided or mutual. It might include insights, practices, frameworks, or concepts shared by two, several, or all participants. Consensus is only one along with other ways of retaining plurality of thought-styles and seeing integration as a balance between them that remains subject to continuous revision. To analyse or achieve effective integration, further dimensions beyond the cognitive have to be taken into account including at least an emotional and a social-interactional dimension.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 have led to a paradigm shift in how urban sanitation is managed. Targets 6.2 (safely managed sanitation and hygiene services) and 6.3 (reducing the portion of untreated wastewater) now put the focus on managing the entire sanitation chain, encompassing containment, emptying, transport, treatment, and safe reuse or disposal. This has major implications for urban areas, which are a major contributor of untreated wastewater, creating hotspots for environmental degradation and public health hazards (both within and outside of cities) impairing social and economic productivity.
While national water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) targets increasingly reflect SDG ambitions, aiming to provide universal coverage and reach higher levels of service, this is proving difficult in the urban context. Recent Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) and Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) reports have underlined uneven progress in sanitation coverage, with progress disproportionally benefiting the wealthy, leaving the urban poor unserved (JMP 2019 update). According to the Joint Monitoring Programme, the gap between the richest and poorest has been reduced in 52 countries but increased in 22 countries - mostly countries emerging from conflict (UNICEF/WHO, 2019, p. 34).

Recent developments in high- and middle-income countries have exhibited a shift from conventional urban water systems to alternative solutions that are more diverse in source separation, decentralization, and modularization. These solutions include non-grid, small-grid, and hybrid systems to address such pressing global challenges as climate change, eutrophication, and rapid urbanization. They close loops, recover valuable resources, and adapt quickly to changing boundary conditions such as population size. Moving to such alternative solutions requires both technical and social innovations to co-evolve over time into integrated socio-technical urban water systems. Current implementations of alternative systems in high- and middle-income countries are promising, but they also underline the need for research questions to be addressed from technical, social, and transformative perspectives. Future research should apply a transdisciplinary research approach through socio-technical "lighthouse" projects that apply alternative urban water systems at scale. Such research should leverage experience from lighthouse projects in a range of socio-economic contexts, identify their potentials and limitations from an integrated perspective, and share their successes and failures across the urban water sector.

Julie Thompson Klein’s contributions to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research have enriched the way collaboration is discussed and handled by introducing concepts of boundary work and boundary crossing from the field of Science and Technology Studies. In recent years, she has been integrating those concepts into crossdisciplinarity, an effort culminating in the development of a framework for a forthcoming book (Beyond Interdisciplinarity: Boundary Work, Collaboration, and Communication in the 21st Century). With her permission, we have used an earlier version of her framework to analyze boundary work and boundary crossing in transdisciplinary sustainable water management projects in Australia and Switzerland. The aim of using the framework has been twofold: to explore and assess the heuristic value of the framework, i.e. how it improves our conceptualization of boundary work in the two projects, and to examine the framework itself, i.e. whether some of the seven concepts involved are hard to work with or should be further developed.

Recent empirical studies show a persistent gap between 'socially robust' knowledge produced by transdisciplinary research projects and its ability to promote change on a large scale. Current discourses about the 'project-to-science-and-practice-at-large gap' have focused mainly on exploring various conditions that need to be fulfilled to produce 'socially robust' knowledge. Yet, those discourses have rarely built on the broader literature of knowledge utilization, which Greenhalgh and Wieringa (2011) emphasize acknowledges 'the fundamentally social ways in which knowledge emerges, circulates, and gets applied in practice.' Their insights are helpful in advancing our understanding of why transdisciplinary research projects do or do not contribute to sustainability on a large scale. Expanding Jahn et al. (2012)'s model of transdisciplinary research, we present a revised conceptual model of an ideal-typical, interactive and iterative transdisciplinary research process that adds two new phases from the field of knowledge utilization to their original three-phase model and accounts for the social and relational nature of knowledge utilization. The revised model includes five phases through which transdisciplinary projects operate in different order: (i) defining sustainability problems, (ii) producing new knowledge, (iii) assessing new knowledge, (iv) disseminating new knowledge in realms of both science and practice and (v) using new knowledge in both realms.

