Biosphere Reserves as model regions for transdisciplinarity? A literature review

Abstract

The World Network of Biosphere Reserves promotes learning sites for sustainable development, designated under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme (MAB). The programme aims to strengthen biodiversity conservation, economic development and capacity building. Scientific research in and about Biosphere Reserves is expected to support these objectives. In response to a strong focus on natural sciences and conservation issues, calls for transdisciplinary approaches emanated from science and the newest MAB Lima Action Plan. Yet, the extent and contributions of transdisciplinary research in Biosphere Reserves remains unexplored. This study provides a comprehensive and systematic screening of 3304 scientific publications in and about Biosphere Reserves published since 1975. Research within Biosphere Reserves spans a broad spectrum, encompassing social to political to ecological investigations, with a focus on natural sciences and studies conducted mainly in Europe and Asia. We identified an emerging field of transdisciplinary science in research, represented in 336 publications. Most transdisciplinary studies were conducted in Mexican and Indian Biosphere Reserves. While transdisciplinary research provided insights about participation, management and governance in Biosphere Reserves, its transformative potential could be enhanced, notably through stronger forms of participation of non-academic actors in research processes. Our review suggests strengthening knowledge co-creation about transformative solutions and interventions addressing deep leverage points. Scientific research could thereby enhance the role of Biosphere Reserves as model regions for sustainability transformations.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01542-1
REVIEW ARTICLE
Biosphere Reserves asmodel regions fortransdisciplinarity?
Aliterature review
CarolineHélèneDabard1,2 · CharlotteGohr1,3,4· FabioWeiss1,3,5· HenrikvonWehrden6· FrederikeNeumann1·
SolomiiaHordasevych1· BrunoArieta1· JennyHammerich1,3· CarolineMeier1,8· JanineJargow1,7· VeraLuthardt1·
PierreL.Ibisch1,4· AnaFilipaFerreira1
Received: 8 December 2023 / Accepted: 8 July 2024 / Published online: 9 September 2024
© The Author(s) 2024, corrected publication 2024
Abstract
The World Network of Biosphere Reserves promotes learning sites for sustainable development, designated under the
UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme (MAB). The programme aims to strengthen biodiversity conservation, eco-
nomic development and capacity building. Scientific research in and about Biosphere Reserves is expected to support these
objectives. In response to a strong focus on natural sciences and conservation issues, calls for transdisciplinary approaches
emanated from science and the newest MAB Lima Action Plan. Yet, the extent and contributions of transdisciplinary
research in Biosphere Reserves remains unexplored. This study provides a comprehensive and systematic screening of
3304 scientific publications in and about Biosphere Reserves published since 1975. Research within Biosphere Reserves
spans a broad spectrum, encompassing social to political to ecological investigations, with a focus on natural sciences and
studies conducted mainly in Europe and Asia. We identified an emerging field of transdisciplinary science in research,
represented in 336 publications. Most transdisciplinary studies were conducted in Mexican and Indian Biosphere Reserves.
While transdisciplinary research provided insights about participation, management and governance in Biosphere Reserves,
its transformative potential could be enhanced, notably through stronger forms of participation of non-academic actors in
research processes. Our review suggests strengthening knowledge co-creation about transformative solutions and interven-
tions addressing deep leverage points. Scientific research could thereby enhance the role of Biosphere Reserves as model
regions for sustainability transformations.
Keywords Systematic literature review· Leverage points· Protected areas· Transformative research· Participation
Caroline Hélène Dabard and Charlotte Gohr have contributed
equally to this work and share first authorship.
Handled by André Derek Mader,Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Japan.
* Caroline Hélène Dabard
caroline.dabard@hnee.de
1 Biosphere Reserves Institute, Eberswalde University
forSustainable Development, Schicklerstraße 5,
16225Eberswalde, Germany
2 Social-Ecological Systems Institute, Leuphana University
Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335Lüneburg, Germany
3 Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1,
21335Lüneburg, Germany
4 Centre forEconics andEcosystem Management, Eberswalde
University forSustainable Development, Schicklerstraße 5,
16225Eberswalde, Germany
5 Cawthron Institute, 98 Halifax Street East, Nelson7010,
NewZealand
6 Center ofMethods andFaculty ofSustainability, Leuphana
University, Universitätsallee 1, 21335Lüneburg, Germany
7 Fakultät Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften, Technische
Universität Dresden, Professur für Allgemeine Psychologie,
01062Dresden, Germany
8 Faculty ofPhilology andHistory, Augsburg University,
Universitätsstraße 10, 86159Augsburg, Germany
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2066 Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
Introduction
Acknowledging the need for integrated approaches to
mainstream sustainable development, the UNESCO Man
and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme promotes Biosphere
Reserves as areas dedicated both to nature conservation
and sustainable human development (UNESCO 2017).
Biosphere Reserves have three core missions: (1) biodiver-
sity conservation, (2) economic development and (3) logis-
tic support and capacity building, in particular through
research (UNESCO 1996). Scientific research is expected
to contribute to the other missions, i.e. conservation and
development. However, recent reviews have shown that
research on Biosphere Reserves has been largely confined
to the natural sciences (Kratzer 2018; Pool-Stanvliet and
Coetzer 2020). Research conducted in Biosphere Reserves
merely used these study sites for a broad range of issues,
but hardly focussed on the factors influencing a successful
implementation of the MAB Programme (Ferreira etal.
2020; Pool-Stanvliet and Coetzer 2020).
Hence, there is a need for a better appraisal of research
contributions to the MAB Programme goals and to the
effective management of Biosphere Reserves worldwide.
To gain a solid overview of scientific contributions about
Biosphere Reserves, there is a need to elicit the evolution
of the research over time and its geographic distribution.
Furthermore, as the MAB Programme calls for co-produc-
tion of knowledge, notably with participation of local com-
munities, practitioners and researchers (UNESCO 2017),
there is a need to better understand the representativity
of scientific production about Biosphere Reserves. Here,
we record the relationship between geographic location of
study sites and location of author affiliations, as well as gen-
der representation in authorship as means to capture diver-
sity and representativity in scientific production. Indeed,
in sustainability science, recent studies have criticized the
discrepancy between the geographic location of researchers
and their study sites—where researchers from the Global
North study the Global South (Brandt etal. 2013; Ghosh
2020; Sultana 2022; Zonta etal. 2023). Furthermore, while
sustainability science calls for a better representation of
women and minorities, recent findings show that women
are still often underrepresented in scientific publications
(Hofstra etal. 2020; Zonta etal. 2023). Such an overview is
so far lacking for research in Biosphere Reserves. Although
other diversity-related aspects are relevant, we focus here
on available data on the geographic distribution of study
sites versus authors’ affiliations and on the gender balance
in authorship.
Research is expected to contribute to the MAB Pro-
gramme goals, yet it seems that most publications have
been related to the natural sciences (Kratzer 2018).
Against this background, there has been an increasing call
to investigate pressing issues related to effective manage-
ment, governance and participation of relevant actors in
Biosphere Reserves (Ishwaran etal. 2008; Ferreira etal.
2020; Barraclough etal. 2023). There is a need for up-to-
date evidence about the topics addressed by research in
and about Biosphere Reserves.
Scholars have also increasingly called for more co-
productive, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches in Bio-
sphere Reserves research (van Cuong etal. 2017; Ferreira
etal. 2020; Barraclough etal. 2023). Alongside scholarly
voices for transdisciplinarity, the current MAB strategy and
its Lima Action Plan also highlight the potential role of Bio-
sphere Reserves in the operationalization of transdiscipli-
narity sustainability science. In particular, the Lima Action
Plan calls for involvement of local communities and relevant
actors in Biosphere Reserves, including Indigenous People,
women and the youth (UNESCO 2017). Yet, there is still a
lack of evidence about the deployment of transdisciplinarity
research in Biosphere Reserves worldwide.
Transdisciplinary sustainability research is increasingly
expected to promote solution-finding processes for real-
world sustainability issues (Kates etal. 2001; Lang etal.
