Ecology and SocietyEcology and Society
 E&S Home > Vol. 21, No. 1 > Art. 28
The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Cockburn, J., M. Rouget, R. Slotow, D. Roberts, R. Boon, E. Douwes, S. O’Donoghue, C. T. Downs, S. Mukherjee, W. Musakwa, O. Mutanga, T. Mwabvu, J. Odindi, A. Odindo, Ş. Procheş, S. Ramdhani, J. Ray-Mukherjee, Sershen, M. C. Schoeman, A. J. Smit, E. Wale, and S. Willows-Munro. 2016. How to build science-action partnerships for local land-use planning and management: lessons from Durban, South Africa. Ecology and Society 21(1):28.

How to build science-action partnerships for local land-use planning and management: lessons from Durban, South Africa

1School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, 3School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, 4Department of Genetics, Evolution, and Environment, University College, London, 5Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, eThekwini Municipality, 6School of Liberal Studies, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru, India, 7Department of Town and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, 8Biodiversity and Conservation Biology Department, Faculty of Natural Science, University of the Western Cape


The gap between scientific knowledge and implementation in the fields of biodiversity conservation, environmental management, and climate change adaptation has resulted in many calls from practitioners and academics to provide practical solutions responding effectively to the risks and opportunities of global environmental change, e.g., Future Earth. We present a framework to guide the implementation of science-action partnerships based on a real-world case study of a partnership between a local municipality and an academic institution to bridge the science-action gap in the eThekwini Municipal Area, South Africa. This partnership aims to inform the implementation of sustainable land-use planning, biodiversity conservation, environmental management, and climate change adaptation practice and contributes to the development of human capacity in these areas of expertise. Using a transdisciplinary approach, implementation-driven research is being conducted to develop several decision-making products to better inform land-use planning and management. Lessons learned through this partnership are synthesized and presented as a framework of enabling actions operating at different levels, from the individual to the interorganizational. Enabling actions include putting in place enabling organizational preconditions, assembling a functional well-structured team, and actively building interpersonal and individual collaborative capacity. Lessons learned in the case study emphasize the importance of building collaborative capacity and social capital, and paying attention to the process of transdisciplinary research to achieve more tangible science, management, and policy objectives in science-action partnerships. By documenting and reflecting on the process, this case study provides conceptual and practical guidance on bridging the science-action gap through partnerships.
Key words: biodiversity conservation; boundary organization; climate change adaptation; collaboration; environmental management; sustainable development; transdisciplinary research.


A disconnect between scientific knowledge and implementation of such knowledge on the ground is apparent in many fields that seek to address sustainability challenges, including biodiversity conservation, environmental management, and climate change adaptation (Moser and Dilling 2011, Cook et al. 2013, Knight 2013, O’Brien 2013, Swilling 2014, van Kerkhoff 2014). For example, despite the recognized importance of management and conservation of threatened ecosystems (Keith et al. 2013), few scientific recommendations published in mainstream conservation journals are fully implemented (Whitten et al. 2001, Knight et al. 2008), and practical conservation and environmental management actions are not always informed by best-available science (Pullin et al. 2004, McNie 2007). This phenomenon has been termed in various ways, including the “theory-implementation gap” (Arlettaz et al. 2010), the “knowing-doing gap” (Pfeffer and Sutton 2000, Knight et al. 2008), the “knowledge-action boundary” (Cook et al. 2013), the “science-policy nexus” (Gaffy 2008) or “interface” (Swilling 2014), the “science-management divide” (Roux et al. 2006), or the “science-action gap” (Reyers et al. 2010), which we use here. As a result of the difficulties in closing such gaps, calls have been made in the literature for scientists and practitioners to jointly address sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and climate change (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006, Knight et al. 2008, Arlettaz et al. 2010, Moser and Dilling 2011, Laurance et al. 2012, Cook et al. 2013). Although we recognize that several forms of knowledge, such as local indigenous knowledge and lay knowledge, play an important role in informing practice (Maiello et al. 2013), this study focuses on the two-way linkages between scientific knowledge generated at academic research institutions and the work of practitioners in local government whereby research can inform practice, and practice can inform research.

The science-action gap

Bridging the gap between science and action is increasingly important given the complexity of most environmental problems and the need to involve a broad range of stakeholders (Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2007a, Shackleton et al. 2009, Pooley et al. 2014, van Kerkhoff 2014). Potential reasons for the science-action gap in sustainability challenges have been well documented and include the following:

Transdisciplinary research to bridge the science-action gap

Numerous solutions have been proposed to bridge the science-action gap, including, for example, integration science, which makes links to complexity thinking (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006, van Kerkhoff 2014), coproduction of knowledge and the need to build coproductive capacity (Wyborn 2015), joint knowledge production (Hegger et al. 2014), evidence-based conservation (Stewart et al. 2005), conservation partnerships (Stelzer and Kashian 2014), mental models (Biggs et al. 2011), learning organizations (Cowling et al. 2008, O’Farrell and Anderson 2010), boundary organizations (McNie 2007, Franks 2010), and transdisciplinary research (Max-Neef 2005, Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2007b, Lang et al. 2012). The case study presented in this paper explicitly takes a transdisciplinary research approach to bridge the science-action gap.

