Towards a Cyclical Concept of Real-World Laboratories

References

• Abson, D. J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; von Wehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.; Ives, C. D.; Jager, N. W.; Lang, D. J. (2017): Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46 (1), pp. 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avelino, F. (2011): Power in transition: empowering discourses on sustainability transitions (PhDThesis). DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Beecroft, R.; Parodi, O. (2016): Reallabore als Orte der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung und Transformation. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 25 (3), pp. 4–8.
   Google Scholar
• Bergmann, M. (2010): Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung: ein Überblick mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Bergmann, M.; Brohmann, B.; Hoffmann, E.; Loibl, M. C.; Rehaag, R.; Schramm, E.; Voß, J.-P. (2005): Qualitätskriterien transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Leitfaden für die formative Evaluation von Forschungsprojekten. Frankfurt am Main: ISOE-Studientexte Nr. 13.
   Google Scholar
• Berkhout, F.; Verbong, G.; Wieczorek, A. J.; Raven, R.; Lebel, L.; Bai, X. (2010): Sustainability experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environmental Science & Policy, 13 (4), pp. 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder, C. R.; Absenger-Helmli, I.; Schilling, T. (2015): The reality of transdisciplinarity: a framework-based self-reflection from science and practice leaders. Sustainability Science, 10 (4), pp. 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0328-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P.; Krannich, D. (2013): The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 613–616). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485884.
   Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L. (2013): What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), pp. 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22803.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caniglia, G.; Schäpke, N.; Lang, D. J.; Abson, D. J.; Luederitz, C.; Wiek, A.; Laubichler, M. D.; Gralla, F.; von Wehrden, H. (2017): Experiments and evidence in sustainability science: a typology. Journal of Cleaner Production.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carew, A. L.;Wickson, F. (2010): The TD wheel: a heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42 (10), pp. 1146–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Flander, K.; Hahne, U.; Kegler, H.; Lang, D.; Lucas, R.; Schneidewind, U.; Simon, K. H.; Singer-Brodowski, M.; Wanner, M.; Wiek, A. (2014): Resilience and real-life laboratories as key concepts for urban transition research. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23 (3), pp. 284–286. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.3.19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donovan, C.; Hanney, S. (2011): The ‘Payback Framework’ explained. Research Evaluation, 20 (3), pp. 181–183. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erawatch Network ASBL (2013): A guidebook to assessing environmental impacts of research and innovation policy. Brüssel: Erawatch Network ASBL.
   Google Scholar
• Feola, G.; Nunes, R. (2014): Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: the case of the transition movement. Global Environmental Change, 24, pp. 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geels, F.W. (2002): Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multilevel perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31 (8–9), pp. 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geels, F. W.; Schot, J. (2007): Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36 (3), pp. 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geibler, J. v.; Erdmann, L.; Liedtke, C.; Rohn, H.; Stabe, M.; Berner, S.; Jordan, N. D.; Leismann, K.; Schnalzer, K. (2013): Living Labs für nachhaltige Entwicklung: Potenziale einer Forschungsinfrastruktur zur Nutzerintegration in der Entwicklung von Produkten und Dienstleistungen. Wuppertal: Wuppertal-Inst. für Klima, Umwelt, Energie.
   Google Scholar
• Gershenfeld, N. (2012): How to make almost anything: the digital fabrication revolution. Foreign Affairs, 91 (6), pp. 43–57.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P.; Trow, M. (1994): The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, M.; Hoffmann-Riem, H.; Krohn, W. (2005): Realexperimente: ökologische Gestaltungsprozesse in der Wissensgesellschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript.
