WHY ART-SCIENCE TRANSDISCIPLINARITY COLLABORATIONS?

Transdisciplinary approaches, which explicitly recognize and weave together multiple ways of knowing, doing, and feeling, are increasingly considered crucial for unlocking opportunities toward more just and sustainable future trajectories (Moore et al. 2014, Ayala-Orozco et al. 2018, Ely et al. 2020, Norström et al. 2022). These approaches transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries by bridging diverse epistemologies and practices. Fully engaging in long-term transformations (Lang et al. 2012, Schneider et al. 2019, IPBES 2024) requires an approach to science that is more participatory, collaborative, and action-oriented. Such an approach relies on embracing complexity and uncertainty, fully acknowledging the roles of diverse knowledge holders’ values and interests and integrating a plurality of perspectives in accordance with each specific context (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993, Mobjörk 2010, Bennett and Reyers 2024). This paradigm shift involves reimagining the role of researchers and academia in society (Pohl et al. 2010, Trencher et al. 2014, König 2015, Leal Filho et al. 2023), moving away from the perception of scientists as distant, independent, objective, and superior knowledge holders (Nowotny et al. 2003, Nogueira et al. 2021), toward roles as socially engaged “informed agitators” (Clark and Harley 2020) or facilitative leaders (Chambers et al. 2022).

The conceptual and methodological tools for undertaking transdisciplinary transformation that promote learning for collective action are increasingly being developed (Schneider et al. 2019). Working with knowledge holders who understand different dimensions of the issues at stake and those disproportionately affected by environmental issues and being disenfranchised is becoming more common (Agyeman et al. 2016, Anand 2017). Indigenous Peoples and local communities, for instance, hold, nurture, and continually transform knowledge systems, practices, and customary governance systems, and are increasingly recognized as critical to building jointly alternative future pathways (Brondizio and Tourneau 2016, Chilisa 2017, Díaz et al. 2019, Tengö et al. 2021, Huambachano 2024).

Despite the growing recognition of the importance of transdisciplinary collaboration, academia and researchers often fail to engage citizens and knowledge holders in meaningful ways. This limitation hinders progress toward more equitable and sustainable futures and risks reinforcing power inequities (Egid et al. 2021, Strand et al. 2024, Turnhout 2024). A significant challenge lies in the dominance of onto-epistemological frameworks imposed by academia within co-production processes. These frameworks frequently fail to weave together the perspectives necessary for iterative planning, collective learning, and meaningful transformation (Elzinga 2008, Mobjörk 2010, Binder et al. 2015). To drive transformative change, academics and practitioners must prioritize an ethos of care, foster social learning, and promote collective agency by actively involving all participants in shaping transdisciplinary processes. This ensures their voices are valued, and their contributions are central to the endeavor (Benessaiah and Eakin 2021, Charli-Joseph et al. 2023, Strand 2024).

Art and creative practices have the potential to address some limitations of current transdisciplinary practices and facilitate more inclusive, transformational changes (Galafassi et al. 2018, Moore and Milkoreit 2020, Olazabal et al. 2024, Strand 2024). Art can foster an emotional willingness to enact change, disrupt the dominance of the rational-discursive approach in science and its coloniality, democratize creativity, and challenge dominant habits and predispositions (Metzger 2011, Yusoff and Gabrys 2011, Galafassi et al. 2018, Trisos et al. 2021). However, it is essential to find ways to bridge the divide between scientists and artists that extend beyond superficial, short-term interactions, often based on the “service-providing role” of art (Scheffer et al. 2015, Belfiore 2021).

This Special Feature highlights transdisciplinary collaborations co-designed by diverse teams, including those from arts, technology, design, architecture, social innovation, and gastronomy, to create more just and sustainable futures. In this editorial, we provide an overview of the insights emerging from these contributions. We examine the nature of the transdisciplinary processes developed through the art-science partnerships. We identify key conceptual and methodological innovations, explore tools that enhance more meaningful collaborations, evaluate these collaborations, and analyze the transformative changes that have been triggered. Although pressing social and environmental challenges demand immediate actions, transdisciplinary art-science collaborations thrive on slow, meaningful, and often deeply personal processes. Paradoxically, in a time of polycrisis and immediacy, the collaborations included in this Special Feature suggest that perhaps our best hope for addressing the interconnected challenges of people and nature may lie in slowing down to reflect, connect, inspire, and create spaces for shared meaning-making in an emotionally resonant way.

WHERE AND WHY DO ART-SCIENCE TRANSDISCIPLINARITY COLLABORATIONS EMERGE?

Transdisciplinary collaborations involving scientists, local knowledge holders, and artists are diverse in their focus, approaches, challenges, and outcomes. The contributions in this Special Feature explore a diverse range of topics, including local food systems, traditional and Indigenous knowledge systems, cultural identities, biodiversity conservation, ocean governance, commoning practices, and small-scale fisheries. The duration of these studies ranges from temporary co-design ventures (e.g., Boffi 2024, Dalla Torre et al. 2025) to long-term collaborative relationships spanning several years (e.g., Österblom et al. 2023, Balvanera et al. 2025, Bisht et al. 2025). Most case studies emphasize the importance of strengthening collective action as a pathway to innovative and transformative solutions for sustainability. Achieving these outcomes requires identifying and building shared values, mutual respect, and a commitment to meaningful outcomes, with diverse participants contributing unique perspectives and skills.

