For the past 125 years the university has been the home of knowledge production. The 20th century research university combined a Kantian belief in disciplinarity, a Humboldtian commitment to linking research and education and upholding academic autonomy, and a Cartesian allegiance to infinite knowledge production. This approach to knowledge creation was seen as sufficient, for knowledge products themselves were understood as automatically relevant to society, and no one imagined a problem with endless knowledge production. The 20th century model of knowledge production is now under pressure from a number of sources: information technologies, neoliberal assumptions and demands for greater accountability. ‘Interdisciplinarity’ has become the term of art for addressing this crisis. But interdisciplinarity is no panacea to the challenges facing knowledge production today. In addition to knowledge on sustainability, knowledge production itself must now be made sustainable. This requires clearly connecting knowledge production and use, and ending the bad infinity of knowledge production.

Burgeoning acquisition of information about the workings, scope and diversities of the cosmos put serious pressure on 19th-century European intellectuals to classify branches of human knowledge. A challenge presented itself not only to order different subject-areas and disciplines intelligently, or assess them according to apparent degrees of certitude, but also to discover some synthesizing principle by which all the distinctive methods of approaching the world might be viewed in interrelationship. This review shows that such endeavours to classify and unify were traditional procedures, with deep roots going back to antiquity, and they brought coherence to academic programmes through the centuries. As a mark of European modernity, there was a tendency to establish more rational, scientific and secular principles of order, and the consequent tensions between positivistic and holistic styles of approach to science have continued since. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, it is also recognized, the constant subdividing of academic agendas has made the work of classification much less manageable and attractive. If traditional principles to express the unity of knowledge were philosophical, or, in the case of the medieval universities, evoked the oneness of the divine Creation, it is intriguing how planetary survivalism in the present time has pushed environmental science centre-stage as a pivotal point of activity encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration. If varying consideration has been granted to practical subjects (for example agriculture) in the history of knowledge classification, their importance has been clarified by current biospheric predicaments.

The emergent human cultures have shaped, and in turn been shaped by, local ecosystems. Yet humanity's intense modification of the environment has resulted in dramatic worldwide declines in natural and cultural capital. Social-ecological systems are becoming more vulnerable through the disruption of livelihoods, governance, institutions, resources and cultural traditions. This paper reviews the environmental sub-disciplines that have emerged to seek solutions for conservation and maintenance of the resilience of social-ecological systems. It shows that a central component is engagement with the knowledges of people within their contexts. Local knowledges of nature (traditional, indigenous, local ecological knowledge and ecoliteracy) are used by place-based cultures to guide actions towards nature. The importance of new engagements between different knowledges is now becoming more widely recognized by scientific institutions. Yet there still exist many false dualisms (for example local knowledge versus science) which tend to emphasize a superiority of one over the other. Ecocultures retain or strive to regain their connections with the environment, and thus improve their own resilience. Revitalization projects offer ways to connect knowledge with action to produce optimal outcomes for both nature and culture, suggesting that systems can be redesigned by emphasis on incorporation of local and traditional knowledge systems.

This paper reviews developments in both environmental economics and ecological economics with respect to their progress towards environmental interdisciplinarity and towards providing solutions to environmental problems. The concepts, methods, theories and assumptions of each field of knowledge are reviewed and the extent to which they depart from the dominant neoclassical paradigm of economics is assessed. The contribution that interdisciplinarity has made to the success of each field is analysed in terms of understanding, influence and effectiveness and the constraints that it has imposed upon that success. Environmental economics has adopted the dominant economic neoclassical paradigm, including the power of the market to allocate environmental resources efficiently and in a socially optimal way. The solution to environmental problems is thus seen as a matter of ensuring that the environment is properly priced to reflect the relative scarcity of natural resources and assets and to ensure that environmental values are incorporated into the market. This specialized view of environmental problems is now reflected in government policy around the world including the use of extended cost benefit analyses, contingent valuations, environmental charges and emissions trading. Nevertheless, environmental problems continue to grow in severity and the solutions provided by environmental economists have proven ineffective. Thus lack of interdisciplinarity does not prevent a field of knowledge from gaining influence and dominance, however its effectiveness in terms of understanding environmental problems and solving them is impeded. Ecological economics seeks to incorporate the research of economists, ecologists, philosophers and social scientists, however its influence seems to be have been limited to areas in which it retains the standard economics framework, and this limits its effectiveness in terms of environmental solutions. Thus interdisciplinarity may increase understanding of the real world but it cannot overcome political and social barriers to translating that understanding into the widespread implementation of effective environmental measures.

This review examines contributions of interdisciplinary (ID) research to understanding interactions between environmental quality, food production and food security. Global patterns of food insecurity and crop production are reviewed in relation to climate, land use and economic changes, as well as potential productivity increases compatible with environmental conservation. Interactions between food production and global processes make food insecurity a complex problem that requires ID analysis at local to global scales. Census and satellite data contribute to understanding of global cropland distribution. Analysis of land-use change exemplifies research between natural and social sciences. Quantitative modelling of global climate change impacts indicates relatively greater potential food insecurity in developing countries. International food security is increasingly interconnected through economic globalization and incentives for increased food production are required. Societies may not be able to expand available cropland without significant environmental risks; enhanced land and water productivity are the major opportunities available to increase food production. This requires renewed efforts in ID work to design and implement sound and efficient agricultural management practices. Models need to be informed by data from field experiments, long-term measurements and watershed monitoring by ground and remote sensing methods. Agricultural intensification may spare natural land but lead to increased pollution and water demand; reconciling conservation and productivity is a critical need. ID work provides many opportunities for synergies including conservation agriculture at the local level, efficient use of inputs, smarter land use taking into account spatial patterns and landscape ecology principles, and improved water management at field, system, watershed and basin levels. Goal-directed ID research is crucial, since producers, practitioners and policy makers should be involved. Geospatial, biotechnological and precision agriculture technologies linked with models can help inform strategies to achieve sustainable food production increases that maintain environmental quality. Implementation also requires ID work to overcome impediments due to human factors and facilitate adoption by farmers.

Important changes are needed to disciplinary theories and methods to support interdisciplinary and integrated ocean and coastal management policies and implementation. This review argues that theories and methods should conform to a perspective that ocean management is a societal activity with diverse goals ideally informed by interdisciplinary information. The review focuses on the integrated coastal management (ICM) and marine ecosystem-based management (EBM) frameworks and the marine protected areas (MPA) management tool. It begins by suggesting that at present there is a notable imbalance in the degree of effort allocated to monitoring the ecological and social dimensions of ocean resource use and policy processes. Based on how Western society and an influential epistemic community construct ‘the environment’ and society's relation to the environment, natural sciences play an inordinately important role in the description of the problem and policy recommendations. The discourse advocating for a global networks of marine protected areas, without adequate consideration of society impacts and responses, represents an example of this imbalance. Rebalancing the contributions of scientific disciplines encounters various dilemmas with epistemological, methodological and sociological dimensions. The analysis concludes with suggestions for balancing ocean and coastal interdisciplinary research and reframing key issues, creating self reflexive and multidisciplinary research teams, and reworking educational programmes.

Diverse chemical and biological processes in the oceans and atmosphere, the planet's most global domains, determine the fate and effects of marine contaminants and outbreaks of marine nuisance species. Understanding these problems requires the identification of environmental variables that influence ecological and human effects, the ability to predict spatial and temporal occurrences, and development of integrative interdisciplinary and mechanistic models for predicting their occurrences and severity. These endeavours require collaborative efforts of physical, chemical, biological and biomedical scientists working in interdisciplinary teams. There are numerous examples of interdisciplinary research conducted in marine systems on marine contaminants, including those contaminants released from the Earth's crust by human activities, those that are almost exclusively man-made in origin, and those that are biological contaminants often exacerbated by human activities. While interdisciplinary teams of researchers have greatly advanced the study of marine systems in some of these areas, there are still many barriers to interdisciplinary approaches in marine science, including disciplinary biases and institutional structures. A number of mechanisms are recommended that could support and enhance the ability of researchers to conduct interdisciplinary research in marine science, including the establishment of core facilities that can be used to support different teams of collaborating scientists, establishment of appropriate organizational structures, and promotion of seminars and symposia that emphasize interdisciplinary approaches.

Different strategies to govern resource commons generate outcomes that can be assessed along different dimensions, in terms of the ecological or social sustainability of the resource system, contributions to the livelihoods of those who rely on these resources, or equity in the allocation of benefits. This paper reviews the existing literature concerning three major renewable resource commons, namely pasture lands, fisheries and irrigation water. Most existing work on these commons has been inattentive to the multiple outcomes that management of all renewable resources generates. Studies of commons can provide better information about livelihoods, sustainability and equity dimensions of natural resource governance outcomes than previously. Attending to the distinctive determinants and drivers of these outcomes and the nature of trade-offs and synergies among them has the potential to advance common property theory substantially. Possible relationships among livelihoods, sustainability and equity are identified, and the major explanations of outcomes advanced by scholars of fisheries, pastoral and irrigation commons reviewed. An interdisciplinary approach is needed to improve existing efforts to determine the outcomes that resource commons generate.

Tropical forest management is a quintessential interdisciplinary (ID) problem straddling the social-natural divide, and has attracted scholars from many disciplines. This paper is a review of the ID research on tropical forests with a view to understanding the challenges involved in doing ID environmental research in general and the manner in which they might be addressed. Research on two core interdisciplinary questions in tropical forest research, namely causes of tropical forest loss and degradation and its impacts on society, is analysed to illuminate issues facing ID researchers. The challenges stem from differences in implicit values, theories and epistemologies across disciplines, as well as the relationship between individual disciplines, the ID space and the wider applied research audience. Understanding the value-laden nature of terms such as forest loss and degradation leads to a multidimensional and multidisciplinary characterization of the impact of forest change on human well-being. The analysis of causes of change has been enriched by ID research in which forest outcomes are characterized explicitly in terms of their values, measured in terms relevant to these values and linked to chains of socioeconomic variables at the appropriate scale. Explanations from different disciplines may be reconciled to some extent by seeing each as partial and perhaps having context-specific validity, although some core tensions, especially between economists and anthropologists, remain. Insights from ID research have been unevenly internalized in the literature, pointing to the absence of a broadly shared ID space as a consequence of individual social science disciplines appropriating environment as a subject of study. Shifting from theory-driven to problem-driven research and re-engaging self-consciously in this applied ID space will be required to generate more rigorous and relevant ID research on forests.

Environmental problems are often complex and it is widely recognized that they cannot be satisfactorily addressed by single disciplines. The review of forest cover change studies points to the need to carry out research integrating economic, political, social and environmental aspects. Existing interdisciplinary study areas, namely ecological economics, political ecology, sustainability science and Earth system governance do not yet fully integrate all the required aspects. This paper points out that the establishment of greater synergies between those study areas would be beneficial in developing the broader study area of environmental governance. A definition of environmental governance as a subject of study is developed. Lack of an all encompassing theory of environmental governance is highlighted, while the improbability of such a theory is acknowledged. In relation to normative work, the refinement of principles of good environmental governance could support the design and prioritization of policies. Empirical research needs to include the testing of hypotheses arising from theoretical developments, assessment of policy uptake and new exploratory research. Methodologically, environmental governance might start from an interdisciplinary approach followed by further integration leading to a transdisciplinary study area that uses a mixed methods research approach.

Commercialized hunting and trade of wildlife are the largest threats to mammal populations and human livelihoods in the Congo Basin. It is widely recognized that the lives of humans and wildlife in this region are inextricably intertwined. However, few studies have attempted to integrate both human and wildlife dimensions using ethnographic data to better contextualize the trade and its ecological impacts. This paper outlines a methodological approach that combines ethnographic research, ecological line transects and market surveys in the Dzanga Sangha Reserve (Central African Republic). Results from each research component are reported separately in order to provide examples of how each would answer specific questions about the status of wildlife populations and the scale of hunting within a protected area. The integrated analysis of ethnographic, market and ecological datasets clarifies synergistic impacts operating in the region and provides a more nuanced understanding of changes in both the forest and the market based on information gleaned from hunting practices and hunter interviews. This research demonstrates the potential pitfalls of using a singular approach to make recommendations on complex human-environment issues. Such cross-disciplinary mixed-methods approaches will further understandings of dynamic wildlife populations and forge more informed environmental policy recommendations.

Papua New Guinea (PNG) has been the site of a great deal of scientific work, and a fair amount of interdisciplinary debate, within the broad field of historical ecology, which encompasses the study of indigenous society-environment relationships over different time periods. However, this in itself provides no guarantee that scientists engaged in such debate will have a greater influence on the formulation of environmental conservation policies in a state where indigenous decision makers now hold the levers of political power. Five environmental policy paradigms which have emerged in the course of public debate about environmental conservation in PNG over the past half century; the wildlife management, environmental planning, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem assessment, and carbon sequestration paradigms. Each paradigm has framed a distinctive form of interdisciplinary debate about indigenous society-environment relationships within a contemporary political framework. However, a further connection can be drawn between the role of interdisciplinary debate in an evolving national policy framework and the history of scientific debate about the nature of indigenous society-environment relationships in the pre-colonial era. This connection places a distinctive emphasis on the relationship between indigenous agricultural practices and management of the national forest estate for reasons which are themselves a contingent effect of the nature of European colonial intervention over the course of the last century and a half. This particular bias in the relationship between historical ecology and environmental policy has lasted down to the present day. PNG's environmental policy problems are unlikely to have any rational or sensible solution in the absence of a better scientific understanding of the complexity of indigenous society-environment relationships. Scientists need to understand the complexity of the environmental policy process as a historical process in its own right in order to work out which policy problems offer both the scope and the incentive to sustain specific forms of interdisciplinary debate that are likely to produce better policy outcomes.