Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39020099›Full record

ArticleAmbio2024

Navigating causal reasoning in sustainability science.

Maja Schlüter, Tilman Hertz, María Mancilla García, Thomas Banitz, Volker Grimm, Lars-Göran Johansson, Emilie Lindkvist, Rodrigo Martínez-Peña, Sonja Radosavljevic, Karl Wennberg and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Severe water crisis in southern Spain under expanding irrigated agriculture: A multidimensional drought analysis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Maja SchlüterStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Albanovägen 28, 114 19, Stockholm, Sweden. maja.schlueter@su.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7780-1039
Tilman HertzStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Albanovägen 28, 114 19, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3480-7545
María Mancilla GarcíaStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Albanovägen 28, 114 19, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8416-8094
Thomas BanitzDepartment of Ecological Modelling, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8541-789X
Volker GrimmDepartment of Ecological Modelling, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3221-9512
Lars-Göran JohanssonDepartment of Philosophy, University of Uppsala, Box 627, 751 26, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4116-7061
Emilie LindkvistStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Albanovägen 28, 114 19, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1546-0934
Rodrigo Martínez-PeñaStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Albanovägen 28, 114 19, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0171-0659
Sonja RadosavljevicStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Albanovägen 28, 114 19, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6948-438X
Karl WennbergThe Institute for Analytical Sociology, Linköping University, 601 74, Norrköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7279-1006
Petri YlikoskiThe Institute for Analytical Sociology, Linköping University, 601 74, Norrköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5237-9695

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet 2018-06139
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When reasoning about causes of sustainability problems and possible solutions, sustainability scientists rely on disciplinary-based understanding of cause-effect relations. These disciplinary assumptions enable and constrain how causal knowledge is generated, yet they are rarely made explicit. In a multidisciplinary field like sustainability science, lack of understanding differences in causal reasoning impedes our ability to address complex sustainability problems. To support navigating the diversity of causal reasoning, we articulate when and how during a research process researchers engage in causal reasoning and discuss four common ideas about causation that direct it. This articulation provides guidance for researchers to make their own assumptions and choices transparent and to interpret other researchers' approaches. Understanding how causal claims are made and justified enables sustainability researchers to evaluate the diversity of causal claims, to build collaborations across disciplines, and to assess whether proposed solutions are suitable for a given problem.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesCausalityResearch DesignAccounts of causationCausal analysisCausal inquiryInterdisciplinaritySocial–ecological systems

Identifiers

PMID39020099
PMCPMC11436621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.