   Google Scholar
• Guggenheim, M. (2012): Laboratizing and de-laboratizing the world changing sociological concepts for places of knowledge production. History of the Human Sciences, 25 (1), pp. 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695111422978.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadorn, G. H.; Pohl, C.; Bammer, G. (2010): Solving problems through transdisciplinary research. In Frodeman, R. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, pp. 431–452.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsch Hadorn, G.; Bradley, D.; Pohl, C.; Rist, S.; Wiesmann, U. (2006): Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 60 (1), pp. 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hübner, R. (2012). Interventionsbegriffe im Vergleich. In Krainer L.; Lerchster, R. E. (eds.), Interventionsforschung. Band 1. Paradigmen, Methoden, Reflexionen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Jahn, T.; Bergmann, M.; Keil, F. (2012): Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jahn, T.; Keil, F. (2016): Reallabore im Kontext transdisziplinärer Forschung. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25 (4), pp. 247–252. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.4.6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemmis, S.; McTaggart, R. (2000): Participatory action research. In Denzin, N. K.; Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp, R.; Loorbach, D. (2006): Transition management: a reflexive governance approach. In Voß, J.-P.; Bauknecht, D.; Kemp, R. (eds.), Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 103–130.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. (1998): Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10 (2), pp. 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler, R. E. (2008): Lab history: reflections. Isis, 99 (4), pp. 761–768. https://doi.org/10.1086/595769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krainer, L.; Lerchster, R. (2012a): Interventionsforschung: Paradigmen, Methoden, Reflexionen. In Krainer, L.; Lerchster, R. E. (eds.), Interventionsforschung. Bd.1: Paradigmen, Methoden, Reflexionen. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 9–19.
   Google Scholar
• Krainer, L.; Lerchster, R. E. (eds.) (2012b): Interventionsforschung. Bd. 1: Paradigmen, Methoden, Reflexionen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Kristof, K. (2010a): Models of change: Einführung und Verbreitung sozialer Innovationen und gesellschaftlicher Veränderungen in transdisziplinärer Perspektive. Zürich: vdf-Hochschulverlag.
   Google Scholar
• Kristof, K. (2010b): Wege zum Wandel: wie wir gesellschaftliche Veränderungen erfolgreicher gestalten können. München: Oekom.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, D. J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C. J. (2012): Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7 (S1), pp. 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerchster, R. E. (2012): Zentrale Grundannahmen der Interventionsforschung. In Krainer, L.; Lerchster, R. E. (eds.), Interventionsforschung. Bd.1: Paradigmen, Methoden, Reflexionen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Liedtke, C.; Baedeker, C.; Hasselkuß, M.; Rohn, H.; Grinewitschus, V. (2015): User-integrated innovation in Sustainable LivingLabs: an experimental infrastructure for researching and developing sustainable product service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, pp. 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löw, M. (2012): Soziologie der Städte (2. Aufl.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Luederitz, C.; Schäpke, N.; Wiek, A.; Lang, D. J.; Bergmann, M.; Bos, J. J.; Burch, S.; Davies, A.; Evans, J.; König, A.; Farrelly, M. A.; Forrest, N.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gibson, R. B.; Kay, B.; Loorbach, D.; McCormick, K.; Parodi, O.; Rauschmayer, F.; Schneidewind, U.; Stauffacher, M.; Stelzer, F.; Trencher, G.; Venjakob, J.; Vergragt, P. J.; von Wehrden, H.; Westley, F. R. (2017): Learning through evaluation – A tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability transition experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauser, W.; Klepper, G.; Rice, M.; Schmalzbauer, S.; Hackmann, H.; Leemans, R.; Moore, H. (2013): Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5 (3–4), pp. 420–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miah, J. H.; Griffiths, A.; McNeill, R.; Poonaji, I.; Martin, R.; Morse, S.; Yang, A.; Sadhukhan, J. (2015): A small-scale transdisciplinary process to maximising the energy efficiency of food factories: insights and recommendations from the development of a novel heat integration framework. Sustainability Science, 10 (4), pp. 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0331-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mogalle, M. (2001): Management transdisziplinärer Forschungsprozesse. Basel: Birkhäuser.
   Google Scholar
• Muhar, A.; Vilsmaier, U.; Glanzer, M.; Freyer, B. (2006): Initiating transdisciplinarity in academic case study teaching: experiences from a regional development project in Salzburg, Austria. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7 (3), pp. 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370610677856.
   Google Scholar
• MWK – Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst (2013): Wissenschaft für Nachhaltigkeit. Herausforderung und Chance für das badenwürttembergische Wissenschaftssystem. Stuttgart: MWK.
   Google Scholar
• Nevens, F.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gorissen, L.; Loorbach, D. (2013): Urban transition labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, pp. 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H.; Scott, P.; Gibbons, M. (2001): Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010): Guidance on sustainability ompact assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015): How’s life? 2015: measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ozanne, J.L.; Saatcioglu, B. (2008): Participatory action research. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), pp. 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1086/586911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palzkill, A.; Wanner, M.; Markscheffel, F. (2015): Suffizienz als Geschäftsmodell: Die Bedeutung von Social-Entrepreneurship-Initiativen am Beispiel von Utopiastadt Wuppertal. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 23 (1–2), pp. 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-015-0353-8.
