Pius Krütli

Science often tackles sustainability challenges by not only addressing them (inter-)disciplinary but additionally engaging in societal aspects through transdisciplinary research. Siting a deep-geological repository is a technical and societal challenge. In this study, we present a unique approach that entailed a 4 year collaboration between our research team and a Citizen’s Working Group (CWG) on nuclear waste management in Germany. We explored whether and how knowledge could be effectively transferred among researchers and the CWG, as well as how mutual trust could be fostered and maintained. Seventeen ordinary citizens across Germany were selected via a multistep process, including an online survey and interviews. Their contributions provided valuable empirical insights and informed interdisciplinary research questions. We describe this new and challenging process with its multiple methods (surveys, workshops, observations, and interviews) and reflect on our experiences based on a rich set of empirical data. Finally, we discuss the potential for generalization and application of this approach to other topics.

Sustainability often entails dealing with issues of justice in the distribution of goods and bads, such as resources and restrictions. Applications of justice to concrete situations, including what is deserved and entitled, call for specifications of several issues, like the meaning of “deservingness” and “entitlement” and how justice should be accomplished. This is a key aspect for sustainability, as social arrangements that are not experienced as fair may not be long‐lived. Conversely, justice may be an empty notion unless it is sustainable. With this in mind, we provide an inventory of factors to analyze the relationship between (un)sustainability and social (in)justice from a social psychological perspective. We (a) clarify the gist of the two subjective notions, (b) discuss their interdependences, (c) provide a list of factors for analyses, and (d) illustrate how they may be applied to two cases, one at a global level (food accessibility) and the other at a local level (distribution of renewable energy resources in communities). The proposed framework forms the basis of empirical analyses of the social dimension of sustainability.

Extreme weather events have severe impacts on food systems, especially for smallholders in global food value chains (GFVCs). There is an urgent need to understand (a) how climate shocks manifest in food systems, and (b) what strategies can enhance food system resilience. Integrating satellite, household and trade data, we investigate the cascading impacts after two consecutive hurricanes on smallholder banana farmers in Dominican Republic, and determinants of their recovery. We found that farmers experienced an ‘all-or-nothing’ pattern of damage, where 75% of flooded farmers lost > 90% of production. Recovery of regional production indicators took ca. 450 days. However, farm-level recovery times were highly variable, with both topographic and human capital factors determining recovery. Utilising this case study, we show that engaging in a GFVC impeded recovery via ‘double exposure’ of production loss and losing market access. Our results suggest that strategies to enhance resilience, with a particular focus on recovery, in GFVCs should promote trader loyalty, facilitate basin-scale collaboration and expand risk-targeted training.

This Special Focus highlights the potential of transdisciplinary research and learning to confront the complexity of the challenges facing society today. By serving as a bridge between science, practice and society, transdisciplinarity can be a means to help foster collaboration between diverse actors, question existing paradigms of knowledge co-production and build pathways towards transformation.

Allocation of scarce medical resources can be based on different principles. It has not yet been investigated which allocation schemes are preferred by medical laypeople in a particular situation of medical scarcity like an emerging infectious disease and how the choices are affected by providing information about expected population-level effects of the allocation scheme based on modelling studies. We investigated the potential benefit of strategic communication of infectious disease modelling results. In a two-way factorial experiment (n = 878 participants), we investigated if prognosis of the disease or information about expected effects on mortality at population-level (based on dynamic infectious disease modelling studies) influenced the choice of preferred allocation schemes for prevention and treatment of an unspecified sexually transmitted infection. A qualitative analysis of the reasons for choosing specific allocation schemes supplements our results. Presence of the factor “information about the population-level effects of the allocation scheme” substantially increased the probability of choosing a resource allocation system that minimized overall harm among the population, while prognosis did not affect allocation choices. The main reasons for choosing an allocation scheme differed among schemes, but did not differ among those who received additional model-based information on expected population-level effects and those who did not. Providing information on the expected population-level effects from dynamic infectious disease modelling studies resulted in a substantially different choice of allocation schemes. This finding supports the importance of incorporating model-based information in decision-making processes and communication strategies.

One of the lessons learned in various countries that have to deal with spent nuclear fuel is that finding a proper place and siting a repository for high‐level nuclear waste (HLW) cannot be achieved without public consent. After decades of obstruction, Germany recently launched a new, participatory, site‐selection process for the disposal of HLW in deep geological formations. Nonetheless, significant opposition is assumed. Therefore, citizens’ trust in the procedure and the agents involved may be paramount. We conducted an online survey (N ≈ 5000) in March/April 2020 to test a theoretical model on trust, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptance. We differentiated acceptance as a dependent variable according to distinct phases: the procedure, a possible decision on a disposal location, and the repository facility itself. The results show that trust is mainly important for explaining acceptance of the ongoing procedure and less so for the acceptance of the decision or the repository facility itself. Moreover, our investigation of the sample using a cluster analysis reveals characteristic patterns of trust, risk perception, and acceptance by three clusters: a cluster focusing on risk perception, an ambivalent cluster, and an indifferent cluster. Trust is lowest in the risk‐focused cluster and highest in the ambivalent cluster.

Background. The Site Selection Act stipulates scrutiny, learning, and extensive public involvement. During the site-selection process, psychological aspects play a decisive role in the communication between the various actors as well as in the approach to public involvement regarding how the process is perceived and how a site with the best-possible safety characteristics can be found. In this context, psychological aspects include appreciation and acknowledgement, respect, and openness. Important elements of the approach are transparency, flexibility, clear objectives, and alternatives. Furthermore, the Final Report of the Commission on the Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste suggests inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to research. Such approaches, with involvement of actors from outside universities, are not only necessitated by the complexity and sociotechnical character of the disposal problem, but also have the potential to establish understanding and trust between science and society and thus support site-selection process. The “Ten Reflective Steps for Rendering Research Societally Relevant” constitute a systematic and reflective framework for structuring and performance of transparent research and may thus mirror the political process of site selection. Objective and target group. Adhering to selected steps of the “Ten Steps”, this workshop aims to present a psychologically resilient approach to transdisciplinary communication by highlighting different aspects based on current examples from the site-selection process. An overview of how this approach can support the site-selection process is provided. The workshop is aimed equally at scientists and actors from the realm of practice, with a target group size of about 15 participants. Course contents. The workshop takes the form of a sequence of group work, plenary discussion, and short presentations. It comprises three parts of about 40 min each, and is estimated to last 2 h. Part 1 (40 min): The first step is to identify topics from the site-selection process to work with by forming small groups of 3–5 participants. These groups identify technical and non-technical topics related to disposal, i.e., also including topics related to the actual procedure. In a plenary discussion, 2–5 topics are selected for further consideration (one topic per group). The next step is to specify these topics, i.e., to formulate them as a question. These questions should be reflected upon from a scientific perspective as well as from the point of view of society. It must be asked: Which knowledge do we need to address the questions? This is followed by theoretical input on the four steps of the “Ten Steps,” and evaluation of the topic selection from a communication psychology perspective. This is followed by a break. Part 2 (40 min): Now it is investigated which disciplines and further actors can make a contribution to the questions identified in Part 1. Central questions are: Who, why, how, and when? The potential expectations and interests of the involved persons (groups) are examined. Working in the same groups, the participants address these issues on the basis of the questions specified in Part 1. This part is again concluded with theoretical input on transdisciplinarity and the psychology of communication. This is followed by a break. Part 3 (40 min): The final part is about transferring the understanding gained in the first two parts of the workshop to the site-selection process. Less importance is placed on the content, with the primary focus laid on procedural and communication aspects. Relevant communication aspects for the conflict situations inherent to repository research are elaborated: How can appreciation, acknowledgement, and respect be established despite conflicting approaches to solutions? How can openness and a positive error culture be created despite possible criticism, which may be directed personally? This is followed by a conclusory discussion.

Empirical research on environmental justice often simplifies normative implications, and ethical investigations in these fields often lack real-world complexity. A new working group bridges these gaps.