TY - JOUR
T1 - Six modes of co-production for sustainability
AU - Chambers, Josephine M.
AU - Wyborn, Carina
AU - Ryan, Melanie E.
AU - Reid, Robin S.
AU - Riechers, Maraja
AU - Serban, Anca
AU - Bennett, Nathan J.
AU - Cvitanovic, Christopher
AU - Fernández-Giménez, María E.
AU - Galvin, Kathleen A.
AU - Goldstein, Bruce E.
AU - Klenk, Nicole L.
AU - Tengö, Maria
AU - Brennan, Ruth
AU - Cockburn, Jessica J.
AU - Hill, Rosemary
AU - Munera, Claudia
AU - Nel, Jeanne L.
AU - Österblom, Henrik
AU - Bednarek, Angela T.
AU - Bennett, Elena M.
AU - Brandeis, Amos
AU - Charli-Joseph, Lakshmi
AU - Chatterton, Paul
AU - Curran, K.
AU - Dumrongrojwatthana, Pongchai
AU - Durán, América Paz
AU - Fada, Salamatu J.
AU - Gerber, Jean David
AU - Green, Jonathan M.H.
AU - Guerrero, Angela M.
AU - Haller, Tobias
AU - Horcea-Milcu, Andra Ioana
AU - Leimona, Beria
AU - Montana, Jasper
AU - Rondeau, Renee
AU - Spierenburg, Marja
AU - Steyaert, Patrick
AU - Zaehringer, Julie G.
AU - Gruby, Rebecca
AU - Hutton, Jon
AU - Pickering, Tomas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - The promise of co-production to address complex sustainability challenges is compelling. Yet, co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice, encompasses diverse aims, terminologies and practices, with poor clarity over their implications. To explore this diversity, we systematically mapped differences in how 32 initiatives from 6 continents co-produce diverse outcomes for the sustainable development of ecosystems at local to global scales. We found variation in their purpose for utilizing co-production, understanding of power, approach to politics and pathways to impact. A cluster analysis identified six modes of co-production: (1) researching solutions; (2) empowering voices; (3) brokering power; (4) reframing power; (5) navigating differences and (6) reframing agency. No mode is ideal; each holds unique potential to achieve particular outcomes, but also poses unique challenges and risks. Our analysis provides a heuristic tool for researchers and societal actors to critically explore this diversity and effectively navigate trade-offs when co-producing sustainability.
AB - The promise of co-production to address complex sustainability challenges is compelling. Yet, co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice, encompasses diverse aims, terminologies and practices, with poor clarity over their implications. To explore this diversity, we systematically mapped differences in how 32 initiatives from 6 continents co-produce diverse outcomes for the sustainable development of ecosystems at local to global scales. We found variation in their purpose for utilizing co-production, understanding of power, approach to politics and pathways to impact. A cluster analysis identified six modes of co-production: (1) researching solutions; (2) empowering voices; (3) brokering power; (4) reframing power; (5) navigating differences and (6) reframing agency. No mode is ideal; each holds unique potential to achieve particular outcomes, but also poses unique challenges and risks. Our analysis provides a heuristic tool for researchers and societal actors to critically explore this diversity and effectively navigate trade-offs when co-producing sustainability.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111915578&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x
DO - 10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x
M3 - Article
SN - 2398-9629
VL - 4
SP - 983
EP - 996
JO - Nature Sustainability
JF - Nature Sustainability
IS - 11
ER -