Sustainability challenges are often defined and described by the natural sciences, and only later recognised as important for society and the social sciences. In contrast, the strength and innovation of an integrated approach is its ability to draw simultaneously on expertise from the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities to rethink, reconceptualise and reframe those challenges. As MM-102 an example, we discuss distributional aspects of land, water and biodiversity in terms of access, allocation and agency along the three dimensions of international, intergenerational and intersectional

justice. To that end, we borrow from existing theories and perspectives and, thus, expand concepts and analytical frames from classical disciplines into the domain of sustainability. All along, the dual critical and problem-solving research strategy is a frame that stimulates the generation of new theory and approaches for investigating complex issues. Three core themes Theme one: scientific understandings of social–ecological systems Sustainability challenges, be it climate change or biodiversity loss, are normally defined and framed in natural scientific terms. Whereas the cognitive products of the natural sciences often shape how environmental problems are understood

and acted upon in society, we know from years of social constructivist scholarship that science is far from autonomous from society, culture or the political. Rather, knowledge and beliefs about the natural world are embedded in the social world (Nowotny {Selleck Anti-cancer Compound Library|Selleck Anticancer Compound Library|Selleck Anti-cancer Compound Library|Selleck Anticancer Compound Library|Selleckchem Anti-cancer Compound Library|Selleckchem Anticancer Compound Library|Selleckchem Anti-cancer Compound Library|Selleckchem Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library|buy Anti-cancer Compound Library|Anti-cancer Compound Library ic50|Anti-cancer Compound Library price|Anti-cancer Compound Library cost|Anti-cancer Compound Library solubility dmso|Anti-cancer Compound Library purchase|Anti-cancer Compound Library manufacturer|Anti-cancer Compound Library research buy|Anti-cancer Compound Library order|Anti-cancer Compound Library mouse|Anti-cancer Compound Library chemical structure|Anti-cancer Compound Library mw|Anti-cancer Compound Library molecular weight|Anti-cancer Compound Library datasheet|Anti-cancer Compound Library supplier|Anti-cancer Compound Library in vitro|Anti-cancer Compound Library cell line|Anti-cancer Compound Library concentration|Anti-cancer Compound Library nmr|Anti-cancer Compound Library in vivo|Anti-cancer Compound Library clinical trial|Anti-cancer Compound Library cell assay|Anti-cancer Compound Library screening|Anti-cancer Compound Library high throughput|buy Anticancer Compound Library|Anticancer Compound Library ic50|Anticancer Compound Library price|Anticancer Compound Library cost|Anticancer Compound Library solubility dmso|Anticancer Compound Library purchase|Anticancer Compound Library manufacturer|Anticancer Compound Library research buy|Anticancer Compound Library order|Anticancer Compound Library chemical structure|Anticancer Compound Library datasheet|Anticancer Compound Library supplier|Anticancer Compound Library in vitro|Anticancer Compound Library cell line|Anticancer Compound Library concentration|Anticancer Compound Library clinical trial|Anticancer Compound Library cell assay|Anticancer Compound Library screening|Anticancer Compound Library high throughput|Anti-cancer Compound high throughput screening| et al. 2001; Jasanoff and Martello 2004; Latour 2004). Building upon this insight, the first core theme involves four research efforts where connections between natural and social systems are understood and conceptualised. We, thus, show Racecadotril how research can critically scrutinise existing conceptual models and, on the

basis of integrated research efforts, suggest improved understandings for sustainability science. The research efforts discussed below represent different levels of theoretical ambition. Two grand theories, earth system science and world system dynamics of unequal exchange, aim to describe and explain global processes. Earth system analysis deals with the natural world from a natural scientific perspective (Schellnhuber 1999), whereas world system theory originally dealt with the world system from a sociological perspective (Wallerstein 1974) but more recently also from a ‘green’ political ecology perspective (Hornborg 1998; Wallerstein 2007), indicating that the two schools of thought can benefit from constructive dialogues. The two middle-range theories, resilience (Berkes et al. 2003) and material flow analysis, operate within more specifically defined scales, levels and systems. Resilience theory aims at understanding the dynamics of well-defined coupled social–ecological systems, such as a fishery, a wetland or a forest.