Transdisciplinarity offers an integrative form of knowledge generation and decision making based on research collaborations among scientists from different disciplines and stakeholders from business, government, and civil societies (Pohl 2008, Rice 2013, Sitas et al. 2014, Swilling 2014). For the purpose of this study we use the following definition of transdisciplinarity (Lang et al. 2012:26): “Transdisciplinarity is a reflexive, integrative, method-driven scientific principle aiming at the solution or transition of societal problems and concurrently of related scientific problems by differentiating and integrating knowledge from various scientific and societal bodies of knowledge.” For scientists, this means collaborating across disciplines, and with practitioners and policy makers and other stakeholders to address societal problems; for practitioners, this means working with scientists to improve implementation practices, through more effective problem solving.

Despite calls in the literature for conservation and environmental researchers to address the science-action gap, along with suggested models for how this might be done, few successful case studies have been published in the literature (but see Roux et al. 2006, Shackleton et al. 2009, Arlettaz et al. 2010). There is also as a lack of methodological development for integrated research and action (van Kerkhoff 2014). Examples of either theory or empirical insights from practice in the developing country context are also scarce, although research from South Africa on the science-action gap in conservation (Roux et al. 2006, Knight et al. 2008, Reyers et al. 2010), ecosystem services (Cowling et al. 2008, Sitas et al. 2014), and sustainability science (Swilling 2014, Cundill et al. 2015) is growing. We aim to address these gaps in the literature and contribute to the growing field of transdisciplinary research to bridge the science-action gap.


Land-use planning for environmental sustainability

Local land-use decisions can have negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, for example through habitat loss and transformation (Seto et al. 2012). Mitigation of such impacts, however, can be achieved through incorporation of biodiversity management and climate change adaptation into local land-use planning and decision-making processes (Roberts et al. 2012). For many years, eThekwini Municipality has incorporated environmental sustainability principles into local land-use planning and decision making (Roberts and Diederichs 2002), which has raised the profile of biodiversity management and climate change adaptation in the city (see Appendix 1).

Land-use planning and decision making should be underpinned by credible scientific research, and concomitant engagement with all relevant stakeholders (Cilliers et al. 2014). This is particularly important in contexts where land is a strategic and politically contested resource, as it is in the eThekwini Municipal Area. Successful environmental planning and management requires highly skilled people, influential decision makers, a sound scientific, evidence-based knowledge foundation, and the political will to implement policies (Sitas et al. 2014). The shortage of human capacity and specialist skills in local government departments working on biodiversity and environmental matters has been identified not only in Durban (Roberts et al. 2012) but also elsewhere in South Africa (Wilhelm-Rechmann and Cowling 2011, Funke and Nienaber 2012, Ivey et al. 2013). Recognition of this capacity shortage, and the need to close the science-action gap in Durban, led to the development of the Durban Research Action Partnership described below (Roberts et al. 2012).

Case study overview: introducing the research partnership

Acknowledgement of the need to close the science-action gap has led to several calls, from the international to the local level, to develop innovative solutions to address the challenges and opportunities of global environmental research (e.g., Future Earth, In Durban, South Africa, this resulted in the development of a research partnership initiated by eThekwini Municipality’s (EM) Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department with a local tertiary institution, the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), known as the Durban Research Action Partnership (D’RAP; Roberts et al. 2012). EThekwini Municipality (referred to hereafter as the Municipality) is the local government authority in the city of Durban. Durban is located within a global biodiversity hotspot, the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot (Steenkamp et al. 2004), and contains a number of endangered ecosystems, including the KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld (KZNSS) grassland (Mucina and Rutherford 2006), which is the current focus of the research partnership, through the implementation of the KZNSS Research Program (Appendix 1).

Setting up partnerships takes time and resources, and this critical lead-in stage is often overlooked (Pooley et al. 2014). Although D’RAP was formally founded in 2011, the history of its development goes back to the early 2000s, at which time EM and UKZN staff engaged in various joint activities to build capacity within the Municipality and to up-skill university graduates for positions therein. These various engagements over a period of eight years laid the foundations for the success of the partnership in the long-term through open, honest working relationships and trust-building (Harris and Lyon 2013). A detailed account of the history of the partnership is presented in Appendix 2. The methods and empirical data sources used in development of the case study are described in Appendix 3.

The Durban Research Action Partnership explicitly addresses the science-action gap, while at the same time addressing a critical local skills shortage within the fields of biodiversity management and climate change adaptation. It seeks to better manage a threatened ecosystem through researching the impacts of global change (with a particular focus on climate change) on biodiversity and ecosystems, within an urban landscape in a developing country. The research is conducted primarily by postgraduate students, who are supervised by principal investigators across a variety of disciplines, including ecology, molecular biology, agricultural economics, geography, environmental science, and conservation planning and management. Research projects are jointly developed by the partners, but are driven by the management and decision-making knowledge needs of eThekwini Municipality. The research partnership is core-funded by eThekwini Municipality, with researchers leveraging additional funds from the university and other sources. The secretariat of the partnership is based in the Land Use Planning and Management research group at the university, which provides administrative, financial, and advisory support for the partnership. The partnership has a strong focus on communication across the science-action divide, capacity building, and emphasizes a social learning approach in which continuous evaluation and reflection play an important role.