Research and policy processes in many fields, such as sustainability and health, are increasingly relying on transdisciplinary cooperation among a multitude of governmental, nongovernmental, and private actors from local to global levels. In the absence of hierarchical chains of command, multistakeholder governance may accommodate conflicting or diverse interests and facilitate collective action, but its effectiveness depends on its capacity to integrate systems, transformation, and target knowledge. Approaches to foster such governance are nascent and quickly evolving, and methodological standards to facilitate comparison and learning from best practice are needed. However, there is currently no evaluation approach that (i) comprehensively assesses the capacity for knowledge integration in multistakeholder governance, (ii) draws on the best available knowledge that is being developed in various fields, and (iii) combines a systematic and transferable methodological design with pragmatic feasibility.

We brought together 20 experts from institutions in nine countries, all working on evaluation approaches for collaborative science–policy initiatives. In a synthesis process that included a 2-day workshop and follow-up work among a core group of participants, we developed a tool for evaluating knowledge integration capacity in multistakeholder governance (EVOLvINC). Its 23 indicators incorporate previously defined criteria and components of transdisciplinary evaluations into a single, comprehensive framework that operationalizes the capacity for integrating systems, target, and transformation knowledge during an initiative’s (a) design and planning processes at the policy formulation stage, (b) organization and working processes at the implementation stage, and (c) sharing and learning processes at the evaluation stage of the policy cycle. EVOLvINC is (i) implemented through a questionnaire, (ii) builds on established indicators where possible, (iii) offers a consistent and transparent semiquantitative scoring and aggregation algorithm, and (iv) uses spider diagrams for visualizing results. The tool builds on experience and expertise from both the northern and southern hemispheres and was empirically validated with seven science–policy initiatives in six African and Asian countries.

As a generalized framework, EVOLvINC thus enables a structured reflection on the capacity of multistakeholder governance processes to foster knowledge integration. Its emphasis on dialog and exploration allows adaptation to contextual specificities, highlights relative strengths and weaknesses, and suggests avenues for shaping multistakeholder governance toward mutual learning, capacity building, and strengthened networks. The validation suggests that the adaptive capacity of multistakeholder governance could be best enhanced by considering systems characteristics at the policy formulation stage and fostering adaptive and generic learning at the evaluation stage of the policy cycle.

Mit einem Wiederbeschaffungswert von 230 Milliarden Franken zählt die Wasserversorgung und Abwasserentsorgung in der Schweiz zu den wertvollsten Infrastrukturbauten. Alternde Leitungen, steigende Bevölkerungszahlen und zunehmende Urbanisierung verlangen in den nächsten 30 Jahren Investitionen von insgesamt 130 Milliarden Franken. Auf globaler Ebene schätzt die OECD die Investitionen in die Siedlungswasserwirtschaft auf jährlich 900 Milliarden Franken. Dieser hohe Investitionsbedarf und der global steigende Druck, neue Ansätze zu finden, bieten einen Spielraum für innovative Lösungen. Die Schweiz hat mit ihrer Spitzenforschung in diesem Bereich und dem aktuellen Bedarf an Infrastrukturerneuerung ein ungenutztes «Lead-Market»-Potenzial. Dazu braucht es aber ein gesamtschweizerisches Impulsprogram, das die fragmentierten Infrastrukturentscheide der Gemeinden koordiniert.

Avec une valeur de remplacement de 230 milliards de francs, les infrastructures d’approvisionnement en eau et d’élimination des eaux usées sont parmi les plus précieuses de Suisse. Les canalisations vieillissantes, l’évolution démographique et l’urbanisation croissante nécessitent d’investir 130 milliards de francs ces 30 prochaines années. Au niveau mondial, l’OCDE estime à 900 milliards de francs les fonds alloués chaque année à la gestion des eaux urbaines. Ce grand besoin d’investissements et la pression internationale accrue pour trouver de nouvelles approches favorisent des solutions innovantes. La recherche de pointe menée en Suisse dans ce domaine et la nécessité de renouveler les infrastructures confèrent un potentiel inexploité de marché pilote à notre pays. Un programme d’impulsion national permettant de coordonner les décisions d’infrastructure fragmentées des communes est néanmoins nécessaire.

An increasing number of knowledge brokers work at the interface between research, policy and practice. Their function is to facilitate processes to foster mutual learning among research, policy and practice. For some knowledge brokers, practical methodologies to assess the quality of their work is an important concern. While frameworks exist for assessing research impact at the level of a project or program, few are available for assessing contributions of individual knowledge brokers. In response to this, we have compiled a set of indicators to measure the quantity and quality of the contributions of individual knowledge brokers to projects, programs or platforms at the interface between research, policy and practice. The set is based on a review of the literature and the experience of a group of knowledge brokers active in water research and management in Switzerland, including the co-authors of this article. The set can be used by knowledge brokers to identify ways to improve the effectiveness of their practices and to demonstrate the benefit of their work to their employers and other stakeholders. Our approach is flexible enough that it can be applied where there are limited resources available for assessment.