   Google Scholar
• Parodi, O.; Albiez, M.; Beecroft, R.; Meyer-Soylu, S.; Quint, A.; Seebacher, A.; Trenks, H.; Waitz, B. (2016): Das Konzept “Reallabor” schärfen. Ein Zwischenruf des Reallabor131: KIT findet Stadt. GAIA, 25 (4), pp. 284–285.
   Google Scholar
• Penfield, T.; Baker, M. J.; Scoble, R.; Wykes, M. C. (2014): Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: a review. Research Evaluation, 23 (1), pp. 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohl, C.; Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2008): Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 16 (2), pp. 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss:2008035.
   Google Scholar
• Prochaska, J. O.; DiClemente, C. C. (2005): The Transtheoretical Approach. In Norcross, J. C.; Goldfried, M. R. (eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–171.
   Google Scholar
• Przyborski, A.; Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2014): Qualitative Sozialforschung: ein Arbeitsbuch (4. Aufl.). München: Oldenbourg.
   Google Scholar
• Raskin, P.; Banuri, T.; Gallopín, G.; Gutman, P.; Hammond, A.; Kates, R.; Swart, R. (2002): Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. Boston: Stockholm Environment Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, W.V.; Chen, D.; Goldfarb, L.; Hackmann, H.; Lee, Y. T.; Mokhele, K.; Ostrom, E.; Raivio, K.; Rockström, J.; Schellnhuber, H. J.; Whyte, A. (2010): Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science(Washington), 330 (6006), pp. 916–917. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, M.; Schleicher, K.; Maibaum, K. (2017): Transforming Well-Being in Wuppertal – Conditions and Constraints. Sustainability, 9 (12), 2375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roux, D. J.; Stirzaker, R. J.; Breen, C. M.; Lefroy, E. C.; Cresswell, H. P. (2010): Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environmental Science & Policy, 13 (8), pp. 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rückert-John, J. (2013): Die Nachhaltigkeit der Debatte um soziale Innovationen – Innovationsschub für den nachhaltigen Wandel. In Rückert-John, J. (ed.), Soziale Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 289–307.
   Google Scholar
• Schäpke, N.; Singer-Brodowski, M.; Stelzer, F.; Bergmann, M.; Lang, D. J. (2015): Creating space for change: sustainability transformations: the case of Baden-Württemberg. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24 (4), pp. 281–283. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schäpke, N.; Stelzer, F.; Bergmann, M.; Lang, D. J. (2016): Tentative theses on transformative research in real-world laboratories. First insights from the accompanying research ForReal. TATuP – Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie Und Praxis, 25 (3), pp. 45–51.
   Google Scholar
• Schäpke, N.; Stelzer, F.; Bergmann, M.; Lang, B. J.; Wagner, F.; Miller, E. (2017a): Real-world Laboratories and Transformation Research: Call for Papers: GAIA Open Access Special Issue. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 26 (1), pp. 55–57. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schäpke, N.; Stelzer, F.; Bergmann, M.; SingerBrodowski, M.; Wanner, M.; Caniglia, G.; Lang, D. (2017b): Reallabore im Kontext transformativer Forschung. Ansatzpunkte zur Konzeption und Einbettung in den internationalen Forschungsstand (IETSR Discussion Papers). Lüneburg: Leuphana Universität.
   Google Scholar
• Schneidewind, U. (2014): Urbane Reallabore – ein Blick in die aktuelle Forschungswerkstatt. Pnd Online, 3, pp. 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Schneidewind, U.; Augenstein, K. (2016): Three schools of transformation thinking: the impact of ideas, institutions, and technological innovation on transformation processes. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25 (2), pp. 88–93. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.2.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneidewind, U.; Scheck, H. (2013): Die Stadt als “Reallabor” für Systeminnovationen. In Rückert-John, J. (ed.), Soziale Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 229–248.