Through its 11-year journey, D’RAP has built a strong foundation for long-term collaboration. The lessons learned through this process have been synthesized into a framework of recommendations for successful implementation of science-action partnerships (Fig. 1). The framework consists of four broad enabling actions, each one based on a number of specific factors. The four broad enabling actions are as follows: (a) explicitly address the science-action gap, (b) put in place enabling organizational preconditions, (c) assemble a functional well-structured team, and (d) actively build interpersonal and individual collaborative capacity. The enabling actions operate at a number of different levels, which are nested in one another from the level of the individual, to the team and intra- and interorganizational levels. For each enabling action, we highlight in detail some of the key factors to provide practical insights from our experiences which may be useful to others involved in similar initiatives.

Action a: Explicitly address the science-action gap

Recognizing the challenges of working at the science-action interface is crucial to the success of such partnerships (Knight et al. 2008, Lang et al. 2012). This is the first enabling action of the framework presented here (Fig. 1a). It operates at the interorganizational level and provides an overarching enabling environment for the other three enabling actions, operating at lower levels. This action should therefore be put in place quite early in the partnership. To achieve this, D’RAP established an overarching vision that operationalized a transdisciplinary research model and we discuss here two key contributing factors: building a boundary organization and developing a joint conceptual research framework.

Building a boundary organization

The Durban Research Action Partnership can be interpreted as a boundary organization, which explicitly recognizes the boundary between science and society, and acknowledges the cultural and institutional barriers to the implementation of scientific research (McNie 2007, Cook et al. 2013). The transdisciplinary research process, in which such boundary organizations engage, can be divided into a number of stages. (Lang et al. 2012; Fig. 2). The research partnership developed in line with these stages as follows:

Building the boundary organization, through the development of a collaborative, transdisciplinary research team in D’RAP, required a high level of commitment from the leaders and initiators of the partnership. This is typical of such partnerships, where many barriers need to be overcome (Rice 2013). These barriers, which are widely reviewed in the literature, include the following: difficulty in overcoming disciplinary and institutional boundaries, differences in work cultures across institutions, different language and frames of reference, limited funding opportunities, institutional rewards and incentives that do not encourage transdisciplinary research, high time and resource investments required, deficiency in skills required to manage integrative research processes, and the high level of communication and facilitation required for success (Pohl 2008, Rice 2013, Goring et al. 2014, Pooley et al. 2014).

Developing boundary organizations that focus on social learning processes to bridge the science-action divide requires sustained long-term interactions between role-players, and it is often the improved knowledge-sharing capacity of the respective institutions that have greater impacts on the ground than the actual research outputs (Shackleton et al. 2009). The research partnership experienced many of the barriers described above. For example, early on in the partnership, Dr. Debra Roberts (cofounder of the partnership) described meetings between academics from the university and practitioners from eThekwini Municipality as “tense” (D. Roberts, personal communication, 2014). There were different expectations from the two parties. There were financial, administrative, and program coordination problems because of a shortage of staff, which also generated frustration among participants. Since inception of the research partnership in 2011, some attrition has occurred, with some participants, who did, however, provide helpful criticism, leaving the partnership. It appears that the younger, emerging researchers were inclined to be more flexible as was required for the transdisciplinary research approach. This highlights some of the difficulties that might be encountered when building such a boundary organization. It is not simply about the codesign of research programs and the cogeneration of knowledge, but also about building social capital through the development of new working relationships and networks (Gray 2008, Harris and Lyon 2013), good communication skills (Stokols et al. 2003), building trust (McNie 2007, Cheruvelil et al. 2014), and developing the collaborative capacity of participants (Hall et al. 2008; Boxes 2 and 3). Critical to all of these is enabling leadership, which fosters an environment of innovation, adaptation, and learning (Galuska 2014).

Joint development of a conceptual research framework

The process of developing a shared conceptual research framework can become a tangible expression of the joint research vision of a collaborative partnership (Morse et al. 2007). To successfully bridge the science-action gap, research should be designed with implementation in mind (Knight et al. 2008). More importantly, the researchers and implementers have to work together in a balanced way on the design of the research agenda, plan of action, and implementation strategies (Gray 2008). This constitutes a key lesson learned through this and other similar partnerships (Morse et al. 2007, Arlettaz et al. 2010; Fig. 1a). As D’RAP progressed (into Stage B, Fig. 2), a more focused conceptual research framework was developed. This ensured that proposed research projects were better aligned with the Municipality’s research needs for biodiversity management and climate change adaptation (Appendix 4).