2012; Norström etal. 2020). This field emerged rather
recently and encompasses a diverse array of approaches, e.g.
participatory research, transformative research or knowledge
co-production (Norström etal. 2020; Chambers etal. 2021).
In this article, we follow the definition proposed by Lang
etal. (2012), in that transdisciplinary sustainability science
is “a reflexive, integrative, method-driven scientific principle
aiming at the solution or transition of societal problems and
concurrently of related scientific problems by differentiat-
ing and integrating knowledge from various scientific and
societal bodies of knowledge”. The following two key fea-
tures of transdisciplinary research can be highlighted: (1)
the combination of different types of knowledge through
the participation of non-academic actors (Pohl and Hirsch
Hadorn 2008; Talwar etal. 2011; Jahn etal. 2021) and (2)
a focus on developing sustainability solutions to real-world
problems and thus producing transformative impacts (Lang
etal. 2012; Pereira etal. 2020; Chambers etal. 2021; Law-
rence etal. 2022).
Regarding the participation of non-academic actors, a
stark contrast has been identified between ideal transdisci-
plinarity (i.e. methodologies committed to strong collabo-
ration and empowerment of non-academic actors) and the
widespread application of transdisciplinary approaches,
often limited to consultations in the forms of surveys or
interviews (Brandt etal. 2013; Zscheischler and Rogga
2015; Jahn etal. 2021). Hence, the level of participation,
from consultative to collaborative to empowering (Brandt
etal. 2013), as well as the inclusion of various actor groups,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2067Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
in particular underrepresented groups (Staffa etal. 2022;
Caniglia and Vogel 2023), remain common challenges in
sustainability transdisciplinary science to date. In Biosphere
Reserves research, the limited involvement of non-academic
actors has been pointed out as well (Stoll-Kleeman etal.
2010; Reed 2016; Barraclough etal. 2021). Hence, there is
a need to better assess which actor groups are involved in
transdisciplinary research in Biosphere Reserves—and how
deeply they are involved.
As to the transformative impacts of sustainability
transdisciplinary research, there is a need for empirical
evidence about the deployment and the impacts of trans-
disciplinarity in Biosphere Reserves. Indeed, it has been
suggested that transdisciplinary research may support the
successful implementation of the MAB Programme, for
example by improving management and enhancing partici-
pation (Reed 2016; UNESCO 2017; Ferreira etal. 2020;
Barraclough etal. 2023). Few studies examine these issues
to date. One example is a comparative study of four co-
productive projects in the area of Kristianstad Vattenrike
Biosphere Reserve, in Sweden (Malmborg etal. 2022).
Here,we follow recent reviews (Brandt etal. 2013; Riech-
ers etal. 2021b; Zimmermann etal. 2023) and examine
the transformative potential of transdisciplinary research
in Biosphere Reserves in terms of (1) the different types
of produced knowledge (systems, target, transformation
and process knowledge) (Brandt etal. 2013; Lawrence
etal. 2022) and (2) the leverage points addressed, i.e. the
potential interventions, policies, innovations or practices
and their more or less systemic impacts in focal situations
(Meadows 1999, 2012; Abson etal. 2017).
This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of
Biosphere Reserves research to date. We address the identi-
fied research needs on (1) geographic and temporal evolu-
tions of Biosphere Reserves research, (2) diversity and rep-
resentativity of research production in Biosphere Reserves,
in terms of geography and gender balance, (3) current
research topics. With a focus on transdisciplinary research,
we also aim to assess (4) the participation of non-academic
actors and (5) the transformative potential of transdiscipli-
nary research for Biosphere Reserves. In this article, we refer
to Biosphere Reserves research as the research conducted
in, with or about Biosphere Reserves. For this purpose, we
carried out a systematic literature review in two steps: (1)
we analysed 3,304 scientific publications conducted in Bio-
sphere Reserves through meta-data and word occurrence
analysis, and (2) weanalysed in depth the contributions
of 336 publications from the latter, general dataset, which
applied transdisciplinary approaches. We aim to answer the
following questions:
1. How is (transdisciplinary) Biosphere Reserves research
globally distributed and how has it evolved over time?
2. Is Biosphere Reserves research representative in terms
of gender balance in authorship?
3. What topics has (transdisciplinary) Biosphere Reserves
research addressed so far?
4. Which actor groups participate in transdisciplinary
research in Biosphere Reserves and how strongly are
they involved?
5. What is the transformative potential of transdisciplinary
research in Biosphere Reserves?
Methods
Data extraction
We created a general dataset with publications from the two
databases, Web of Science and Scopus, searching for “bio-
sphere reserve*” OR “biosphere region*” OR “biosphere
area*” in the title, keywords, abstract and text. We built a
transdisciplinary dataset by identifying transdisciplinary
publications within the general dataset based on a broad
range of keywords (TableS2). The keywords selection fol-
lowed recent reviews or conceptualizations of transdisci-
plinary science (e.g. Lang etal. 2012; Brandt etal. 2013;
Knapp etal. 2019; Chambers etal. 2021; Schäfer etal.
2021). The raw datasets were cleaned and only publications
written in English and including at least one study site in
a Biosphere Reserve were selected. The detailed selection
process can be found in the supplementary material.
The data extraction and organization were carried out
by C.G. The transdisciplinary keywords were selected by
C.H.D and approved by all authors. For transparency and
accountability purposes, we follow the MeRIT guidelines
proposed by Nakagawa etal. (2023) and report throughout
the methods section who has contributed to which steps of
the study.
Coding
We encoded the selected 3304 publications, including the
336 transdisciplinary publications as follows. First, we
identified the geographic location of the study sites and of
authors’ affiliations, and recorded authors’ gender. We then
encoded the 336 transdisciplinary publications through a
full-text analysis, including the identification of non-aca-
demic actors, their level of participation in the research pro-
cess, knowledge types and leverage points (Box1).
We tagged the gender of the first and last authors, clas-
sified as female or male using genderize.io. Names with
a probability of less than 95% accuracy were tagged as
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2068 Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
unknown, as proposed by Fox etal. (2019). We acknowl-
edge the limitations and potential bias of this binary gender
approach.
For the full text analysis of the transdisciplinary data-
set, we encoded non-academic actors involved as authors
or mentioned in the acknowledgements, type and level of
involvement of actors involved in the study (Ferreira etal
2020; Brandt etal. 2013; Fritz and Binder 2020; Jahn etal.
2021). We categorized produced knowledge types and
addressed leverage points of the transdisciplinary publica-
tions (Brandt etal. 2013; Lawrence etal. 2022; Dorninger
etal. 2020; Riechers etal. 2021a; Zimmermann etal. 2023)
(Box1). See supplementary material for a detailed descrip-
tion and TableS2 for a summary of the review process. The
selection of the variables resulted from a test round of cod-
ing conducted by C.H.D, C.G., F.W., C.M. and J.H. The final
selection of variables was decided by C.H.D, C.G., F.W.,
H.v.W. and A.F.F. The coding was conducted by: F.N., S.H.,
B.d.F.A., C.H.D., C.G., F.W., C.M. and J.H. and the data
cleaning by C.H.D., C.G. and F.W.
Box1. Assessing transformative impacts
oftransdisciplinary publications
throughknowledge types andleverage points
1. Knowledge types
Different knowledge types have been identified based
on the different objects of study in transdisciplinary
research (e.g. Hirsch Hadorn etal. 2006; Brandt etal.
2013; Lawrence etal. 2022). Systems knowledge explores
the history, root causes and functioning of specific sit-
uations and systems, e.g. exploring the root causes of
ecosystem degradation. Target knowledge contributes
insights into how a situation should or could be, for
example studying local actors’ preferences towards dif-
ferent land use and management systems. Transforma-
tion knowledge explores how to change a situation to the
desired outcomes, and how solutions could be imple-
mented, for instance studying how to foster value and
behaviour shifts. Finally, process knowledge addresses
how to carry out transdisciplinary research, e.g. sharing
insights on ethical requirements for transdisciplinary pro-
cesses or developing new methodologies for participa-
tion. In this review, we assumed that transdisciplinary
studies have stronger transformative impacts when they
produce target or transformation knowledge rather than
systems knowledge.