Transdisciplinary collaborations have taken unique and creative strategies in tackling complex social-ecological challenges. For example, Gianelli et al. (2024) brought together diverse actors from different territories to collectively explore multiple pasts, presents, and desired futures for small-scale fisheries in Uruguay, resulting in a meta-vision to guide transformative action. Gutiérrez Sánchez et al. (2024) facilitated horizontal dialogues between women from the Kumiai community, researchers, and creatives, blending traditional and contemporary food knowledge with ecological insights. Similarly, Balvanera et al. (2025) used participatory art and design to reconcile biodiversity conservation with agricultural production and the livelihoods of smallholders in Mexico. Other collaborations addressed governance and policy-related challenges. For example, Strand et al. (2024) co-developed arts-based participatory research with Indigenous and local knowledge holders, presenting their work in exhibitions and workshops that fostered multi-actor dialogues on the role of Indigenous knowledge in ocean governance. Bisht et al. (2025) mobilized community assets through storytelling, music, and visual arts to guide pathways toward just transformations. Long-term collaborations, such as the decade-long collaboration described by Österblom et al. (2023), through the South American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability (SARAS), demonstrate the depth of insight that sustained engagement can generate. Boffi (2024) built up so-called “collaborative assemblages” among designers, scientists, artists, farmers, beekeepers, and citizens to co-create and prototype collaborative actions aimed at addressing pollinator decline. The intersections of art, community engagement, and ecological restoration were explored by Dalla Torre et al. (2025), who co-designed a participatory festival to make visible practices of collective care for needs and goods in rural contexts in the Italian Alps. These examples highlight how transdisciplinary approaches, grounded in shared values and creative practices, facilitate innovative responses to the interconnected challenges of sustainability.

Contributions underscore the importance of science-art collaborations in addressing global challenges. Across all contributions there is a shared desire for deep engagement with social-ecological challenges. Österblom et al. (2023) enhance multisensory learning and expression to foster a deeper connection to the living world, addressing the human-nature disconnection and promoting more sustainable and empathetic ways of living. Vervoort et al. (2024) introduce a framework for transformative creative practices that engage actors from the arts, governance, and academia to address the global ecological crisis. Gianelli et al. (2024) highlight the potential of artistic boundary objects and transformative spaces as stepping stones in revitalizing neglected local food production systems that rely on small-scale fisheries for their sustainability and resilience. Gutiérrez Sánchez et al. (2024) emphasize the importance of documenting and sharing culturally significant food practices to reconnect communities with their culinary heritage and transforming food systems into more inclusive and sustainable models. Strand et al. (2024) emphasize the role of arts-based participatory research in facilitating more meaningful and equitable transdisciplinary research collaborations with Indigenous and local community members, thereby informing more inclusive ocean governance. Boffi (2024) addresses pollinator decline by showcasing how collaborative assemblages can drive participatory actions through a design-based approach. Dalla Torre et al. (2025) address social-ecological challenges by employing experiential and art-based approaches to amplify marginalized perspectives and transform complex issues into inclusive and actionable experiences. Together, these contributions demonstrate how creative collaborations can ground global challenges in local realities, combining scientific insight with imagination, empathy, and cultural relevance.

INNOVATIONS RESULTING FROM ART-SCIENCE TRANSDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS

The transdisciplinary collaborations showcased in this Special Feature advance three key topics through conceptual and methodological innovations: (1) enhancing and promoting individual and collective agency, (2) prioritizing local identity and narratives, and (3) recognizing the affective, emotional, and relational dimensions of their collaborations. They do so through the following mechanisms (Fig. 1):