Action b: Put in place enabling organizational preconditions

The second enabling action involves a range of organizational preconditions required to operationalize a transdisciplinary research approach (Hall et al. 2008; Fig. 1b and Box 1). We found that enabling leadership (Galuska 2014) was critical for setting the tone and developing shared mental models for the partnership. Other factors include transparency, inclusive participation, sharing of resources, and good communication (Gray 2008). We focus the discussion on continuous evaluation and reflection, one of the enabling organizational preconditions that has been given particular prominence in D’RAP.

Box 1: Enabling organizational preconditions required for successful science-action partnerships and how these were implemented in the Durban Research Action Partnership (indicated as bullet points below each enabling factor):

Transparency and accountability (Harris and Lyon 2013)
  • Planning and decision-making meetings open to participants from both institutions
  • Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) available to everyone
  • Oversight and accountability through reporting to parent organizations as stipulated in the MOA
Broad and inclusive participation with influence over decisions (Galuska 2014)
  • Cast the net wide: Participation in the partnership open to all university researchers, across disciplines
  • Team members from both the university and Municipality given opportunity to shape the partnership
Sharing resources rather than monopolizing
  • Research project funding evenly shared between researchers, i.e., senior researchers did not receive disproportionately larger amounts
Institutional support: In-principle support of the partnership as well as project support, e.g., administrative and financial (Goring et al. 2014)
  • High-level institutional support secured by both partners early on
  • Insufficient administrative and financial support at the start. In response, resources were mobilized and support staff were appointed specifically for the partnership.
Formal, binding contractual agreement between institutions (Harris and Lyon 2013)
  • MOA signed between university and Municipality, which laid out the rules of engagement
Suitable incentives for partners with different objectives (Harris and Lyon 2013)
  • Formal incentives have not yet been fully developed
  • For researchers: publish more joint papers, university to recognize their participation in collaborative research
  • For practitioners: better alignment of research projects with practitioners’ responsibilities
Good communication: internal and external (Galuska 2014)
  • Numerous and varied opportunities for face-to-face communication, e.g., regular meetings, working groups, field trips.
  • External communication about the program through presentations and articles in local publications such as magazines and newsletters.
Clarify expectations (Goring et al. 2014)
  • The KZNSS Research Program experienced some tensions around expectations in the early stages: taking time to clarify expectations from both parties may have reduced such tensions.
Actively building social capital (Cheruvelil et al. 2014)
  • Leaders propose collaborations among specific researchers for integration across disciplines
  • Social capital could be improved by spending more time on social engagements outside of the formal work environment to improve interpersonal engagement
Continuous evaluation and reflection (Stokols et al. 2003, Roux et al. 2010)
  • Formal evaluation (of both outcomes and process) is on-going and specific time is allocated for these activities
  • Evaluation activities are participatory and include opportunities for reflection at individual and team level.

Continuous evaluation and reflection

Collaborative, transdisciplinary research partnerships require continuous, reflective evaluation (Stokols et al. 2003, Roux et al. 2010). Assessing the process of research within such a partnership is critical because the process itself needs to be effective if useful information is to be generated (McNie 2007), and it is only through reflective evaluation that team members themselves can learn about the transdisciplinary process (Roux et al. 2010). Thus, a process evaluation was initiated in D’RAP (Ferreyra and Beard 2007) to understand participants’ perceptions of the following: science outcomes; collaborative management outcomes, as measured through the following indicators: each individual’s personal increase in scientific understanding, capacity building, and alliance building; and the administrative and financial arrangements of the program.

The process evaluation was conducted in two phases: First, an electronic, anonymous questionnaire was circulated to all participants of the program, and second a workshop was held during which the results were “mirrored back” to the participants (Engeström, 1987) and they were asked to reflect on the results and on their participation in the program as a whole (Ferreyra and Beard 2007). For the reflection process, participants were asked to record two items on a card: (1) what they would like to change about the partnership, and (2) what they would not like to change about the partnership. As part of the evaluation questionnaire, participants were asked to suggest solutions to the challenges that were faced in the program. The following themes for improvement were identified:

Participants felt the program as a whole generated more knowledge about biodiversity and ecosystems than the other knowledge objectives, e.g., climate change. They also expressed that the less tangible social capital and networking outcomes, i.e., the building of collaborative capacity, were at that time more successful than the more tangible science and policy outcomes (Fig. 3). Constraints experienced by participants were mostly logistical in nature, including time constraints and a shortage of financial and administrative support. These constraints have been identified elsewhere as typical problems in collaborative, transdisciplinary research partnerships (McNie 2007, Goring et al. 2014). Other challenges identified included clashes between the different organizational cultures (Rice 2013) and finding suitable program participants (Pooley et al. 2014). These concerns will be addressed in the planning for Phase 2 of the KZNSS Research Program.

In parallel to this process evaluation, an outcome evaluation of research projects was also conducted, which took the form of a comparative gap analysis. The overall program objectives and the Municipality’s research questions were compared to the results and outcomes from each of the research projects. The outcome evaluation showed the following key weaknesses of the research: (1) social and governance research aspects are not adequately addressed, (2) insufficient research focus on climate change within individual projects, and (3) local communities are not directly involved. Further details of this evaluation were published in internal project reports (see Appendix 3).