What methods and procedures support transdisciplinary knowledge integration? We address this question by exploring knowledge integration within four thematic synthesis processes of the Swiss National Research Programme 61 Sustainable Water Management (NRP 61). Drawing on literature from inter- and transdisciplinary research, we developed an analytical framework to map different methods and procedures of knowledge integration. We use this framework to characterize the variety of methods and procedures that were combined in the four processes to produce thematic synthesis reports. We suggest that the variety of combinations observed reflects the different objectives and questions that guided the processes of knowledge integration as well as the different roles that leaders assumed in these processes. Although the framework was developed in the course of NRP 61, we consider it as a basis for designing ex ante new synthesis processes by defining and sequencing different synthesis stages and by identifying, for each stage, the contributions of specific scientific and societal actors, the purpose of their contributions, and the methods and procedures supporting their contributions. Used in a formative evaluation process, the framework supports reflection on and adaptation of synthesis processes and also facilitates the generation of new knowledge for designing future processes.

What challenges do researchers face when leading transdisciplinary integration? We address this question by analyzing transdisciplinary integration within four thematic synthesis processes of the Swiss National Research Programme (NRP 61) on Sustainable Water Management. We adapt an existing analytical framework to compare transdisciplinary integration across the four synthesis processes regarding different types of generated knowledge (systems, target and transformation knowledge), different types of involved actors (core team, steering committee, advisory board, scientific experts and practice experts) and different levels of actor involvement (information, consultation and collaboration) at different stages of the processes. Based on a structured ex-post self-evaluation of the four synthesis processes, we present core challenges of transdisciplinary integration as perceived by core team members of the four synthesis processes and formulate empirically derived recommendations for designing and implementing future processes. We suggest that future synthesis processes should be conceptualized and initiated concurrently with all other individual research projects, involving a phasing-in stage where leaders conceptualize transdisciplinary integration, an intermediate stage of intense knowledge integration involving all relevant actor groups in a functional and dynamic way, and a final phasing out stage, where synthesis results are consolidated within the research program, validated by different actor groups and diffused to the target audiences. We argue that transdisciplinary integration requires professional competences, management skills and enough time. Finally, we suggest fostering communities of practice (CoP) to link committed leaders and enable mutual learning processes beyond the boundaries of individual synthesis projects or research programs.

Research is increasingly organized as large programs. A growing number of such programs produce a synthesis that links and relates scientific results of individual projects and integrates them into an overarching context. The synthesis thus creates an added value that goes beyond individual project results. Which methods and procedures are used to generate that added value? This paper presents methods and procedures of transdisciplinary knowledge integra tion that were applied within four thematic syntheses of the Swiss Nation al Research Programme on Sustainable Water Management (NRP 61).

The top priorities for urban water sustainability include the provision of safe drinking water, wastewater handling for public health, and protection against flooding. However, rapidly aging infrastructure, population growth, and increasing urbanization call into question current urban water management strategies, especially in the fast-growing urban areas in Asia and Africa. We review innovative approaches in urban water management with the potential to provide locally adapted, resource-efficient alternative solutions. Promising examples include new concepts for stormwater drainage, increased water productivity, distributed or on-site treatment of wastewater, source separation of human waste, and institutional and organizational reforms. We conclude that there is an urgent need for major transdisciplinary efforts in research, policy, and practice to develop alternatives with implications for cities and aquatic ecosystems alike.

There are few concepts that are more central to natural resource management than those of property and property rights. Given their importance, it might be expected that there would be some consensus in the economic literature about what property and property rights are. However, no such consensus seems to exist. In fact, different authors use the same terms to denote quite disparate concepts and ideas, impeding rather than advancing progress in understanding natural resource management. As but one example, there is hardly a concept that has been as fundamentally misunderstood as that of the commons. That misunderstanding notwithstanding, there is another, less familiar, more common and even more fundamental one: the persistent confusion of possession with property. This article argues that the distinction between possession and property is of particular importance for comprehending the meaning of institutional shifts from one resource management regime to another. It therefore reviews concepts central to natural resource management, by distinguishing between state, private, common property and possession on the one hand and open access on the other.

Applied research and expert consulting are conducted at research institutions and universities that are supported by public investment. This is often justified on the basis of anticipated societal benefits. Thus it is incumbent on the institutions that conduct these activities to develop a sound basis for the assessment of their benefits and to be able to communicate these to the public.