• Arenas for exchange and experimentation: Balvanera et al. (2025) design and operationalize novel spaces, departing from the kitchen, a fundamental site of care, to foster inclusive and meaningful explorations. Shared activities in kitchens and agroecological plots enhance individual and collective agency, allowing diverse forms of knowledge to interact through the relationships created in these arenas.
• A living community cookbook: Gutiérrez Sanchez et al. (2024) co-create a living community cookbook that enables broader reflections on traditional food and its associated biological and cultural diversity, as well as on how environmental changes and territorial conflicts affect the community and the availability and use of ingredients. The cookbook also serves as an empowering tool by recognizing women’s knowledge and the culinary heritage of the community, connecting recipes to personal and community narratives and histories.
• Barrio innovation: Bisht et al. (2025) develop an asset- and justice-based approach that recognizes the existing strengths and talents individuals and communities possess. This approach places communities as the experts in their own lives and struggles, and their experiences and imaginings as the basis for transformative change. The projects involve understanding the past and the present, co-designing collective futures, and a call for action grounded in the connections between past, present, and future.
• Visioning futures: Gianelli et al. (2024) use visioning exercises rooted in personal and place-based past images to co-create futures for small-scale fisheries. Co-created visions connect diverse knowledge, actors, and territories, fostering relationships that can overcome resistance to deeper transformations in the fishing system.
• Pollinators’ path: Boffi (2024) employs a participatory design approach to experiment with pollinators and their connections to the territory. By focusing on material deliberation through three participatory actions, participants enacted new forms of human-pollinator relationships and collaborations. These actions helped to open the space for emotions, embodiment, and tacit knowledge, which were necessary for those new relationships to emerge.
• Itinerant festival: Dalla Torre et al. (2025) illustrate how walks, workshops, and art-based performances revealed local stories and traditions of intertwined landscape care and food production, while exposing the challenges of community-led practices under exploitative land use and the exclusion of local communities. Inclusive co-creation, through design-based rituals such as COVID-19 health checks and a flag-passing ceremony, fostered connections and collective care, strengthening a sense of belonging and empowering participants to address local issues.
• An exhibition of photostories: Strand et al. (2024) demonstrate how photography and storytelling, co-developed with Indigenous and local knowledge holders, foster meaningful engagement with multiple ways of knowing the ocean. Photostories conveyed experiences and feelings that are difficult to capture through the written word, and in doing so, provided a space for knowledge sharing and learning (or unlearning) about the oceans and ways of relating to them. They also helped bring to the forefront voices and experiences that are often excluded from decision-making.
• 9 Dimensions tool: In contrast to the other innovations, Vervoort et al. (2024) focus on evaluating the link between creative practices and sustainability transformation processes through the 9 Dimensions tool. Organized into three categories of change, each covering three dimensions, changing meanings (embodying, learning, imagining), changing connections (caring, organizing, inspiring), and transforming power (co-creating, empowering, subverting), the tool emerged from a transdisciplinary process that fostered shared languages and mutual understanding. As such, the tool reconciles a desire for artistic openness, ambiguity, and pluralism with a need for comparative analysis, structure, and systems-based approaches.
• To split a stone: Finally, Österblom et al. (2023) innovate through open dialogue to make visible how even potentially useless encounters lead to cementing strong art and science partnerships that stimulate and motivate transformative changes. They emphasize the importance of collaborations being context-based, pluralistic, and interactive, as noted by Norström et al. (2020), but not necessarily goal-oriented.

The innovations described reflect a diversity of processes but share a key commonality for more meaningful collaborations: space and time to establish a conversation and build relationships from a position of shared commitment toward ontological and epistemological justice.

ART-SCIENCE TRANSDISCIPLINARITY COLLABORATIONS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Transdisciplinarity involves more than bringing together individuals with different types of knowledge and utilizing various techniques. The unique challenges associated with art-science collaborations have been highlighted in the articles in this Special Feature.

Challenge 1: Involving artists and diverse knowledge holders early in the research project’s co-design and developing mechanisms to maintain such collaborations is complex and time-consuming. Co-designing a project with a highly diverse team necessitates identifying shared goals and creating a unified narrative and language for the project from its inception (Balvanera et al. 2025). One way to address this problem is by anchoring the project’s design to a specific place, the particular issues, and their significance to the diverse actors involved (see Bisht et al. 2025). Co-developing research projects in place requires researchers to step outside the comfort of university spaces and spend time in community spaces where local art, advocacy, and knowledge thrive (Bisht et al. 2025). Trustworthy collaborative relationships are critical but require time and a coherent strategy for managing expectations from different participants and expected outputs and outcomes (Österblom et al. 2023, Boffi 2024, Gianelli et al. 2024, Strand et al. 2024). This is particularly true when working with Indigenous and local communities, where particular attention is needed to empower and create spaces for knowledge and perspectives to be presented on their own terms (Strand et al. 2024). Time and financial resources are often limited by scarce budgets, which hinder support for cultural and artistic offerings. Dalla Torre et al. (2025) show that the celebratory and performative nature of the festival can be accompanied by a fear of failure and pressure to overperform, which reinforces the concurrent demands of ordinary life. Working with Indigenous food knowledge requires respect and horizontal dialogues to address challenges such as cultural appropriation amid global gastronomic development (Gutiérrez Sánchez et al. 2024). To ensure the advancement of comprehensive rather than partial transdisciplinarity, it is essential to collaboratively discuss expectations regarding impact and outputs from the outset (Strand et al. 2024).

Challenge 2: Power and agency imbalances need to be addressed. The articles illustrate the disparities in power and agency among and across participants. Often, the primary goal of these projects is to address such imbalances, and art can play a crucial role in achieving this (see Österblom et al. 2023, Strand et al. 2024). Consciously alternating between power and process control, which is held by either artists or scientists, can be productive (Österblom et al. 2023). Enticing feelings, inner motivations, sensibilities, and emotions demonstrated a productive way of dealing with challenges (see Gutiérrez Sánchez et al. 2024). Moreover, the papers show that artistic approaches can facilitate the mobilization of community assets (see Bisht et al. 2025), ensure that non-academic co-researchers remain the owners of their own knowledge outputs (Strand et al. 2024), and allow all participants to be considered in the same positionality and equal participation within the co-construction process (Gianelli et al. 2024). Although early co-design facilitates trust-building and collaborative understanding, it also risks reinforcing existing path dependencies (Dalla Torre et al. 2025).

Opportunity 1: Artistic tools can contribute to fostering and nurturing long-term, caring, and meaningful interpersonal bonds that support transdisciplinary collaborations. By revisiting their personal pasts and playfully composing future worlds through a democratic artistic practice, such as collage, participants felt closer to one another (Gianelli et al. 2024). They embodied their identities in co-created visions, paving the way for the continuity of the collaboration over time. Through in situ storytelling and conversations, co-researchers and co-facilitators in Strand et al. (2024) identified commonalities in their care and priorities for the ocean, developing strong relationships that often resulted in lasting friendships. Working with communities in South Phoenix, Bisht et al. (2025) found that art lies at the center of how communities self-organize and advocate for change. Boffi (2024) engaged with farmers through arts-based performances and workshops that served as boundary objects, facilitating the identification of shared interests and complementary knowledge. Interactions mediated by artistic practices blurred disciplinary boundaries, creating richer collaborative spaces and enabling participants to develop ideas with real-world applications while cultivating new awareness and reflexivity about collective practices that care for needs and goods in rural contexts (Balvanera et al. 2025, Dalla Torre et al. 2025).

Opportunity 2: Artistic approaches enrich the transformative potential of transdisciplinary research. One of the primary objectives of transdisciplinarity in social-ecological research is to trigger transformative changes. Gianelli et al. (2024) co-created action-oriented visions that connect diverse knowledge systems, food system actors, and territories, which are flexible enough to resonate with and adapt to local realities. Strand et al. (2024) co-developed participatory arts-based research that proved valuable in moving from individual to collective visions of more equitable ocean futures. Gutiérrez Sánchez et al. (2024) co-prepared food as a participatory tool to promote dialogue and serve as a vehicle to unify cultures and perspectives on the challenges and opportunities related to local food sources and their future. Boffi (2024) prototyped actions that enabled participants to rehearse various possible relationships between humans and pollinating insects, aiming to trigger pollinator-positive futures. United by a common mission, while leveraging their specific expertise, participants in a festival co-creation contributed to a platform that celebrates plurality and showcases place-based practices and values that can inform other possible futures (Dalla Torre et al. 2025).

Opportunity 3: Art-science collaborations mobilize deep leverage points. Radical shifts are necessary when ecological, social, cultural, technological, and economic structures render current systems unviable (Gunderson and Holling 2002, Walker et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2010). System-wide reorganizations entail shifts in paradigms, goals, and values related to how society interacts with nature, including the mobilization of leverage points where small changes can trigger significant impacts (IPBES 2024). Bisht et al. (2025) show how embracing an abundance mindset in transdisciplinary collaborations can leverage existing community assets as crucial leverage points for supporting meaningful and transformative change. Balvanera et al. (2025) underscore how art-science collaborations can mobilize deep leverage points within local food systems by transforming materials (e.g., ingredients, seeds), practices (such as culinary innovation and agroecology), rules (e.g., inviting men into kitchen spaces), and visions (e.g., questioning intensive agriculture and cultural homogenization) through collective processes rooted in biocultural diversity and equity. Strand et al. (2024) illustrate how visual storytelling can elevate often overlooked and silenced socio-cultural priorities, values, and knowledge, thereby shifting visions of how people care for, relate to, and interact with the ocean. In Dalla Torre et al. (2025), the festival co-creation mobilized deep leverage points by creating emotionally evocative and aesthetically powerful experiences, fostering active engagement with complex concepts, and transforming places from passive backdrops to active stakeholders. Similar long-term mindshift changes can be elicited through collaboration, as seen in Österblom et al. (2023).

MONITORING AND EVALUATING ART-SCIENCE TRANSDISCIPLINARITY COLLABORATIONS

Monitoring, reflection, and documentation are needed. Genuine collaborations that address climate equity and environmental justice and trigger political change (Pereira et al. 2018, Bennett and Satterfield 2018, Scoones et al. 2020) require careful documentation of the changes that are occurring. Being flexible and engaging with existing community initiatives, moving away from predetermined pathways and outcomes, and enabling intentional and emergent collaborations with diverse participants can create ripple effects that facilitate just system-wide transformations (Gianelli et al. 2024, Gutiérrez Sanchez et al. 2024, Strand et al. 2024, Bisht et al. 2025, Dalla Torre et al. 2025). Ongoing monitoring and reflection throughout the process are key to evaluating these unique collaborations more flexibly and continuously, rather than relying solely on outcomes at the end (Balvanera et al. 2025, Bisht et al. 2025). Tools to achieve this include films, eco-social maps, and digital storytelling, which document the personal stories of participants in transdisciplinary collaborations (Gianelli et al. 2024, Strand et al. 2024, Dalla Torre et al. 2025). This enables easier interaction across different communities and among co-researchers and is also critical for reporting to funders and testing our theories of change. Encouraging reflection throughout the transdisciplinary collaboration can enable individuals to learn (and unlearn) across various ontological and epistemological perspectives (Strand et al. 2024).

Multiple dimensions of change can be monitored and assessed by the art-science transdisciplinary teams. Striving for balance between intrinsic (e.g., self-determination and alignment with participants’ values and beliefs) and extrinsic motivations (e.g., social reinforcement in the form of public visibility and tangible academic outcomes) may promote long-term engagement among all participants (Gianelli et al. 2024, Strand et al. 2024). Focusing on practical activities can lead to neglecting researchers’ roles as knowledge brokers. At the same time, creative outputs such as images, manufactured goods, art-based performances, and narratives, while used as boundary objects, may result in ambiguous interpretations and limited replicability across different contexts (Dalla Torre et al. 2025). Evaluation can also be organized across the different dimensions of change, as developed in Vervoort et al. (2024). Overall, the diversity of engagements and the wide range of methods and tools make evaluation difficult, but perhaps that is the point. Each case requires its own specific analysis and reflection to remain true to the unique convergence of artistic and scientific tools in the pursuit of social-ecological transformation. We can only respond to complexity by embracing complexity.

PERSPECTIVE FOR ART-SCIENCE TRANSDISCIPLINARITY COLLABORATIONS

The benefits of art-science collaborations as creative methods are increasingly being documented (Segal and Meroz 2023, Morgan and Castle 2024). However, the role of art-science collaborations in providing unique foundations for transformative change toward sustainability remains understudied (Moore and Milkoreit 2020). Art-science collaborations can contribute to addressing exploitative “parachute science,” the colonial extraction of local biocultural diversity and knowledge, and instead engage in the search for solutions targeted at addressing the needs and interests of those who directly manage and depend on local ecosystems for their livelihoods (Strand et al. 2022, Huambachano 2024). This Special Feature highlights a wide range of approaches that employ different steps to achieve this goal. Stronger art-science collaborations are necessary to co-produce interactions that stimulate a reconnection with the biosphere and promote caring approaches aligned with sustainability (Martin et al. 2024). Such endeavors are rarely undertaken because they can be considered inefficient and a waste of time and money. These risky ventures are particularly challenging for researchers studying or working in academic environments that do not support transdisciplinary and transformative collaborations. Yet, in the long term, collaborative projects between artists, local communities, and scientists that are open, exploratory, uncertain, and safe to fail are needed to further activate their potential and support more just and sustainable future pathways, as this Special Feature has highlighted.

A critical component of successful art-science collaborations is ensuring ethical relations with non-academic actors. Fundamental questions about free, prior, and informed consent, as well as the sharing of Indigenous and local knowledge systems beyond Indigenous groups themselves need to be carefully taken into account (Hanna and Vanclay 2013, Papillon and Rodon 2020) to ensure that research is upholding and strengthening Indigenous rights and human rights (Ignace et al. 2023). This is particularly critical for research that engages with transformations toward sustainability because transformations, by definition, require radical reconfigurations of the status quo and will have winners and losers (Pereira et al. 2024). All transdisciplinary endeavors have an ethical obligation to confront questions about what collaborators will gain from the interaction and to be transparent about the outcomes. It is essential to recognize that transformative change is an ongoing, messy process with intricate dynamics that cannot be achieved through a single intervention (IPBES 2024).

As the environmental and societal crises deepen alongside rising fear and authoritarianism, art-science collaborations are needed more than ever. Meaningfully bonding with each other, challenging the status quo and power imbalances, and collectively imagining alternative futures while also enjoying ourselves and fulfilling our deepest longings contribute uniquely to building more just and sustainable pathways for future generations. The papers in this Special Feature offer concrete examples of how such collaborative efforts can be realized in practice and serve as inspiration for future endeavors to be undertaken and funded.

LITERATURE CITED

Agyeman, J., D. Schlosberg, L. Craven, and C. Matthews. 2016. Trends and directions in environmental justice: from inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41:321-340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090052

Anand, R. 2017. International environmental justice: a north-south dimension. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315252049

Ayala-Orozco, B., J. A. Rosell, J. Merçon, I. Bueno, G. Alatorre-Frenk, A. Langle-Flores, and A. Lobato. 2018. Challenges and strategies in place-based multi-stakeholder collaboration for sustainability: learning from experiences in the Global South. Sustainability 10(9):3217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093217

Balvanera, P., M. Martinez Balvanera, M. A. Mesa-Jurado, L. Pérez-Volkow, A. Cadena Roa, R. Dominguez-Yescas, E. Guerrero Molina, E. Hernandez Martínez, D. Hernández-Muciño, G. A. Morales Valdelamar, N. Roldán-Rueda, R. Lombera, P. M. García, I. N. Flores-Abreu, F. Arreola Villa, L. Rentería, C. Heindorf, P. Ortiz Antoranz, L. Equihua Zamora, and L. O. Almeida Leñero. 2025. Cocina Colaboratorio: cooking transdisciplinary transformations of local food systems. Ecology and Society 30(1):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15829-300117

Belfiore, E. 2021. Is it really about the evidence? Argument, persuasion, and the power of ideas in cultural policy. Cultural Trends 31(4):293-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2021.1991230

Benessaiah, K., and H. Eakin. 2021. Crisis, transformation, and agency: why are people going back-to-the-land in Greece? Sustainability Science 16(6):1841-1858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01043-5

Bennett, E. M., and B. Reyers. 2024. Disentangling the complexity of human-nature interactions. People and Nature 6(2):402-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10611

Bennett, N. J., and T. Satterfield. 2018. Environmental governance: a practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conservation Letters 11(6):e12600. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12600

Binder, C. R., I. Absenger-Helmli, and T. Schilling. 2015. The reality of transdisciplinarity: a framework-based self-reflection from science and practice leaders. Sustainability Science 10:545-562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0328-2

Bisht, V., R. Carrillo, M. Franco, V. Angeles-Wann, J.-B. Rosales Chavez, S. Gomez, J. Hess, A. Kuhn, P. Mollen, J. Morales-Guerrero, J. Wann-Ángeles, C. Cheng, and M. Berbés-Blázquez. 2025. Enabling “barrio” innovation: a grassroots approach for centering community initiatives in just sustainability transformations. Ecology and Society 30(1):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15749-300108

Boffi, L. 2024. Tracing a pollinator’s path. Ecology and Society 29(3):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15360-290328

Brondizio, E. S., and F. M. L. Tourneau. 2016. Environmental governance for all. Science 352(6291):1272-1273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5122

Chambers, J. M., C. Wyborn, N. L. Klenk, M. Ryan, A. Serban, N. J. Bennett, R. Brennan, L. Charli-Joseph, M. E. Fernández-Giménez, K. A. Galvin, B. E. Goldstein, T. Haller, R. Hill, C. Munera, J. L. Nel, H. Österblom, R. S. Reid, M. Riechers, M. Spierenburg, M. Tengö, E. Bennet, A. Brandeis, P. Chatterton, J. J. Cockburn, C. Cvitanovic, P. Dumrongrojwatthana, A. Paz Durán, J. D. Gerber, J. M. H. Green, R. Gruby, A. M. Guerrero, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, J. Montana, P. Steyaert, J. G. Zaehringer, A. T. Bednarek, K. Curran, S. J. Fada, J. Hutton, B. Leimona, T. Pickering, and R. Rondeau. 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Global Environmental Change 72:102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422

Charli-Joseph, L., J. M. Siqueiros-García, H. Eakin, D. Manuel-Navarrete, M. Mazari-Hiriart, R. Shelton, P. Pérez-Belmont, and B. Ruizpalacios. 2023. Enabling collective agency for sustainability transformations through reframing in the Xochimilco social-ecological system. Sustainability Science 18(3):1215-1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01224-w

Chilisa, B. 2017. Decolonizing transdisciplinary research approaches: an African perspective for enhancing knowledge integration in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 12(5):813-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0461-1

Clark, W. C., and A. G. Harley. 2020. Sustainability science: toward a synthesis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45(1):331-386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621

Dalla Torre, C., A. Moriggi, B. Elzenbaumer, S. Favargiotti, and M. Ferretti. 2025. Co-creating a festival with and for rural commoning initiatives: a transdisciplinary place-based process. Ecology and Society 30(3):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-16095-300308

Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K. M. A. Chan, I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P. W. Leadley, A. P. E. van Oudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter, S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul, P. Failler, C. A. Guerra, C. L. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. 2019. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270-272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

Egid, A., M. Roura, and M. Sidat. 2021. Beyond tokenism: meaningful community engagement in global health research. Lancet Global Health 9(5):e593-e594.

Ely, A., A. Marin, L. Charli-Joseph, D. Abrol, M. Apgar, J. Atela, B. Ayre, R. Byrne, B. K. Choudhary, V. Chengo, A. Cremaschi, R. Davis, P. Desai, H. Eakin, P. Kushwaha, F. Marshall, K. Mbeva, N. Ndege, C. Ochieng, D. Ockwell, P. Olsson, N. Oxley, L. Pereira, R. Priya, A. Tigabu, P. Van Zwanenberg, and L. Yang. 2020. Structured collaboration across a transformative knowledge network—learning across disciplines, cultures and contexts? Sustainability 12(6):2499. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062499

Elzinga, A. 2008. Participation. Pages 345-359 in G. H. Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, and E. Zemp, editors. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_22

Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420

Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L

Galafassi, D., S. Kagan, M. Milkoreit, M. Heras, C. Bilodeau, S. J. Bourke, A. Merrie, L. Guerrero, G. Pétursdóttir, and J. D. Tàbara. 2018. ‘Raising the temperature’: the arts on a warming planet. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31:71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.010