These issues are critical because the research framework illustrates the linkages between human impacts and reliance on ecosystems (Appendix 4). It is clear that these links should be better understood through social research. The Municipality does engage with communities around issues of biodiversity management (Roberts et al. 2012, eThekwini Municipality 2013). However, such engagements are currently not an explicit part of the research partnership. Without direct engagement with communities the partnership risks alienating itself from both the communities that rely on the benefits of biodiversity in the city of Durban, and those communities that may be having negative impacts on biodiversity (Graham and Ernstson 2012). The coordination team is constantly seeking ways to respond to issues raised during the evaluation activities to ensure on-going, active participation and well-being of participants and relevance of the research not only to practitioners and policy makers at the Municipality, but also to local communities living in the eThekwini Municipal Area.

Action c: Assemble a functional, well-structured team

The third enabling action emphasizes the importance of assembling a functional, well-structured team. Although enabling organizational preconditions can be put in place by leaders (Gray 2008, Galuska 2014), these will only lead to success if teams and participants have certain characteristics to take advantage of the conducive environment (Cheruvelil et al. 2014). Therefore, team composition and interpersonal and intrapersonal or individual factors, i.e., collaborative capacity (Hall et al. 2008), play a critical role in the success of a science-action partnership (Morse et al. 2007). Assembling a functional, well-structured team means that coordination teams need to recruit participants who can fulfil certain roles or functions within the team, which include among others enabling leaders, institutional champions, and brokers (Hall et al. 2008, Wale et al. 2009, Long et al. 2013; Box 2; Fig. 1c). Identifying suitable participants to fulfil these roles formed part of the “Consolidating” phase of D’RAP.

Box 2: Key factors required in the team assembly of science-action partnerships and how these were implemented in the Durban Research Action Partnership:

Enabling leaders (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007, Galuska 2014)
  • Enabling leadership was demonstrated by the primary leaders[1] from both the Municipality and the university.
  • A secondary level of leadership was introduced into the partnership, which maintained an enabling model of leadership.
Institutional champions (Wale et al. 2009)
  • Both primary leaders, from the Municipality and the university, are well respected and hold high positions in their institutions.
Brokers or boundary spanners (Long et al. 2013)
  • Secondary leaders from the university and the Municipality, along with their support staff, acted as brokers.
  • The role of brokers is multifaceted: they can act as “buffers” or as “glue” to bridge the gap between institutional cultures. Both these roles were fulfilled by secondary leaders and support staff.
Content champions (Gray 2008)
  • Among the secondary leaders, those with technical and scientific competencies directly relevant to the research goals of the partnership played an important role.
Process champions (Gray 2008, Wale et al. 2009)
  • Among the secondary leaders and support staff, some showed particular competencies in leading the process and actively contributing to building bridges, facilitating learning and ensuring on-going evaluation and reflection.
Helpful critics
  • Some research participants did not remain involved in the research partnership because they were dissatisfied with the process.
  • Their criticisms were useful feedback for the process leaders and forced reflection on some of the challenges that participants face in crossing traditional boundaries.
Administrative support staff (Goring et al. 2014)
  • When the research partnership was launched there was a shortage of administrative support staff that hampered progress and frustrated participants.
  • Since the appointment of such people in the partnership, participants are less burdened by project administration.
[1]Note: The primary leaders were the two leaders who initiated the overall the Durban Research Action Partnership (Appendix 2). A secondary leader from each of the institutions was then appointed to implement and manage the KZNSS Research Program. The primary leaders then took a more supportive role.

Action d: Actively build collaborative capacity at interpersonal and individual levels

Last, collaborative capacity, the individual participant’s or team’s ability to effectively collaborate (Hall et al. 2008, Stokols et al. 2008), is the fourth enabling action to build successful partnership (Fig. 1d). The critical interpersonal processes and individual characteristics required for science-action partnerships are shown in Box 3.

Constructive interpersonal processes must be actively promoted if science-action partnerships are to succeed (Harris and Lyon 2013, Long et al. 2013). The ability of leaders or coordination teams to promote such constructive processes, such as building relationships, building trust, and managing conflict will of course depend on both the team assembly as well as the individual characteristics of participants. Examples of how such constructive interpersonal processes were promoted in D’RAP are shown in Box 3.

Transdisciplinary research, as implemented in science-action partnerships, may not be suited to all kinds of people, and it can be difficult to find the right people (Cheruvelil et al. 2014). The collaborative capacity of individuals, i.e., their personal characteristics and ability to effectively collaborate in a transdisciplinary team, can make a significant impact at multiple levels of the science-action partnership, from interpersonal relationships to the functioning of the team and the efficacy of the boundary organization itself (Morse et al. 2007). Specific personal characteristics that are valuable in science-action research teams, and how these were evident in D’RAP, are shown in Box 3, and include, for example, flexibility and adaptability, patience, openness, and past experience of similar partnerships.

