This contribution explores several ways and means of overcoming the barriers to using transdisciplinary concepts and methods that are being applied in both research and professional practice. As an example of a wicked problem this chapter uses housing as a multi-dimensional human construct and process. The author argues that if there is agreement that there are multiple determinants of health, and if there is agreement that there are multiple dimensions of housing, then there is need to move beyond disciplinary confinement to develop new knowledge about housing and quality of life. The author also draws on innovative contributions in Switzerland that extend beyond traditional sector-based approaches by using transdisciplinary principles that integrate the point of view of many actors including those from the affected communities and organizations.Our incapacity to deal with wicked problems as defined in Chapter 1 is related to their complexity, to the compartmentalisation of scientific and professional knowledge, to the sector-based division of responsibilities in contemporary society, and to the increasingly diverse nature of the societal contexts in which people live. In addition, the lack of effective collaboration between scientists, professionals and policy decision-makers has led to the ’applicability gap’ in sectors that deal with both the natural and human-made environment. There is an urgent need for innovative approaches in many situations, such as the blatant failure of the wealthiest countries of the world to provide all citizens with secure employment, affordable housing and appropriate health care that meet at least minimal requirements.Current shortcomings of traditional scientific research and professional practice are not necessarily the result of the lack of political commitment, or financial resources, or viable solutions. They are, above all, the logical outcome of the narrow vision of so-called experts who do not address fundamental issues but only topics isolated from their societal context. In order to deal with these limitations, various sets of obstacles need to be revised or dismantled. First, ontological frameworks or world-views that do not embrace the complexity of the natural and human-made environment; second, constructions of knowledge that value rational, utilitarian approaches to interpret the layout, use and management of human and natural ecosystems; third, specialisation, segmentation and bureaucratisation of knowledge and expertise; and finally, the lack of transfer and communication between professionals, politicians, interest groups and the public.