2. Leverage points
Leverage points refer to interventions’ shallow or deep
impacts on a targeted system, i.e. the capacity of interven-
tions to radically change a system (Meadows 1999, 2012;
Abson etal. 2017). For instance, the level of parameters
targets very shallow leverage points, such as adapting the
level of resource use quota (Fischer and Riechers 2019).
These shallow leverage points are rather easy to imple-
ment, but have limited systemic impacts. Feedbacks refer
to systemic interactions and feedback loops between ele-
ments of a system, such as delays and time in which the
ozone hole can change after a stop on emissions (Fischer
and Riechers 2019). Design leverages are more radical
in that they affect information flows, the way systems are
structured and organized and the power to change the sys-
tems rules, such as changes in policies or self-regulation
of communities (Abson etal. 2017). Finally, leverages
on the intent level, such as value shifts and institutional
change, are more difficult to implement but are expected
to have strong systemic, radical outcomes (Abson etal.
2017; Riechers etal. 2022). We categorized transdisci-
plinary publications according to whether they produced
knowledge about interventions targeting parameters, feed-
backs, design and/or intent and assumed that transdisci-
plinary publications have stronger transformative impacts
when they address deep (design and intent), rather than
shallow (parameters and feedbacks) leverage points.
Data analysis
To identify clusters within the body of literature we examined,
we used a multivariate statistical approach first developed by
Abson etal. (2014). We created a corpus containing all words
within each individual publication and reduced this exhaustive
list to words included in at least 5% of the publications. This
list was then manually refined to contain only words that trans-
port a meaning, thereby excluding stopwords. Clusters were
then derived based on a cluster analysis using Wards method,
aiming to identify relatively equally sized groups. Based on an
indicator species analysis (Dufrene and Legendre 1997), we
identified significant indicator words for each group, which
were subsequently visualized in a detrended correspondence
analysis. This linguistic analysis was conducted for the whole
dataset as well as for the subset of papers containing a trans-
disciplinary approach. We used the R programming language
v.4.3.1 (R Core Team 2023) with RStudio v.2023.06.1 + 524
(Rstudio Team 2023) for all descriptive statistics and analyses.
C.G., F.W. and H.v.W. analysed and visualized the datasets.
Results
Research inBiosphere Reserves
Spatial distribution
Our analysis of 3,304 scientific publications showed a
research focus on Biosphere Reserves in North America
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2069Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
with 27%, Asia with 25% and Europe with 22% of all pub-
lications (Fig.1). Mexican and Indian Biosphere Reserves
were most represented with 825 and 390 publications,
respectively (see Box2). As of 2023, 35% of the 748
Biosphere Reserves designated by UNESCO to date were
located in Europe, followed by Asia and North America.
The share of publications per continent for the general
dataset and the transdisciplinary dataset were relatively
indifferent compared to each other. Europe had the highest
number of general studies and, together with Mexico, the
highest number of transdisciplinary studies. Studies with a
transdisciplinary approach were predominantly conducted
in Europe, North America and particularly Mexico and
India (see Box2). Having a high number of designated
Biosphere Reserves did not translate, however, into a high
number of publications in the same country, with Mexico
being a notable exception (Fig.S1).
Research in Biosphere Reserves was primarily con-
ducted in the continent of the first author’s affiliation
(Fig.2A). The institutions of the first and last authors also
tended to be in the same continents. This regional research
focus applied to the transdisciplinary publications on Bio-
sphere Reserves as well (Fig.2B). Nonetheless, a recurrent
pattern can be observed: if researchers from Europe and
North America study Biosphere Reserves outside of the
Global North, they focus on the Asian and African con-
tinents; while hardly any researchers from Asia or Africa
work in the Global North.
Temporal distribution
The annual number of publications about Biosphere
Reserves increased from a few publications during the late
1970s to more than 300 in 2020 (Fig.3A). Generally, we
observed an increasing trend of annually published studies
compared to the number of designated Biosphere Reserves,
which is highlighted by numbers on the logarithmic scale
(Fig.3B, supplementary material Fig.S4). UNESCO desig-
nated substantially more Biosphere Reserves per year start-
ing in the mid-1990s. Participating states can, and did in the
past, withdraw a Biosphere Reserve from the world network,
if the goals do not comply with the statutory framework or
for other reasons (UNESCO 2024).
We explored global trends at the continent level (Sup-
plementary Material, Fig.S2). There have been designated
Biosphere Reserves in all continents (excluding Antarctica)
since the late 1970s. The number of publications from North
America (including Mexico) increased from the mid-1990s,
Fig. 1 World map of the general dataset with 3304 publications of
research in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. The colour coding illus-
trates the number of publications on Biosphere Reserves per country.
The two countries with the highest numbers of general studies are
India with 390 and Mexico with 825 studies. The countries with the
highest numbers of transdisciplinary studies are highlighted: Mexico
73, India 23 and Ethiopia 13. The share of publications per continent
for 336 transdisciplinary publications and the general 3304 pub-
lications is depicted in the pie charts. Bar plot: Share of Biosphere
Reserves per continent considering all 748 designated Biosphere
Reserves as of 2023
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2070 Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
faster than in other continents, while the number of stud-
ies from Europe, Asia (including India) and South America
increased only after 2000. Annual publications from Afri-
can Biosphere Reserves saw only little growth until the
mid-2010s, after which they experienced a steep increase.
First publications from Central America and Oceania also
appeared during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but num-
bers remain relatively low until today. Overall, there is an
overproportional (compared to the share of designated Bio-
sphere Reserves) amount of publications originating from
Asian, North American, South American and lately African
Biosphere Reserves, while European, Oceanian and Central
American Biosphere Reserves tend to be underrepresented
in published research. Publications of transdisciplinary stud-
ies in Biosphere Reserves increased most notably after 2000
(Fig.3A in red). The share of transdisciplinary publications
to all publications increased over time, but fluctuated over
the years (Fig.3Band C).
Gender representation inauthorship
We identified a higher percentage of male first authors (48%)
and last authors (55%), compared to female first authors
(31%) and last authors (24%) for publications studying Bio-
sphere Reserves (Fig.4). Female first authors work with
male (51%) and female (41%) last authors, whereas male
first authors mostly work with male last authors (70%) (see
Supplementary Material, Fig.S3A). The pattern was similar
across continents, although South America and Asia had
higher numbers of female first authors. In South America
there were even more female first authors than male first
authors. There is likely a geographic bias in these results due
to a very high share of unknown gender for Asia, Africa and
Oceania. This originates from genderize.io generally show-
ing lower accuracies for non-Western names. With 43% male
and 47% female first authors, the ratio for publications with
a transdisciplinary approach was closer to parity, although
55% of the last authors were male and only 32% female.
Regardless of the continent, the transdisciplinary publica-
tions showed a more balanced ratio than the general dataset
(see Supplementary Material, Fig.S3B). It shifted not exclu-
sively from male to female author shares, but showed a lower
share of unknown gender in the transdisciplinary studies.
For additional percentages, see the interactive supplemen-
tary material of the online version of this article.
Research clusters
We identified seven clusters best suited to describe the
thematic foci of the publications on Biosphere Reserves
(Fig.5A). Publications with a social focus, including words
such as participation, interviews or governance, covered
similar research areas than publications on perspectives of
people and cultural studies. Most of the transdisciplinary
publications belonged to the participation group (within the
general dataset). Spatial studies, using words such as maps
and pixel, were found close to the participation and culture
clusters. Publications focusing on the biological environ-
ment, including words such as water and sediment, grouped
close to microbiological publications, with words such as
acid, bacteria or microbial. Botanical studies, represented
by words such as vegetation and abundance, were grouped
First author
Africa 7 %
Asia 22 %
Central America 1
%
Europe 31 %
North America 32
%
Oceania 1 %
South America 7 %
Africa 9 %
Asia 25 %
Central America 3 %
Europe 22 %
North America 28 %
Oceania 0 %
South America 10 %
Transcontinental 2 %
Study area
Africa 8 %
Asia 17 %
Central America 0 %
Europe 41 %
North America 27 %
Oceania 3 %
South America 4 %
Africa 13 %
Asia 20 %
Central America 4 %
Europe 26 %
North America 24 %
Oceania 1 %
South America 7 %
Transcontinental 4
%
First author Study area
A) General B) Transdisciplinary
n = 3304 n = 336
Fig. 2 Geographic location of first authors’ institution at the time of publication, in relation to the location of the study areas for A the general
dataset and B the transdisciplinary dataset
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2071Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
close to studies on genes. The share of publications with a
focus on people, using words such as rural, sustainable and
cultural (Fig.5B, C, culture), decreased over time, while
the share of publications with words such as participation,
governance and actors increased (Fig.5B, C, participation).
We found more clusters with a focus on natural sciences
for publications in the general dataset than for transdiscipli-
nary publications. The transdisciplinary studies were clus-
tered in groups of social and political sciences within the
general dataset. Generally, clusters were more delineated and
separated in the general dataset than in the transdisciplinary
publications.
We identified five natural clusters best suited to describe
the topics of transdisciplinary publications on Biosphere
Reserves (Fig.6A). Research clusters focusing on politics
were grouped, while studies on ethnobotany were most dis-
tant. Publications tackling deforestation and degradation
increased over time (Fig.6B, C, degradation), as well as
those focussing on collaborations and stakeholder engage-
ment (Fig.6B, C, collaboration).
Actor participation intransdisciplinary research
Land users, Indigenous People, government organizations and
Biosphere Reserves management bodies were most frequently
involved in transdisciplinary publications on Biosphere
Reserves. In comparison, youth and women groups were least
frequently involved (Fig.7). Despite this general pattern, some
differences can be identified among clusters of publications.
Ethnobotany-related research largely involved Indigenous
People and land users, and also showed a higher involvement
of women groups compared to other research clusters. Publi-
cations included in the politics cluster showed, in general, a
higher diversity of actors.
Regarding the extent of participation, actors were predomi-
nantly involved in a consultative role (98%). Manystudies
(41%) built on collaboration with non-academic actors in the
study design and only few publications (7%) reported about
empowering actors. Fifty-three of the 336 transdisciplinary
publications (16%) were (co-)authored by participating actors.
Of all publications with a transdisciplinary approach, 51%
acknowledged the actors, regardless of the type of participation.
A
0
200
400
600
0
50
1
00
1
50
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Published studies / BRs
TD
s
t
ud
i
es
B
0
2
4
6
8
1980 1990200020102020
Year
log scale
C
0
5
10
15
20
2000 2010 2020
Share of TD studies
Fig. 3 A Cumulative number of designated Biosphere Reserves
(BRs) in yellow, annual numbers of general publications in blue
n = 3304 and transdisciplinary publications (TD) in red n = 336 from
1975 to 2023 (note the different y-axis scales). B The same on the log
scale. C Share of transdisciplinary publications in the general dataset
from 1995 onwards
Fig. 4 Share of the gender (binary) of the first and last author for the
general dataset (top) and for the transdisciplinary dataset (bottom).
Each dataset is visualized with its overall shares (large circles) and
differentiated per continent of the study area (smaller circles). Abso-
lute numbers (general/transdisciplinary): overall (3,304/336), North
America (924/82), Asia (834/67), Europe (720/89), South America
(335/23), Africa (306/44), Oceania (12/3) and Central America
(111/14). Transcontinental studies were excluded from this figure
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2072 Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
Transformative potential oftransdisciplinary
research
We identified the creation of systems knowledge for most of
the 336 transdisciplinary publications (Fig.7). Few studies
produced transformative (28%) or process knowledge (28%).
This is reflected in the research clusters as well. Highest
shares of target knowledge were identified in the (environ-
mental) degradation, collaboration and politics research
clusters. Process knowledge was mainly discussed in the
collaboration and politics research clusters.
We found leverage points at a design level in 44% and at a
feedback level in 37% of the transdisciplinary publications.
Parameters and intent were least studied. A rather large
number of studies did not specifically explore any inter-
ventions (39%). Patterns were again similar in all research
clusters, although the highest shares of design and intent
leverage points were found in the collaboration and politics
research clusters.
Discussion
Temporal andspatial trends inBiosphere Reserves
research
Our results showed that scientific publications about Bio-
sphere Reserves have increased steadily in the last decades,
A
BC
Clusters
D
Transdisciplinary
publications
75% 13%
8%
Fig. 5 Research clusters of 3304 publications of research in Bio-
sphere Reserves: A Detrended component analysis results of the clus-
ters. B Annual total numbers, C annual share and a D pie chart show-
ing the representation of these groups in the transdisciplinary dataset
(n = 336) only (top right)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2073Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
in line with recent reviews (Kratzer 2018; Ferreira etal.
2020). However, the number of publications on Biosphere
Reserves can be expected to increase substantially, as the
number of scientific publications published annually is
generally increasing (Fire and Guestrin 2019). The share
of transdisciplinary studies in Biosphere Reserves has
increased slightly in comparison to all Biosphere Reserves
research, in accordance with a general uptake of transdis-
ciplinary research in sustainability science (Brandt etal.
2013; Ghodsvali etal. 2019). The Seville Strategy, in 1995,
recognized the need for more social sciences and humani-
ties in exploring good practices for the implementation of
the MAB programme, and the most recent MAB strategy
calls for biosphere reserves to operationalize sustainabil-
ity science using transdisciplinary approaches (UNESCO
2017). While these strategies have set agendas and proposed
relevant issues for governance and research, Biosphere
Reserves are still widely dedicated to nature conservation
(Reed 2016; Pool-Stanvliet and Coetzer 2020)—and Bio-
sphere Reserves research is still more broadly dedicated to
natural sciences, in which transdisciplinarity plays a limited
role so far.
Spatial trends in Biosphere Reserves research revealed
that Europe, North America (mostly Mexico) and Asia
(mostly India) contributed most publications, in both the
general and transdisciplinary datasets. The particularly
high number of publications from Mexico and India has
been pointed out in recent reviews (Kratzer 2018; Ferreira
etal. 2020). These numerous publications are likely due to
funding opportunities from dedicated governmental agen-
cies and specific research institutions with long-standing
research history in those areas (Box2). Although most
researchers studied areas on the same continent as their
professional affiliation, researchers located in the Global
North worked in Biosphere Reserves in the Global South
more often than the other way around, as was identified
A
BC
Clusters
Fig. 6 Research clusters in transdisciplinary publications in Biosphere Reserves (n = 336). A Word cloud of research fields with five clusters, B
Annual total numbers and C Annual share
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2074 Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
in recent reviews in Biosphere Reserves research (Ferreira
etal. 2020), and in transdisciplinary research (Brandt etal.
2013). In Africa, this pattern was even more pronounced
for transdisciplinary research, with an even higher pro-
portion of publications than in the general dataset being
produced by researchers affiliated to Europe. These results
may concur with what has been identified as a neocolonial
pattern in scientific publications across many disciplines
(Dahdouh-Guebas etal. 2003), in particular in climate and
sustainability science (Sultana 2022, 2023), as well as trans-
disciplinary sustainability research (Zonta etal. 2023). To
address power imbalances and neocolonialism in sustain-
ability science, scholars have, for example, proposed strat-
egies to centre knowledge, philosophies and people from
the Global South (Chilisa 2017; Sultana 2023)—or meth-
odologies and practices to foster reflexivity, safe spaces,
respect and meaningful benefits for communities (Pereira
etal. 2020; Thambinathan and Kinsella 2021; Reed etal.
2023). In this regard, we acknowledge that the authors’ team
is international and interdisciplinary, mostly affiliated in
Europe, and that we thus proposed a perspective from the
Global North.
Box2. Focus onBiosphere Reserves research
inMexico andIndia
With 25% (825 publications) and 22% (73 publica-
tions), respectively, scientists from Mexico published
the most general and transdisciplinary studies on Bio-
sphere Reserves as compared to all other countries.
Of the 41 designated Mexican Biosphere Reserves,
Calakmul, La Sepultura, El Viscaino, Sian Kaan and
Mariposa Monarca were mostly studied with a transdis-
ciplinary research design with six to ten studies each.
There seems to be several catalysts for transdisciplinary
research in Mexico: The National Council for Science
and Technology in Mexico (CONACYT) subsidized
22 of the 73 transdisciplinary studies with grants and
scholarships. 12 transdisciplinary papers were written
by scientists of the National Autonomous University of
Mexico. Additionally, “El Colegio de la Frontera Sur,
Unidad Campeche (ECOSUR)” subsidized 10 of the
transdisciplinary papers with knowledge, financial and
logistical support.
India has 12 designated Biosphere Reserves and
represented 12% of the general publications related
Fig. 7 Shares of actor groups, their involvement type, generated
knowledge types and leverage points in transdisciplinary publications,
overall (far left) and for the five assigned research clusters. Shares for
the categories of the individual variables do not add up to 100% as
more than one or none of the categories could be valid for a single
study. * Five studies were not assigned to any actor group
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2075Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
to Biosphere Reserves. Remarkably, the MAB pro-
gramme in India was only launched in 1986 and the
first Biosphere Reserve was established in 2000. All 23
transdisciplinary papers on Indian Biosphere Reserves
were conducted in five Biosphere Reserves, namely
Nanda Devi (11), Khangchendzonga (5), Nilgiri (3),
Sunderban (3) and Nokrek (1). The GB Pant Institute
of Himalayan Environment and Development alone
supported one-third of the transdisciplinary research
papers and may therefore act as a catalyst for transdis-
ciplinary research.
Publications on Biosphere Reserves in Mexico and
India increased considerably in the last 10years (Fig.
Box2). In Mexico, UNESCO designated 18 new Bio-
sphere Reserves only in 2006. Both countries are char-
acterized by distinct and highly vulnerable biodiversity,
comprising priority regions for global conservation
(Olson and Dinerstein 2002). Conservational efforts in
both countries are high and research is supported. In
Mexico, the National Commission of Natural Protected
Areas (CONANP) manages and supports the Network of
Biosphere Reserves, protecting in total more than 12% of
Mexican land. In India government agencies, such as the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and
the National Biodiversity Authority provide support for
scientific studies and conservation initiatives. The high
research output in Mexico and India could be related to
external funding as well. Mexico and India are amongst
the highest recipients of biodiversity aid. From 1980 to
2008, India was first and Mexico fourth place with 9%
and 3%, respectively, of worldwide biodiversity funding
(Miller etal. 2013).
A
0
20
40
60
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Number of studies / BRs
Mexico (n=825)
B
0
10
20
30
40
50
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Share of studies / BRs
C
0
20
40
60
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Number of studies / BRs
India (n=390)
D
0
10
20
30
40
50
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Share of studies / BRs
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2076 Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
Fig. Box2 Number of annually published studies in
blue and cumulative number of designated Biosphere
Reserves in yellow from 1975 to 2023 for Mexico (A)
and India (C). Share of annual publications and desig-
nated Biosphere Reserves after 2000 for Mexico (B) and
India (D)
Gender representation inBiosphere Reserves
research
Biosphere Reserves research involved significantly fewer
female than male authors across all continents. There were
significantly fewer female last authors, often considered
as principal investigators (PIs). These results are in line
with recent reviews showing that women are still under-
represented in science, especially when it comes to senior
positions (Huang etal. 2020; Hofstra etal. 2020; Ross etal.
2022). In transdisciplinary research in Biosphere Reserves,
the share of female authors increased remarkably in com-
parison to the general dataset, although it remained well
below parity. Why women proportionally authored more
transdisciplinary publications remains unclear. Global
reviews have shown that women are better represented in
specific disciplines, e.g. political science and psychology
(Huang etal. 2020), or brain science and jurisprudence
(Holman etal. 2018). However, there is no clear evidence
so far, and to our knowledge, about the representation of
women in sustainability science, or in transdisciplinary
research. Our results call for a stronger commitment to
gender equality in (transdisciplinary) Biosphere Reserves
research. Many guidelines have been provided to address
gender inequalities in science. Examples include feminist
and slow scholarship (Mountz etal. 2015), mother-friendly
measures within research laboratories (Leventon etal.
2019), policies against early-career dropout (Cardel etal.
2020) and a feminist ethos of care in transdisciplinary sus-
tainability science (Staffa etal. 2022). We acknowledge that
gender is only one aspect of diversity and representativity
in science and that there is a need to better understand other
relevant aspects beyond gender.
Research clusters
The research clusters in the general dataset revealed a
disciplinary gradient, from social sciences dedicated to
participation and culture, to natural sciences dedicated to
species-related studies. However, most clusters included
publications investigating topics related to microorganisms,
water, species, vegetation and spatial analysis. It is likely
that this part of the research mostly contributes knowledge
to the conservation mission of the MAB programme, while
broadly generating interest and attention about Biosphere
Reserves. Note, however, a slight increase in the number of
publications dedicated to participation—which in turn might
contribute to a better understanding of how to implement
the human development mission of the MAB programme.
While these results confirm recent findings showing that
most research in Biosphere Reserves is still restricted to
natural sciences (Kratzer 2018; Pool-Stanvliet and Coetzer
2020), the clusters also pinpointed a potential developing
trend towards issues of participation and governance.
Within the general dataset, transdisciplinary publications
were located mostly in the clusters related to participation
and spatial studies, i.e. closer to clusters related to social sci-
ences. This seems unsurprising, as the call for more transdis-
ciplinarity in Biosphere Reserves is closely related to a need
for effective management, acceptance by local communities
or participatory governance (Ishwaran etal. 2008; Ferreira
etal. 2020; Barraclough etal. 2023).
Transdisciplinary research in Biosphere Reserves also
revealed a gradient from publications with a governance
focus (politics and discourses) to social–ecological and
ecological studies (ethnobotany, domestication, medicinal).
Topic-wise, current transdisciplinary research in Biosphere
Reserves could be classified into five clusters: ethnobotany,
degradation, ecotourism, politics and collaboration. These
transdisciplinary clusters were less differentiated than
those in the general dataset, suggesting that there are no
clear schools within transdisciplinary research in Biosphere
Reserves. The politics and collaboration clusters accounted
for most publications, with a shared focus on governance.
Therefore, Biosphere Reserves seem to be used merely
as interesting and logistically attractive sites to carry out
research, rather than as objects of research per se. The anal-
yses also highlighted a coherent, albeit developing, litera-
ture bundle aiming to address issues related to Biosphere
Reserves governance and management, and to the successful
implementation of the MAB Programme and Agenda 2030
for Sustainable Development. There is still much room to
explore conditions for successful Biosphere Reserves gov-
ernance—and to highlight the contributions of the World
Network of Biosphere Reserves to support place-based
knowledge co-production in sustainability science (Barra-
clough etal. 2023).
Actor participation intransdisciplinary research
To better understand the participation of non-academic
actors in transdisciplinary Biosphere Reserve research, we
also analysed which actor groups were involved in trans-
disciplinary publications and to what extent. Our analy-
sis revealed that land users, governmental and Biosphere
Reserve representatives, but also Indigenous People were
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2077Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
involved in many studies, regardless of research clusters.
It has been shown that transdisciplinary research too often
relied on elite participants, e.g. government or large NGOs,
while underrepresented groups are often least involved
(Turnhout etal. 2020). While this holds true in our study for
women and youth, it is remarkable that Indigenous People
were involved in more than half of the transdisciplinary stud-
ies. Note that Indigenous People, women, the youth and local
communities are mentioned as target groups for effective and
equitable participatory planning in the most recent MAB
strategy (UNESCO 2017). Nonetheless, participation was
very limited, usually to extracting information through e.g.
interviews, questionnaires or surveys. This transdisciplinary
theory–practice gap has been identified in former reviews
(Brandt etal. 2013; Jahn etal. 2021). Barriers to collabora-
tive and empowering practices include funding contexts that
e.g. require short-term results (Jahn etal. 2021), difficul-
ties in ensuring participation of various actors (Lang etal.
2012; Lawrence etal. 2022) or underlying power relations
and conflicts that fail to be addressed (Turnhout etal. 2020;
Pereira etal. 2020). The aspirational character of transdis-
ciplinarity has been criticized as an extractive, power-laden
and often neocolonial pattern that should be addressed more
stringently in research (Zonta etal. 2023). To address this
theory–practice gap, guidelines and recommendations have
been provided—notably calling for a radical engagement
with power relations and conflicts (Ghosh 2020; Turnhout
etal. 2020; Pereira etal. 2020; Fritz and Binder 2020; Barra-
clough etal. 2023). An exemplary study reporting about
empowering processes was found in Rivera-Arriaga etal.
(2021), who reported about participatory governance pro-
cesses in collaboration with governmental, scientific and
Mayan community representatives, to prevent ecological
degradation and address local socio-political issues in Los
Petenes Biosphere Reserve (Mexico).
Transformative potential oftransdisciplinary
research
Our analysis showed that most transdisciplinary studies were
limited in their transformative potential. Most studies were
restricted to producing systems knowledge, i.e. to understand
the current state and root causes of a specific system or issue.
This held true for all research clusters. The Ethnobotany
cluster produced even less target, transformation or process
knowledge than all other clusters. This cluster seemed to
build on citizen science to collect e.g. botanical data and to
provide insights based on local people’s knowledge, such
as Indigenous People and land users. On the contrary, the
collaboration and politics clusters featured a stronger trans-
formative potential, with more studies producing target and
transformation knowledge. Yet, these results confirm the
aspirational character of transdisciplinary research (Brandt
etal. 2013; Zscheischler and Rogga 2015; Turnhout etal.
2020) and call for a stronger engagement to produce trans-
formative and solution-oriented knowledge, notably to sup-
port Biosphere Reserves management and the successful
implementation of the MAB programme (Barraclough etal.
2023). An example of a study producing knowledge about
potential solutions for a Biosphere Reserve (target knowl-
edge) can be found in Choudhary etal. (2021), in which
strategies are developed for community-based tourism, with
the goal to ensure conservation and rural development in the
Majang Forest Biosphere Reserve (Ethiopia).
This review showed that transdisciplinary studies had
mixed results in addressing concrete interventions for trans-
formative change at different leverage points. For instance, a
large part of the publications (regardless of research clusters)
did not address any particular intervention, and only a quar-
ter of all studies addressed interventions at intent level or
the deepest leverage. These mixed results mirror recent lit-
erature reviews on leverage points in research about various
social–ecological systems (Dorninger etal. 2020; Riechers
etal. 2021a; Zimmermann etal. 2023). The collaboration
and politics clusters seemed more impactful than all others,
with many studies addressing deep leverage points at design
and intent level. While the Lima Action Plan (UNESCO
2017) calls for inter- and transdisciplinary research to better
understand how to improve the management and governance
of Biosphere Reserves, there is much room to address poten-
tial interventions in this regard. Strengthening research that
addresses issues of collaboration, politics and governance
could enhance this transformative potential and help bridge
the gap between the concept of Biosphere Reserves and its
implementation. An example of a study addressing deep lev-
erage points can be found in Sharip etal. (2018). The study
involves local actors to identify management challenges and
formulate recommendations for improved local communica-
tion and coordination for environmental protection and gov-
ernance in the Tasik Chini Biosphere Reserve (Malaysia).
Methodological challenges
Systematic literature reviews face common methodologi-
cal challenges. Following recent reviews about Biosphere
Reserves research (Kratzer 2018; Ferreira etal. 2020) and
transdisciplinary research (Brandt etal. 2013; Zscheischler
and Rogga 2015; Ghodsvali etal. 2019), we concentrated on
publications available to a broad international readership,
i.e. written in English in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We acknowledge that publications in other languages might
be relevant for a complete overview of global literature to
date, notably for transdisciplinary research.
To study diversity in authorship, we followed recent
reviews (Fox etal. 2019; Hofstra etal. 2020; Ross etal.
2022) in categorizing authors as female, male or unknown
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2078 Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
gender based on their first names, using the genderize.io
algorithm. Further empirical data would be necessary for
a better understanding of authorship diversity and intersec-
tionality. We acknowledge that this algorithm was based on a
binary understanding of gender and did not account for other
gender identities. This algorithm also revealed a geographic
bias, as first names of authors affiliated in Asia and Africa
were significantly more often categorized as unknown than
in Europe or North America. These results call for more
precise and gender-sensitive tools. Furthermore, information
about all co-authors would give a more accurate overview,
for example for fields where the second author is usually
the PI.
Finally, we followed a common procedure in reviewing
transdisciplinary research through peer-reviewed publica-
tions only (Brandt etal. 2013; Ghodsvali etal. 2019). How-
ever, transdisciplinary research still rarely monitors societal
impacts in scientific publications (Newig etal. 2019; Jahn
etal. 2021; Schäfer etal. 2021) and impacts may become
visible only in the long term (Pereira etal. 2020; Cham-
bers etal. 2021). Thus, we acknowledge that gray literature
could support a more precise evaluation of the transforma-
tive potential of transdisciplinary research (Jahn etal. 2021;
Schäfer etal. 2021; Chambers etal. 2021). Our review ana-
lysed the research landscape related to Biosphere Reserves
and consequently the results are restricted to this branch of
science.
Conclusion
The World Network of Biosphere Reserves provides ample
opportunities for knowledge co-production about a wide
array of sustainability issuesand for contributing to global
scientific debates with place-based insights. Yet, this review
showed that a large portion of Biosphere Reserves research
is located on few continents with a focus on natural sci-
ences. Definitely, transdisciplinary research has contrib-
uted to exploring the conditions for successful Biosphere
Reserves governance. However, there is room for enhancing
the transformative potential of Biosphere Reserves research.
In this regard, a stronger commitment to gender equality,
decolonial practices, empowering forms of participation and
knowledge integration about a broader range of topics is
necessary. Further procedures and resources are required to
promote transdisciplinarity research by easing data sharing,
funding, publication management and supporting collabora-
tions with different Biosphere Reserves’ actors (Eberswalde
Declaration; Aschenbrand etal. 2023). The formulation of
the new roadmap for the MAB Programme for the period of
2025–2035 can constitute a unique opportunity to integrate
such principles for transdisciplinary sustainability research
in the MAB Programme and in the work of Biosphere
Reserves worldwide. This would be essential to transform
research in Biosphere Reserves towards research about and
with Biosphere Reserves and thereby to highlight them as
model regions for sustainability transformations.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 024- 01542-1.
Acknowledgements We thank Martin Balas for contributing to initial
concept development and publication selection trials at an earlier stage
of this paper. We thank Jahia Ifill Knobloch and Parker Myers for con-
tributing to the coding of publications. We are grateful for the useful
comments of the two anonymous reviewers.
Author contributions Conceptualization: C.H.D, C.G., F.W., H.v.W.,
A.F.F., J.H., C.M., P.L.I, V.L. Investigation: C.H.D, C.G., F.W., J.H.,
C.M., F.N., S.H., B.d.F.A. Data curation: C.H.D, C.G., F.W., H.v.W.,
A.F.F., J.J. Formal analysis: C.G., F.W., H.v.W. Methodology: C.H.D,
C.G., F.W., H.v.W., A.F.F. Visualization: C.G., F.W., H.v.W. Funding
acquisition: P.L.I., V.L., J.H., C.H.D., C.G., A.F.F. Project administra-
tion: C.H.D, C.G., A.F.F. Supervision: C.H.D, C.G., H.v.W., A.F.F.
Writing—original draft: C.H.D, C.G., H.v.W., J.J., F.N., S.H., B.d.F.A.
Writing—review and editing: C.H.D, C.G., F.W., H.v.W., A.F.F., P.L.I.,
C.M., J.J., J.H., V.L.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt
DEAL. All authors except P.L.I., V.L. and H.v.W. were funded through
the Biosphere Reserves Institute and the Innovation and Career Center
“ProBio-LaB” by the Ministry of Science, Research and Culture of the
federal state of Brandenburg.