Box 3: Building collaborative capacity: critical interpersonal processes and individual characteristics required for science-action partnerships and how these were implemented in the Durban Research Action Partnership:

Part 1: Promoting constructive interpersonal processes
Building new relationships (Harris and Lyon 2013)
  • Leaders had a long-established working relationship that helped their respective teams to trust each other (Appendix2).
  • Open and frank discussions and negotiations in planning the partnership provided the basis for a good working relationship
Building trust (Harris and Lyon 2013)
  • Trust was built on demonstrated delivery over time, especially during the lead-in phase of the partnership (Appendix 2).
  • Suitable secondary leaders, acting as brokers, were recruited, and continued building relationships and trust through implementation of the KZNSS program
Managing conflict (Long et al. 2013)
  • Secondary leaders and support staff played an important role in managing conflict between individuals.
  • Individuals have to be more conscious of the need for conflict management when crossing disciplinary and institutional boundaries.
Part 2: Seeking out and developing individuals with critical individual characteristics
Flexibility and adaptability (Morse et al. 2007)
  • Participants showed willingness to shape own research and practice expectations and activities to meet joint visions and outcomes.
  • Flexibility was particularly evident among younger, emergent researchers
Patience (Morse et al. 2007)
  • Some team members were frustrated by the slow pace at which the partnership developed and generated knowledge; they left early.
  • Those who demonstrated patience and were able to “see the bigger picture” have remained and are reaping the benefits.
Commitment to the collaborative process (Morse et al. 2007)
  • Despite some difficulties in the early stages of setting up the partnership, the majority of participants persevered and prioritized the partnership in their work, met deadlines, and contributed time and intellectual input.
Openness: ability to innovate, experiment, and learn (Harris and Lyon 2013, Galuska 2014)
  • Emergent researchers were more open to new ideas than established researchers may have been.
  • Most participants demonstrated a willingness to learn about “the other side,” i.e., research or practice, and about other disciplines.
  • Participants were prepared to jointly develop a conceptual framework, even if it took a different approach to their discipline.
Experience of similar collaborations (Harris and Lyon 2013)
  • Those leaders and participants who had previous experiences of either a similar collaborative program, or had worked with each other before, appeared to more easily adjust to the demands of the transdisciplinary process and build relationships.


To contribute to solving societal problems, institutions must recognize the importance of explicitly bridging the science-action gap to address complex, interlinked social-ecological problems (Max-Neef 2005, Shackleton et al. 2009). This requires bridging traditional disciplinary and institutional boundaries through a transdisciplinary process (Lang et al. 2012) and investing in building collaborative capacity (Hall et al. 2008, Cheruvelil et al. 2014). By documenting and reflecting on such a process, this case study has provided conceptual and practical guidance on bridging the science-action gap through partnerships. This includes the following:

Through continuous evaluation and reflection of successes and failures, we have established that this partnership is on a successful trajectory based on the following aspects: (1) strong working relationships growing over time; (2) trust and social capital developed; (3) human capacity built; and (4) implementation-driven knowledge generated. The success of this partnership lies not necessarily in completely bridging the gap and reaching all the research and implementation objectives, because this is a work in progress, but in building the partnership and thereby creating suitable conditions and mechanisms needed to bridge the gap. We encourage similar partnership initiatives to use and evaluate our framework, and to document individual case studies to fast-track the learning on how to establish effective transdisciplinary boundary organizations in a wide range of contexts.


Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a response, follow this link. To read responses already accepted, follow this link.


The authors would like to acknowledge funding from eThekwini Municipality and from the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa. Thank you to Dr. B. Egoh and Dr. G. Cundill for reviewing earlier versions of the manuscript. The students and other participants in the KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld Research Programme are thanked for their participation in this science-action partnership, particularly for the feedback they provided in the process evaluation questionnaire. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments and suggestions that assisted us greatly in improving the paper.


Arlettaz, R., M. Schaub, J. Fournier, T. S. Reichlin, A. Sierro, J. E. M. Watson, and V. Braunisch. 2010. From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60(10):835-842.

Biggs, D., N. Abel, A. T. Knight, A. Leitch, A. Langston, and N. C. Ban. 2011. The implementation crisis in conservation planning: could “mental models” help? Conservation Letters 4(3):169-183.

Cheruvelil, K. S., P. A. Soranno, K. C. Weathers, P. C. Hanson, S. J. Goring, C. T. Filstrup, and E. K. Read. 2014. Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12(1):31-38.

Cilliers, S., M. du Toit, J. Cilliers, E. Drewes, and F. Retief. 2014. Sustainable urban landscapes: South African perspectives on transdisciplinary possibilities. Landscape and Urban Planning 125:260-270.

Cook, C. N., M. B. Mascia, M. W. Schwartz, H. P. Possingham, and R. A. Fuller. 2013. Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conservation Biology 27(4):669-678.

Cowling, R. M., B. Egoh, A. T. Knight, P. J. O’Farrell, B. Reyers, M. Rouget, D. J. Roux, A. Welz, and A. Wilhelm-Rechman. 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(28):9483-9488.

Cundill, G., D. J. Roux, and J. N. Parker. 2015. Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 20(2):22.

Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding: an activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki, Finland.

eThekwini Municipality. 2013. EPCPD Strategy 2013-18: background report. Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa.

Ferreyra, C., and P. Beard. 2007. Participatory evaluation of collaborative and integrated water management: insights from the field. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(2):271-296.

Franks, J. 2010. Boundary organizations for sustainable land management: the example of Dutch environmental co-operatives. Ecological Economics 70(2):283-295.

Funke, N., and S. Nienaber. 2012. Promoting uptake and use of conservation science in South Africa by government. Water SA 38:105-114.

Gaffy, E. A. 2008. Meeting the challenges of policy-relevant science: bridging theory and practice. Public Administration Review 68(6):1087-1100.

Galuska, L. 2014. Enabling leadership: unleashing creativity, adaptation, and learning in an organization. Nurse Leader 12(2):34-38.

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowtony, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London, UK.

Goring, S. J., K. C. Weathers, W. K. Dodds, P. A. Soranno, L. C. Sweet, K. S. Cheruvelil, J. S. Kominoski, J. Rüegg, A. M. Thorn, and R. M. Utz. 2014. Improving the culture of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology by expanding measures of success. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12(1):39-47.

Graham, M., and H. Ernstson. 2012. Comanagement at the fringes: examining stakeholder perspectives at Macassar Dunes, Cape Town, South Africa—at the intersection of high biodiversity, urban poverty, and inequality. Ecology and Society 17(3):34.

Gray, B. 2008. Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(2 Supplement):S124-S132.

Hall, K. L., D. Stokols, R. P. Moser, B. K. Taylor, M. D. Thornquist, L. C. Nebeling, C. C. Ehret, M. J. Barnett, A. McTiernan, N. A. Berger, M. I. Goran, and R. W. Jeffery. 2008. The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: findings from the National Cancer Institute’s TREC year-one evaluation study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(2 Supplement):S161-S172.

Harris, F., and F. Lyon. 2013. Transdisciplinary environmental research: building trust across professional cultures. Environmental Science and Policy 31:109-119.

Hegger, D., M. Lamers, A. Van Zeijl-Rozema, and C. Dieperink. 2012. Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science and Policy 18:52-65.

Hegger, D., A. Van Zeijl-Rozema, and C. Dieperink. 2014. Toward design principles for joint knowledge production projects: lessons from the deepest polder of the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change 14(3):1049-1062.

Hirsch Hadorn, G. H., H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, and E. Zemp. 2007b. The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. Pages 19-39 in G. H. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, E. Zemp, editors. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Hirsch Hadorn, G. H., H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, and E. Zemp. 2007a. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Ivey, P., H. Geber, and I. Nänni. 2013. An innovative South African approach to mentoring novice professionals in biodiversity management. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring 11(1):85-111.

Keith, D. A., J. P. Rodríguez, K. M. Rodríguez-Clark, E. Nicholson, K. Aapala, A. Alonso, M. Asmussen, S. Bachman, A. Basset, E. G. Barrow, J. S. Benson, M. J. Bishop, R. Bonifacio, T. M. Brooks, M. A. Burgman, P. Comer, F. A. Comín, F. Essl, D. Faber-Langendoen, P. G. Fairweather, R. J. Holdaway, M. Jennings, R. T. Kingsford, R. E. Lester, R. M. Nally, M. A. McCarthy, J. Moat, M. A. Oliveira-Miranda, P. Pisanu, B. Poulin, T. J. Regan, U. Riecken, M. D. Spalding, and S. Zambrano-Martínez. 2013. Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8(5):e62111.

Knight, A. T. 2013. Reframing the theory of hope in conservation science. Conservation Letters 6(6):389-390.

Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Balmford, A. T. Lombard, and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22(3):610-617.

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(1):25-43.

Laurance, W. F., H. Koster, M. Grooten, A. B. Anderson, P. A. Zuidema, S. Zwick, R. J. Zagt, A. J. Lynam, M. Linkie, and N. P. R. Anten. 2012. Making conservation research more relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological Conservation 153:164-168.

Leeuwis, C., and R. Pyburn. 2002. Wheelbarrows full of frogs: social learning in rural resource management: international research and reflections. Koninklijke Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.

Long, J. C., F. C. Cunningham, and J. Braithwaite. 2013. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 13(1):1-13.

Maiello, A., C. V. Viegas, M. Frey, and J. L. D. Ribeiro. 2013. Public managers as catalysts of knowledge co-production? Investigating knowledge dynamics in local environmental policy. Environmental Science and Policy 27:141-150.

Max-Neef, M. A. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53(1):5-16.

McNie, E. C. 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy 10(1):17-38.

Morse, W. C., M. Nielsen-Pincus, J. E. Force, and J. D. Wulfhorst. 2007. Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecology and Society 12(2):8. [online] URL:

Moser, S. C., and L. Dilling. 2011. Communicating climate change: closing the science-action gap. Pages 161-176 in J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg, editors. The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Mucina, L., and M. C. Rutherford. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.

O’Brien, K. 2013. Global environmental change III: closing the gap between knowledge and action. Progress in Human Geography 37(4):587-596.

O’Farrell, P. J., and P. M. L. Anderson. 2010. Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(1-2):59-65.

Pfeffer, J., and R. I. Sutton. 2000. The knowing-doing gap: how smart companies turn knowledge into action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Pohl, C. 2008. From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science and Policy 11(1):46-53.

Pooley, S. P., J. A. Mendelsohn, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2014. Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conservation Biology 28(1):22-32.

Pullin, A. S., T. M. Knight, D. A. Stone, and K. Charman. 2004. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119(2):245-252.

Reyers, B., D. J. Roux, R. M. Cowling, A. E. Ginsburg, J. L. Nel, and P. O. Farrell. 2010. Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conservation Biology 24(4):957-965.

Rice, M. 2013. Spanning disciplinary, sectoral and international boundaries: a sea change towards transdisciplinary global environmental change research? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(3-4):409-419.

Roberts, D., R. Boon, N. Diederichs, E. Douwes, N. Govender, A. Mcinnes, C. Mclean, S. O’Donoghue, and M. Spires. 2012. Exploring ecosystem-based adaptation in Durban, South Africa: “learning-by-doing” at the local government coal face. Environment and Urbanization 24(1):167-195.

Roberts, D., and N. Diederichs. 2002. Durban’s Local Agenda 21 programme: tackling sustainable development in a post-apartheid city. Environment and Urbanization 14(1):189-201.

Roux, D. J., K. H. Rogers, H. C. Biggs, P. J. Ashton, and A. Sergeant. 2006. Bridging the science–management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11(1):4. [online] URL:

Roux, D. J., R. J. Stirzaker, C. M. Breen, E. C. Lefroy, and H. P. Cresswell. 2010. Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environmental Science and Policy 13(8):733-741.

Seto, K. C., B. Güneralp, and L. R. Hutyra. 2012. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(40):16083-16088.

Shackleton, C. M., G. Cundill, and A. T. Knight. 2009. Beyond just research: experiences from Southern Africa in developing social learning partnerships for resource conservation initiatives. Biotropica 41(5):563-570.

Sitas, N., H. E. Prozesky, K. J. Esler, and B. Reyers. 2014. Exploring the gap between ecosystem service research and management in development planning. Sustainability 6(6):3802-3824.

Steenkamp, Y., B. Van Wyk, J. Victor, D. Hoare, G. Smith, T. Dold, and R. Cowling. 2004. Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany. Pages 219-228 in R. A. Mittermeier, P. Robles-Gil, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C. G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux, G. A. B. Da Fonesca, editors. Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions. Cemex, Mexico City, Mexico.

Stelzer, R. S., and D. R. Kashian. 2014. The role of conservation partnerships between scientists and nonprofit agencies in freshwater science and management. Freshwater Science 33(2):670-673.

Stewart, G. B., C. F. Coles, and A. S. Pullin. 2005. Applying evidence-based practice in conservation management: lessons from the first systematic review and dissemination projects. Biological Conservation 126(2):270-278.

Stokols, D., J. Fuqua, J. Gress, R. Harvey, K. Phillips, L. Baezconde-Garbanati, J. Unger, P. Palmer, M. A. Clark, S. M. Colby, G. Morgan, and W. Trochim. 2003. Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 5(Supplement 1):S21-S39.

Stokols, D., K. L. Hall, B. K. Taylor, and R. P. Moser. 2008. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 35(2 Supplement):S77-S89.

Swilling, M. 2014. Rethinking the science-policy interface in South Africa: experiments in knowledge co-production. South African Journal of Science 110(5&6):1-7.

Uhl-Bien, M., R. Marion, and B. McKelvey. 2007. Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly 18(4):298-318.

van Kerkhoff, L. 2014. Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principles-based approach. Sustainability Science 9(2):143-155.

van Kerkhoff, L., and L. Lebel. 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31(1):445-477.

Wale, E., N. Chishakwe, and R. Lewis-Lettington. 2009. Cultivating participatory policy processes for genetic resources policy: lessons from the genetic resources policy initiative (GRPI) project. Biodiversity and Conservation 18(1):1-18.

Wals, A. E. J. 2011. Learning our way to sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(2):177-186.

Whitten, T., D. Holmes, and K. MacKinnon. 2001. Conservation biology: a displacement behavior for academia? Conservation Biology 15(1):1-3.

Wilhelm-Rechmann, A., and R. M. Cowling. 2011. Framing biodiversity conservation for decision makers: insights from four South African municipalities. Conservation Letters 4(1):73-80.

Wyborn, C. A. 2015. Connecting knowledge with action through coproductive capacities: adaptive governance and connectivity conservation. Ecology and Society 20(1):11.

Address of Correspondent:
Jessica Cockburn
Department of Environmental Science
Rhodes University
P.O. Box 94
Grahamstown, 6140
South Africa
Jump to top
Figure1  | Figure2  | Figure3  | Appendix1  | Appendix2  | Appendix3  | Appendix4