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

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.

KW - Environmental planning

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 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85111915578

VL - 4

SP - 983

EP - 996

JO - Nature Sustainability

JF - Nature Sustainability

SN - 2398-9629

IS - 11

ER -