Data availability Data can be made available upon request.
Declarations
Conflict of interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-
financial interests to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J,
Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walms-
ley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustain-
ability. Ecol Econ 103:29–37
Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier
U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, Lang DJ
(2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio
46(1):30–39
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2079Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
Aschenbrand E, Gräbener U, Ibisch PL, Luthardt V, Matias DM,
Mutschler LM (2023) Science and research in, for, and with UNE-
SCO biosphere reserves. In: Conference proceedings, including
the Eberswalde declaration. Biosphere Reserves Institute, Eber-
swalde University for Sustainable Development. Eberswalde,
Germany
Barraclough AD, Schultz L, Måren IE (2021) Voices of young bio-
sphere stewards on the strengths, weaknesses, and ways forward
for 74 UNESCO biosphere reserves across 83 countries. Glob
Environ Chang 68:102273
Barraclough AD, Reed MG, Coetzer K, Price MF, Schultz L, Moreira-
Muñoz A, Måren I (2023) Global knowledge–action networks
at the frontlines of sustainability: insights from five decades of
science for action in UNESCO’s World Network of biosphere
reserves. People Nat 5(5):1430–1444
Bartlett C, Marshall M, Marshall A (2012) Two-eyed seeing and other
lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together
indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J
Environ Stud Sci 2(4):331–340
Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F,
Abson DJ, von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary
research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15
Caniglia G, Vogel C (2023) On being oriented: strengthening trans-
gressive orientations in transdisciplinary sustainability research
through queer theory. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 32(1):167–171
Cardel MI, Dean N, Montoya-Williams D (2020) Preventing a second-
ary epidemic of lost early career scientists. Effects of COVID-19
pandemic on women with children. Ann ATS 17(11):1366–1370
Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A,
Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA,
Goldstein BE, Klenk NL, Tengö M, Brennan R, Cockburn JJ,
Hill R, Munera C, Nel JL, Österblom H, Bednarek AT, Bennett
EM, Brandeis A, Charli-Joseph L, Chatterton P, Curran K, Dum-
rongrojwatthana P, Durán AP, Fada SJ, Gerber J-D, Green JMH,
Guerrero AM, Haller T, Horcea-Milcu A-I, Leimona B, Montana
J, Rondeau R, Spierenburg M, Steyaert P, Zaehringer JG, Gruby
R, Hutton J, Pickering T (2021) Six modes of co-production for
sustainability. Nat Sustain 4(11):983–996
Chilisa B (2017) Decolonising transdisciplinary research approaches:
an African perspective for enhancing knowledge integration in
sustainability science. Sustain Sci 12(5):813–827
Choudhary CK, Fakana Selemon T, Mengist AB (2021) Conserva-
tion of Majang forest biosphere reserve: an opportunity conser-
vation of Majang forest biosphere reserve: south west Ethiopia.
Asian J Conserv Biol 10(2):280–296
Coetzer KL, Witkowski ETF, Erasmus BFN (2014) Reviewing
biosphere reserves globally: effective conservation action or
bureaucratic label? Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 89(1):82–104
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Ahimbisibwe J, van Moll R, Koedam N (2003)
Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least
developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing. Scientomet-
rics 56(3):329–343
Dorninger C, Abson DJ, Apetrei CI, Derwort P, Ives CD, Klaniecki
K, Lam DP, Langsenlehner M, Riechers M, Spittler N, von
Wehrden H (2020) Leverage points for sustainability transfor-
mation: a review on interventions in food and energy systems.
Ecol Econ 171:106570
Dufrene M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator
species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol
Monogr 67(3):345
Ferreira AF, Zimmermann H, Santos R, von Wehrden H (2020) Bio-
sphere reserves’ management effectiveness—a systematic litera-
ture review and a research agenda. Sustainability 12(14):5497
Fire M, Guestrin C (2019) Over-optimization of academic publish-
ing metrics: observing Goodhart’s Law in action. GigaScience.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ gigas cience/ giz053
Fischer J, Riechers M (2019) A leverage points perspective on sustain-
ability. People Nat 1(1):115–120
Fox CW, Duffy MA, Fairbairn DJ, Meyer JA (2019) Gender diver-
sity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review
process at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecol Evol
9(24):13636–13649
Fritz L, Binder CR (2020) Whose knowledge, whose values An empiri-
cal analysis of power in transdisciplinary sustainability research.
Eur J Futures Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s40309- 020- 0161-4
George C, Reed MG (2017) Operationalising just sustainability:
towards a model for place-based governance. Local Environ
22(9):1105–1123
Ghodsvali M, Krishnamurthy S, de Vries B (2019) Review of transdis-
ciplinary approaches to food-water-energy nexus: a guide towards
sustainable development. Environ Sci Policy 101:266–278
Ghosh A (2020) Deconstructing a 2-year long transdisciplinary sus-
tainability project in Northern universities: is rhetorical nobil-
ity obscuring procedural and political discords? Sustain Sci
15(4):1111–1127
Hirsch Hadorn G, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006)
Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol
Econ 60(1):119–128
Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D,
McFarland DA (2020) The diversity-innovation paradox in sci-
ence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117(17):9284–9291
Holman L, Stuart-Fox D, Hauser CE (2018) The gender gap in sci-
ence: how long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biol
16(4):e2004956
Huang J, Gates AJ, Sinatra R, Barabási A-L (2020) Historical compari-
son of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and
disciplines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117(9):4609–4616
Ishwaran N, Persic A, Tri NH (2008) Concept and practice. The case
of UNESCO biosphere reserves. IJESD 7(2):118
Jahn S, Newig J, Lang DJ, Kahle J, Bergmann M (2021) Demarcating
transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—five clusters
of research modes based on evidence from 59 research projects.
Sustain Dev 30(2):343–357
Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy
JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin
GC, Grübler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE,
Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B, O’Riordan T,
Svedlin U (2001) Environment and development. Sustainability
science. Science 292(5517):641–642
Knapp CN, Reid RS, Fernández-Giménez ME, Klein JA, Galvin
KA (2019) Placing transdisciplinarity in context: a review of
approaches to connect scholars. Soc Action Sustain 11(18):4899
Kratzer A (2018) Biosphere Reserves research: a bibliometric analysis.
Ecomont 10(2):36–49
Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P,
Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sus-
tainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain
Sci 7(S1):25–43
Lawrence MG, Williams S, Nanz P, Renn O (2022) Characteristics,
potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth
5(1):44–61
Leventon J, Roelich K, Middlemiss L (2019) An academic mother’s
wish list: 12 things universities need. Nature. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1038/ d41586- 019- 00019-x
Malmborg K, Wallin I, Brukas V, Do T, Lodin I, Neset T-S, Norström
AV, Powell N, Tonderski K (2022) Knowledge co-production in
the Helge å catchment: a comparative analysis. Ecosyst People
18(1):565–582
Meadows D (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system.
The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, USA
Meadows DH (2012) Thinking in systems. A primer. Taylor and Fran-
cis, Hoboken
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2080 Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
Miller DC, Agrawal A, Roberts JT (2013) Biodiversity, governance,
and the allocation of international aid for conservation. Conserv
Lett 6(1):12–20
Mountz A, Bonds A, Mansfield B, Loyd J, Hyndman J, Walton-Rob-
erts M, Basu R, Whitson R, Hawkins R, Hamilton T, Curran W
(2015) For slow scholarship: a feminist politics of resistance
through collective action in the neoliberal university. ACME
14(4):1235–1259
Nakagawa S, Ivimey-Cook ER, Grainger MJ, O’Dea RE, Burke S,
Drobniak SM, Gould E, Macartney EL, Martinig AR, Morrison
K, Paquet M, Pick JL, Pottier P, Ricolfi L, Wilkinson DP, Willcox
A, Williams C, Wilson LAB, Windecker SM, Yang Y, Lagisz M
(2023) Method reporting with initials for transparency (MeRIT)
promotes more granularity and accountability for author contribu-
tions. Nat Commun 14(1):1788
Newig J, Jahn S, Lang DJ, Kahle J, Bergmann M (2019) Linking modes
of research to their scientific and societal outcomes. evidence from
81 sustainability-oriented research projects. Environ Sci Policy
101:147–155
Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P,
Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell
BM, Canadell JG, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA, Gaffney O,
Gelcich S, Jouffray J-B, Leach M, Le Tissier M, Martín-López
B, Louder E, Loutre M-F, Meadow AM, Nagendra H, Payne D,
Peterson GD, Reyers B, Scholes R, Speranza CI, Spierenburg M,
Stafford-Smith M, Tengö M, van der Hel S, van Putten I, Österb-
lom H (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustain-
ability research. Nat Sustain 3(3):182–190
Olson DM, Dinerstein E (2002) The Global 200: priority ecoregions
for global conservation. Ann Mo Bot Gard 89(2):199
Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V, Hahn T, Schultz L (2007) Enhancing the
fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining
bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vat-
tenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. E&S. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5751/
ES- 01976- 120128
Pereira L, Frantzeskaki N, Hebinck A, Charli-Joseph L, Drimie S, Dyer
M, Eakin H, Galafassi D, Karpouzoglou T, Marshall F, Moore
M-L, Olsson P, Siqueiros-García JM, van Zwanenberg P, Vervoort
JM (2020) Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from
nine cases in the Global South. Sustain Sci 15(1):161–178
Plummer R, Baird J, Dzyundzyak A, Armitage D, Bodin Ö, Schultz
L (2017) Is adaptive co-management delivering? Examining
relationships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in
UNESCO biosphere reserves. Ecol Econ 140:79–88
Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2008) Methodological challenges of trans-
disciplinary research. Nat Sci Soc 16(2):111–121
Pool-Stanvliet R, Coetzer K (2020) The scientific value of UNESCO
biosphere reserves. S Afr J Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17159/ sajs.
2020/ 7432
Pool-Stanvliet R, Stoll-Kleemann S, Giliomee JH (2018) Criteria for
selection and evaluation of biosphere reserves in support of the
UNESCO MAB programme in South Africa. Land Use Policy
76:654–663
Reed MG (2016) Conservation (in)action: renewing the relevance of
UNESCO biosphere reserves. Conserv Lett 9(6):448–456
Reed MG, Abernathy P (2018) Facilitating co-production of transdis-
ciplinary knowledge for sustainability: working with Canadian
biosphere reserve practitioners. Soc Nat Resour 31(1):39–56
Reed MG, Godmaire H, Abernethy P, Guertin M-A (2014) Building a
community of practice for sustainability: strengthening learning
and collective action of Canadian biosphere reserves through a
national partnership. J Environ Manage 145:230–239
Reed MG, Robson JP, Campos Rivera M, Chapela F, Davidson-Hunt
I, Friedrichsen P, Haine E, Johnston ABD, Lichtenstein G, Lynes
LS, Oloko M, Sánchez Luja M, Shackleton S, Soriano M, Sosa
Peréz F, Vasseur L (2023) Guiding principles for transdisciplinary
sustainability research and practice. People Nat 5(4):1094–1109
Riechers M, Brunner BP, Dajka J-C, Dușe IA, Lübker HM, Manlosa
AO, Sala JE, Schaal T, Weidlich S (2021a) Leverage points for
addressing marine and coastal pollution: a review. Mar Pollut Bull
167:112263
Riechers M, Loos J, Balázsi Á, García-Llorente M, Bieling C, Burgos-
Ayala A, Chakroun L, Mattijssen TJ, Muhr MM, Pérez-Ramírez
I, Raatikainen KJ, Rana S, Richardson M, Rosengren L, West
S (2021b) Key advantages of the leverage points perspective to
shape human–nature relations. Ecosyst People 17(1):205–214
Riechers M, Fischer J, Manlosa AO, Ortiz-Przychodzka S, Sala JE
(2022) Operationalising the leverage points perspective for empir-
ical research. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 57:101206
Rivera-Arriaga E, Williams-Beck L, Vidal Hernández LE, García
Arjona ME (2021) Crafting grassroots’ socio-environmental gov-
ernance for a coastal biosphere rural community in Campeche,
Mexico. Ocean Coast Manage 204:105518
Ross MB, Glennon BM, Murciano-Goroff R, Berkes EG, Weinberg
BA, Lane JI (2022) Women are credited less in science than men.
Nature 608(7921):135–145
Schäfer M, Bergmann M, Theiler L (2021) Systematizing societal
effects of transdisciplinary research. Res Eval. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1093/ resev al/ rvab0 19
Schultz L, Lundholm C (2010) Learning for resilience? Exploring
learning opportunities in biosphere reserves. Environ Educ Res
16(5–6):645–663
Schultz L, Duit A, Folke C (2011) Participation, adaptive co-man-
agement, and management performance in the world network of
biosphere reserves. World Dev 39(4):662–671
Sharip Z, Majizat A, Suratman S (2018) Socio-economic and insti-
tutional assessment of Malaysia’s first biosphere reserve: Chini
Lake. Lakes Reservoirs 23(2):104–116
Staffa RK, Riechers M, Martín-López B (2022) A feminist ethos for
caring knowledge production in transdisciplinary sustainability
science. Sustain Sci 17(1):45–63
Stanvliet R, Jackson J, Davis G, de Swardt C, Mokhoele J, Thom Q,
Lane BD (2004) The UNESCO biosphere reserve concept as a
tool for urban sustainability: the CUBES Cape Town case study.
Ann N Y Acad Sci 1023:80–104
Stoll-Kleeman S, de La Vega-Leinert AC, Schultz L (2010) The role
of community participation in the effectiveness of UNESCO bio-
sphere reserve management: evidence and reflections from two
parallel global surveys. Environ Conserv 37(3):227–238
Sultana F (2022) The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Polit
Geogr 99:102638
Sultana F (2023) Whose growth in whose planetary boundaries? Decol-
onising planetary justice in the Anthropocene. Geogr Environ.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ geo2. 128
Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustain-
ability research. Sci Pub Policy 38(5):379–390
Thambinathan V, Kinsella EA (2021) Decolonizing methodologies in
qualitative research: creating spaces for transformative praxis. Int
J Qual Methods 20:160940692110147
Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E (2020) The poli-
tics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation.
Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42:15–21
UNESCO (1996) Biosphere reserves: the Seville Strategy and the statu-
tory framework of the world network. UNESCO, Paris, France
UNESCO (2017) A new roadmap for the man and biosphere (MAB)
programme and its world network of biosphere reserves. MAB
strategy (2015–2025), Lima action plan (2016–2025). Lima Dec-
laration, Paris, France
UNESCO (2024) Designation and review process. https:// www. unesco.
org/ en/ mab/ wnbr/ desig nation? hub= 66369. Last Accessed April
24, 2024
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2081Sustainability Science (2024) 19:2065–2081
van Cuong C, Dart P, Hockings M (2017) Biosphere reserves: attributes
for success. J Environ Manage 188:9–17
Vogel C, O’Brien K (2022) Getting to the heart of transformation.
Sustain Sci 17(2):653–659
Walk H, Luthardt V, Nölting B (2020) Participatory learning for trans-
disciplinary science in biosphere reserves. In: Reed MG, Price
MF (eds) UNESCO biosphere reserves. Supporting biocultural
diversity, sustainability and society. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon,
New York, NY, pp 297–308
Zimmermann S, Dermody BJ, Theunissen B, Wassen MJ, Divine LM,
Padula VM, von Wehrden H, Dorresteijn I (2023) A leverage
points perspective on Arctic indigenous food systems research: a
systematic review. Sustain Sci 18(3):1481–1500
Zonta AL, Jacobi J, Mukhovi SM, Birachi E, von Groote P, Abad CR
(2023) The role of transdisciplinarity in building a decolonial
bridge between science, policy, and practice. GAIA Ecol Perspect
Sci Soc 32(1):107–114
Zscheischler J, Rogga S (2015) Transdisciplinarity in land use sci-
ence—a review of concepts, empirical findings and current prac-
tices. Futures 65:28–44
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com