Gianelli, I., M. Trimble, S. Juri, N. A. Beretta, D. Torena, M. Acosta, R. Acosta, M. Del Bó, J. A. Fuster, V. González, D. Kurta, M. Kurta, T. López, M. E. Marfetán, P. Montes de Oca, A. Morales, V. Pardo, J. Sandoval, N. Schuch, C. Taroco, A. V. Norström, L. M. Pereira, and S. Villasante. 2024. Envisioning desirable futures in small-scale fisheries: a transdisciplinary arts-based co-creation process. Ecology and Society 29(1):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14869-290120

Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gutiérrez Sánchez, C., C. Leyva Aguilera, R. Moreno-Santoyo, L. Pedrín Rivera, S. Montes Carrillo, and L. Dorantes Herrera. 2024. Living community cookbook: transdisciplinary collaboration for constructing recipes with biocultural value. Ecology and Society 29(4):12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15387-290412

Hanna, P., and F. Vanclay. 2013. Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(2):146-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.780373

Huambachano, M. A. 2024. Recovering our ancestral foodways: indigenous traditions as a recipe for living well. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520396173

Ignace, L., L. Burton, S. Mynott, M. Meehan, E. Olson, J. Steel, J. Ojeda, S. Harper, L. Ramirez, D. Baker, L. Sleigh, C. Frenkel, C. Rhodes, and N. C. Ban. 2023. Researchers’ responsibility to uphold Indigenous rights. Science 381(6654):129-131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4470

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2024. Summary for policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In K. O’Brien, L. Garibaldi, A. Agrawal, E. Bennett, O. Biggs, R. Calderón-Contreras, E. Carr, N. Frantzeskaki, H. Gosnell, J. Gurung, S. Lambertucci, J. Leventon, C. Liao, V. Reyes García, L. Shannon, S. Villasante, F. Wickson, Y. Zinngrebe, and L. Perianin, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382230

König, A. 2015. Changing requisites to universities in the 21st century: organizing for transformative sustainability science for systemic change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 16:105-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.011

Lang, D. J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C. J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7(Suppl 1):25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Leal Filho, W., Y. A. Aina, M. A. P. Dinis, W. Purcell, and G. J. Nagy. 2023. Climate change: why higher education matters? Science of The Total Environment 892:164819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164819

Martin, A., P. Balvanera, C. M. Raymond, E. Gómez-Baggethun, U. Eser, R. K. Gould, L. Guibrunet, Z. V. Harmáčková, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, A. K. Koessler, R. Kumar, D. Lenzi, J. Merçon, A. Nthenge, P. J. O'Farrell, U. Pascual, J. Rode, Y. Yoshida, and N. Zafra-Calvo. 2024. Sustainability-aligned values: exploring the concept, evidence, and practice. Ecology and Society 29(4):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15498-290418

Metzger, J. 2011. Strange spaces: a rationale for bringing art and artists into the planning process. Planning Theory 10(3):213-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210389653

Mobjörk, M. 2010. Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: a refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 42(8):866-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.03.003

Moore, M.-L., and M. Milkoreit. 2020. Imagination and transformations to sustainable and just futures. Elementa: Science of the Antropocene 8(1):081. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.081

Moore, M.-L., O. Tjornbo, E. Enfors, C. Knapp, J. Hodbod, J. A. Baggio, A. Norström, P. Olsson and D. Biggs. 2014. Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecology and Society 19(4):54. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454

Morgan, J., and S. Castle. 2024. Arts-research collaboration: reflections on collaboration as creative method. Qualitative Inquiry 30(3-4):291-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231176280

Nogueira, L. A., M. Bjørkan, and B. Dale. 2021. Conducting research in a post-normal paradigm: practical guidance for applying co-production of knowledge. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9:699397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.699397

Norström, A. V., B. Agarwal, P. Balvanera, B. Baptiste, E. M. Bennett, E. Brondízio, R. Biggs, B. Campbell, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Castilla, A. J. Castro, W. Cramer, G. S. Cumming, M. Felipe-Lucía, J. Fischer, C. Folke, R. DeFries, S. Gelcich, J. Groth, C. I. Speranza, S. Jacobs, J. Hoffmann, T. P. Hughes, D. P. M. Lam, J. Loos, A. Manyani, B. Martín-López, M. Meacham, H. Moersberger, H. Nagendra, L. Pereira, S. Polasky, M. Schoon, L. Schultz, O. Selomane, and M. Spierenburg. 2022. The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) - a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus. Ecosystems and People 18(1):598-608. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173

Norström, A. V., C. Cvitanovic, M. F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A. T. Bednarek, E. M. Bennet, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, B. M. Campbell, J. G. Canadell, S. R. Carpenter, C. Folke, E. A. Fulton, O. Gaffney, S. Gelcich, J. B. Jouffray, M. Leach, M. Le Tissier, B. Martín-López, E. Louder, M. F. Loutre, A. M. Meadow, H. Nagendra, D. Payne, G. D. Peterson, B. Reyers, R. Scholes, C. I. Speranza, M. Spierenburg, M. Stafford-Smith, M. Tengö, S. van der Hel, I. van Putten, and H. Österblom. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3(3):182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2003. Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41(3):179-194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025505528250

Olazabal, M., M. Loroño-Leturiondo, A. T. Amorim-Maia, W. Lewis, and J. Urrutia. 2024. Integrating science and the arts to deglobalise climate change adaptation. Nature Communications 15:2971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47400-7

Österblom, H., F. Gazitúa, and A. Leible. 2023. To split a stone. Ecology and Society 28(3):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14270-280311

Papillon, M., and T. Rodon. 2020. The transformative potential of Indigenous-driven approaches to implementing Free, Prior and Informed Consent: lessons from two Canadian cases. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 27(2):314-335. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02702009

Pereira, L. M., I. Gianelli, T. Achieng, D. Amon, S. Archibald, S. Arif, A. Castro, T. P. Chimbadzwa, K. Coetzer, T. L. Field, O. Selomane, N. Sitas, N. Stevens, S. Villasante, M. Armani, D. M. Kimuyu, I. J. Adewumi, D. M. Lapola, D. Obura, P. Pinho, F. Roa-Clavijo, J. Rocha, and U. R. Sumaila. 2024. Equity and justice should underpin the discourse on tipping points. Earth System Dynamics 15(2):341-366. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-341-2024

Pereira, L., T. Hichert, M. Hamann, R. Preiser, and R. Biggs. 2018. Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a good Anthropocene in southern Africa. Ecology and Society 23(1):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09907-230119

Pohl, C., S. Rist, A. Zimmermann, P. Fry, G. S. Gurung, F. Schneider, C. I. Speranza, B. Kiteme, S. Boillat, E. Serrano, G. H. Hadorn, and U. Wiesmann. 2010. Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy 37(4):267-281. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X496628

Scheffer, M., J. Bascompte, T. K. Bjordam, S. R. Carpenter, L. B. Clarke, C. Folke, P. Marquet, N. Mazzeo, M. Meerhoff, O. Sala, and F. R. Westley. 2015. Dual thinking for scientists. Ecology and Society 20(2):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07434-200203

Schneider, F., M. Giger, N. Harari, S. Moser, C. Oberlack, I. Providoli, L. Schmid, T. Tribaldos, and A. Zimmermann. 2019. Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science & Policy 102:26-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017

Scoones, I., A. Stirling, D. Abrol, J. Atela, L. Charli-Joseph, H. Eakin, A. Ely, P. Olsson, L. Pereira, R. Priya, P. Van Zwanenberg, and L. Yang. 2020. Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42:65-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.004

Segal, L., and Y. Meroz. 2023. Art-science collaborations: generators of new ideas and serendipitous events. Quantitative Plant Biology 4:e9. https://doi.org/10.1017/qpb.2023.7

Strand, M. 2024. Advancing transdisciplinarity as an epistemology for more ethical engagements with fishing communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 8(6):fsae148. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsae148

Strand, M., Y. Albany, M. N. L. Buthelezi, N. Hambaze, A. Lemahieu, F. M. Magwaza, N. Rivers, T. T. B. Swartbooi, H. van Vught, and B. Snow. 2024. Reflecting on arts-based participatory research: considerations for more equitable transdisciplinary collaborations. Ecology and Society 29(4):29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15563-290429

Strand, M., N. Rivers, and B. Snow. 2022. Reimagining ocean stewardship: arts-based methods to ‘hear’ and ‘see’ Indigenous and local knowledge in ocean management. Frontiers in Marine Science 9:886632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.886632

Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C. M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2021. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 49:232-239.

Trencher, G., X. Bai, J. Evans, K. McCormick, and M. Yarime. 2014. University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Global Environmental Change 28:153-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009

Trisos, C. H., J. Auerbach, and M. Katti. 2021. Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology & Evolution 5(9):1205-1212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01460-w

Turnhout, E. 2024. A better knowledge is possible: transforming environmental science for justice and pluralism. Environmental Science & Policy 155:103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103729

Vervoort, J. M., T. Smeenk, I. Zamuruieva, L. L. Reichelt, M. van Veldhoven, L. Rutting, A. Light, L. Houston, R. Wolstenholm, M. Dolejšová, A. Jain, J. Ardern, R. Catlow, K. Vaajakallio, Z. F. von Flittner, J. Putrle-Srdić, J. C. Lohmann, C. Moossdorff, T. Mattelmäki, C. Ampatzidou, J. H.-j. Choi, A. Botero, K. A. Thompson, J. Torrens, R. Lane, and A. C. Mangnus. 2024. 9 Dimensions for evaluating how art and creative practice stimulate societal transformations. Ecology and Society 29(1):29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14739-290129

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Yusoff, K., and J. Gabrys. 2011. Climate change and the imagination. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2(4):516-534. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.117