   Google Scholar
• Schneidewind, U.; Singer-Brodowski, M. (2013): Transformative Wissenschaft: Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschaftsund Hochschulsystem. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Schneidewind, U.; Singer-Brodowski, M.; Augenstein, K.; Stelzer, F. (2016): Pledge for a transformative science. A conceptual framework (Wuppertal Paper No. 191). Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
   Google Scholar
• Scholz, R.W. (2011): Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scholz, R.W.; Lang, D. J.; Wiek, A.; Walter, A. I.; Stauffacher, M. (2006): Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7 (3), pp. 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370610677829.
   Google Scholar
• Scholz, R. W.; Steiner, G. (2015a): The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II – what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustainability Science, 10 (4), pp. 653–671.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0327-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholz, R.W.; Steiner, G. (2015b): The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations. Sustainability Science, 10 (4), pp. 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0326-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholz, R.W.; Steiner, G. (2015c): Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads. Sustainability Science, 10 (4), pp. 521–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0338-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholz, R.W.; Tietje, O. (2002): Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Seyfang, G.; Haxeltine, A. (2012): Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30 (3), pp. 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seyfang, G.; Smith, A. (2006): Community action: a neglected site of innovation for sustainable development? Working Paper – Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, 1, pp. 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Spaapen, J.; van Drooge, L. (2011): Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20 (3), pp. 211–218. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadt Wuppertal (2014): Stadtumbau-West. Städtebauliches Entwicklungskonzept Wuppertal. Sanierungsgebiet Elberfelder Nordstadt/Arrenberg. Fortschreibung des Integrierten Handlungsprogramms für die Bereiche ‘Mirker Quartier’ und ‘Südstraße’. Wuppertal: Stadt Wuppertal Stadtentwicklung. Available online: http://www.wuppertal.de/rathaus/onlinedienste/ris/getfile.php?id=171768&type=do.
   Google Scholar
• van den Bosch, S. (2010): Transition experiments: exploring societal changes towards sustainability. Rotterdam: DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Vilsmaier, U.; Engbers, M.; Luthardt, P.; Maas-Deipenbrock, R. M.; Wunderlich, S.; Scholz, R. W. (2015): Case-based mutual learning sessions: knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustainability Science, 10 (4), pp. 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0335-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Unger, H. (2014): Partizipative Forschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, F.; Ertner, S. (2016): Reallabore für nachhaltiges Wissen – Forschung für und mit Zukunft. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25 (1), pp. 57–58. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.1.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, F.; Grunwald, A. (2015): Reallabore als Forschungsund Transformationsinstrument. Die Quadratur des hermeneutischen Zirkels. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25 (1), pp. 57–58. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.1.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, F.; Grunwald, A. (2015): Reallabore als Forschungsund Transformationsinstrument. Die Quadratur des hermeneutischen Zirkels. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24 (1), pp. 26–31. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.1.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter, A. I.; Helgenberger, S.; Wiek, A.; Scholz, R. W. (2007): Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30 (4), pp. 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change (2011): World in transition: a social contract for sustainability. Berlin: WBGU.
   Google Scholar
• WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change (2014): Climate protection as a world citizen movement: special report. Berlin: WBGU.
   Google Scholar
• WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change (2016): Humanity on the move: unlocking the transformative power of cities. Berlin: WBGU.
   Google Scholar
• Wieczorek, A. J.; Raven, R.; Berkhout, F. (2015): Transnational linkages in sustainability experiments: a typology and the case of solar photovoltaic energy in India. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, pp. 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiek, A.; Lang, D. J. (2016): Transformational Sustainability Research Methodology. In Heinrichs, H.; Martens, P.; Michelsen, G.; Wiek, A. (eds.), Sustainability Science. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 31–41. Available online: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_3.
   Google Scholar
• Wiek, A.; Talwar, S.; O’Shea, M.; Robinson, J. (2014): Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Research Evaluation, 23 (2), pp. 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittmayer, J.; Roorda, C.; Steenbergen, F. van (2014): Governing urban sustainability transitions – inspiring examples. Rotterdam: DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Wittmayer, J.; Schäpke, N. (2014): Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9 (4), pp. 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittmayer, J.; Schäpke, N.; Feiner, G.; Piotrowski, R.; van Steenbergen, F.; Baasch, S. (2013): Action research for sustainability reflections on transition management in practice. Berlin: Ecologic Insitute.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, B.; Lindenthal, T.; Szerencsits, M.; Holbrook, J. B.; Heß, J. (2013): Evaluation research beyond scientific impact. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 22 (2), pp. 104–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar