1932

Abstract

Co-production has become a cornerstone of research within the sustainability sciences, motivating collaborations of diverse actors to conduct research in the service of societal and policy change. This review examines theoretical and empirical literature from sustainability science, public administration, and science and technology studies (STS) with the intention of advancing the theory and practice of co-production within sustainability science. We argue that co-production must go beyond stakeholder engagement by scientists to the more deliberate design of societal transitions. Co-production can contribute to such transitions by shifting the institutional arrangements that govern relationships between knowledge and power, science and society, and state and citizens. We highlight critical weaknesses in conceptualizations of co-production within sustainability sciences with respect to power, politics, and governance. We offer suggestions for how this can be rectified through deeper engagement with public administration and STS to offer a broad vision for enhancing the use, design, and practice of a more reflexive co-production in sustainability science.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103
2019-10-17
2024-06-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/44/1/annurev-environ-101718-033103.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Miller TR. 2015. Reconstructing Sustainability Science: Knowledge and Action for a Sustainable Future New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Miller TR. 2014. The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain. Sci. 9:April239–46
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Miller CA, Wyborn C. 2018. Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environ. Sci. Policy. press https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Kates R, Clark WC, Corell RW, Hall J, Jaeger CC et al. 2000. Sustainability science. Research and assessment systems for sustainability. Discuss. Pap. 2000–33, Environ. Nat. Resourc. Progr., Belfer Cent. Sci. Int. Aff .
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG 2006. Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 31:4465–94
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ. 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob. Environ. Change 15:157–68
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J et al. 2013. Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ. Sci. Policy 28:60–70
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Ostrom E. 1996. Crossing the Great Divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev 24:61073–87
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Brudney JL, England RE. 1983. Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Adm. Rev. 43:159–65
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Bovaird T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm. Rev. 67:5846–60
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Alford J. 2009. Engaging public sector clients: from service-delivery to co-production Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Jasanoff S. 2004. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. States of Knowledge S Jasanoff 13–45 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Shapin S, Schaffer S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Jasanoff S, Wynne B. 1998. Science and decision making. Human Choice and Climate Change S Rayner, E Malone 1–87 Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Forsyth T. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Future Earth Transition Team 2013. Future Earth Initial Design: Report of the Transition Team Paris: Int. Counc. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Lubchenco J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:5350491–97
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M 2001. Rethinking Science: Knowledge in the Age of Uncertainty Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC et al. 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292:5517641–42
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Lemos MC, Arnott JC, Ardoin NM, Baja K, Bednarek AT et al. 2018. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nat. Sustain. 1:Dec.722–24
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Chambers R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First London: Longman
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P et al. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7:S125–43
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Funtowicz S, Ravetz J. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:7739–55
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Bäckstrand K. 2004. Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Politics 3:424–41
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Wiek A, Talwar S, O'Shea M, Robinson J 2014. Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res. Eval. 23:2117–32
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Loeffler E, Bovaird T. 2016. User and community co-production of public services: What does the evidence tell us?. Int. J. Public Adm. 39:131006–19
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Hansson S, Polk M. 2018. Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: the usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Res. Eval. 27:132–44
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N 2019. The dark side of coproduction: Do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?. Health Res Policy Syst 17:1333
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Sutherland WJ, Shackelford G, Rose DC 2017. Collaborating with communities: co-production or co-assessment?. Oryx 51:04569–70
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Miller C. 2004. Climate science and the making of a global political order. States of Knowledge S Jansnoff 46–55 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Österblom H, Jouffray J-B, Folke C, Rockström J 2017. Emergence of a global science-business initiative for ocean stewardship. PNAS 114:903843
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis J-L, Tremblay E 2010. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 88:4444–83
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Lövbrand E. 2011. Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Sci. Public Policy 38:3225–36
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Leach M, Scoones I, Stirling A 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities London: Earthscan
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Stirling A. 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33:2262–94
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Goldman MJ, Turner MD, Daly M 2018. A critical political ecology of human dimensions of climate change: epistemology, ontology, and ethics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9:e526
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Klenk NL, Meehan K, Pinel SL, Mendez F, Lima PT, Kammen DM 2015. Stakeholders in climate science: Beyond lip service?. Science 350:6262743–44
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Klenk N, Fiume A, Meehan K, Gibbes C 2017. Local knowledge in climate adaptation research: moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co-production. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 8:Octobere475
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L 2015. Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecol. Soc. 20:114
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Glob. Environ. Change 21:3995–1004
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Cash D, Clark W, Alcock F, Dickson N, Eckley N et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:148086–91
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H et al. 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 5:3–4420–31
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC 2016. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. PNAS 113:74570–78
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Miller CA, Muñoz-Erickson TA. 2018. The Rightful Place of Science: Designing Knowledge Tempe, AZ: Consort. Sci. Policy Outcomes
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Muñoz-Erickson TA, Miller CA, Miller TR 2017. How cities think: knowledge co-production for urban sustainability and resilience. Forests 8:6203
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    van Kerkhoff L, Pilbeam V 2017. Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: a knowledge governance approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 73:Sept.29–37
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Moser SC. 2016. Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 20:106–15
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Sarkki S, Tinch R, Niemelä J, Heink U, Waylen K et al. 2015. Adding “iterativity” to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy: a novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science-policy interfaces. Environ. Sci. Policy 54:505–12
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Rodela R, Reinecke S, Bregt A, Kilham E, Lapeyre R 2015. Challenges to and opportunities for biodiversity science-policy interfaces. Environ. Sci. Policy 54:483–86
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Kirchhoff CJ, Lemos MC, Engle NL 2013. What influences climate information use in water management? The role of boundary organizations and governance regimes in Brazil and the U.S. Environ. Sci. Policy 26:6–18
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Reid RS, Nkedianye D, Said MY, Kaelo D, Neselle M et al. 2016. Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. PNAS 13:74579–84
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Dilling L, Lemos MC. 2011. Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob. Environ. Change 21:680–89
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Leith P, Haward M, Rees C, Ogier E 2015. Success and evolution of a boundary organization. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41:3375–401
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T et al. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46:130–39
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Ostrom E, Ostrom V. 1977. Public economy organization and service delivery. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University Bloomington
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Parks RB, Baker PC, Kiser L, Oakerson R, Ostrom E et al. 1981. Consumers as coproducers of public services: some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Stud. J. 9:71001–11
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Brandsen T, Pestoff V. 2006. Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services. Public Manag. Rev. 8:4493–501
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG 2014. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag. Rev. 17:1333–37
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Johnston E, Yushim K. 2011. Introduction to the special issue on policy informatics. Public Sect. Innov.J. 16:11–4
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Swedlow B. 2011. Cultural coproduction of four states of knowledge. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 37:3151–79
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Tuinstra W, Hordijk L, Kroeze C 2006. Moving boundaries in transboundary air pollution co-production of science and policy under the convention on long range transboundary air pollution. Glob. Environ. Change 16:4349–63
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Bloor D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Hacking I. 2000. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Latour B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern London: Harvester Wheatsheaf
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Latour B. 1990. Drawing things together. Representation in Scientific Practice ME Lynch, S Woolgar 19–68 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Jansnoff S. 2010. A new climate for society. Theory Cult. Soc. 27:2233–53
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Wyborn C. 2015. Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. Glob. Environ. Change 30:56–67
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:5579–91
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Mace GM. 2014. Whose conservation. ? Science 345:62041558–60
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Takacs D. 1996. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Trencher G, Bai X, Evans J, McCormick K, Yarime M 2014. University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Glob. Environ. Change 28:153–65
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Campbell LK, Svendsen ES, Roman LA 2016. Knowledge co-production at the research-practice interface: embedded case studies from urban forestry. Environ. Manag. 57:61262–80
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Wamsler C. 2016. From risk governance to city-citizen collaboration: capitalizing on individual adaptation to climate change. Environ. Policy Gov. 26:184–204
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Schneider F, Rist S. 2014. Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning process: combining normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches. Sustain. Sci. 9:463–81
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Leimona B, Lusiana B, van Noordwijk M, Mulyoutami E, Ekadinata A, Amaruzaman S 2015. Boundary work: knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services in Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 15:45–62
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    McMillan R, Spronk S, Caswell C 2014. Popular participation, equity, and co-production of water and sanitation services in Caracas, Venezuela. Water Int 39:2201–15
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Shaffer LJ. 2014. Making sense of local climate change in rural Tanzania through knowledge co-production. J. Ethnobiol. 34:3315–34
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Piketh S, Vogel C, Dunsmore S, Culwick C, Engelbrecht F, Akoon I 2014. Climate change and urban development in southern Africa: the case of Ekurhuleni Municipality (EMM) in South Africa. Water SA 40:4749–58
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Galafassi D, Daw TM, Munyi L, Brown K, Barnaud C, Fazey I 2017. Learning about social-ecological trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 22:12
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Jepson W, Brown HL. 2014. ‘If no gasoline, no water’: privatizing drinking water quality in South Texas colonias. Environ. Plan. A 46:1032–48
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Liu W, Dugar S, McCallum I, Thapa G, Id LS et al. 2018. Integrated participatory and collaborative risk mapping for enhancing disaster resilience. Int. J. Geo-Inform. 7:68
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Corburn J, Curl S, Arredondo G, Malagon J 2014. Health in all urban policy: city services through the prism of health. J. Urban Health 91:4623–36
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Díaz P, Carroll JM, Aedo I 2016. Coproduction as an approach to technology-mediated citizen participation in emergency management. Future Internet 8:341
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Heaton J, Day J, Britten N 2016. Collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge for practice: an illustrative case study. Implement. Sci. 11:120
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Heaton J, Day J, Britten N 2015. Inside the “black box” of a knowledge translation program in applied health. Qual. Health Res. 25:111477–91
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Galli F, Brunori G, Di Iacovo F, Innocenti S 2014. Co-producing sustainability: involving parents and civil society in the governance of school meal services. A case study from Pisa, Italy. Sustainability 6:1643–66
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Petrescu D, Petcou C, Baibarac C 2016. Co-producing commons-based resilience: lessons from R-Urban. Build. Res. Inf. 44:7717–36
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Cook B, Kesby M, Fazey I, Spracy C 2012. The persistence of ‘normal’ catchment management despite the participatory turn: exploring the power effects of competing frames of reference. Soc. Stud. Sci. 43:5754–79
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Coates R, Garmany J. 2017. The ecology of citizenship: understanding vulnerability in urban Brazil. Int. Dev. Plann. Rev. 39:137–56
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Conde M. 2014. Activism mobilising science. Ecol. Econ. 105:67–77
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Mahony M. 2014. The predictive state: science, territory and the future of the Indian climate. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1:109–33
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Muñoz-Erickson TA. 2014. Co-production of knowledge-action systems in urban sustainable governance: the KASA approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 37:182–91
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Meek D. 2015. Taking research with its roots: restructuring schools in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement upon the principles of a political ecology of education. J. Polit. Ecol. 22:1410–28
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Scolobig A, Pelling M. 2016. The co-production of risk from a natural hazards perspective: science and policy interaction for landslide risk management in Italy. Nat. Hazards 81:S7–25
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Wyborn C. 2015. Connectivity conservation: boundary objects, science narratives and the co-production of science and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 51:292–303
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Boezeman D. 2016. Understanding the transformation of climate futures. A conceptual framework illustrated with urban adaptation policy. Futures 76:30–41
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Puente-Rodríguez D, van Slobbe E, Al IAC, Lindenbergh DE 2016. Knowledge co-production in practice: enabling environmental management systems for ports through participatory research in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Environ. Sci. Policy 55:456–66
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    García-Deister V, López-Beltrán C. 2015. Obesity, death and nation in biomedical and forensic genetics in Mexico. Soc. Stud. Sci. 45:6797–815
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Polk M. 2015. Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65:110–22
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    van der Hel S. 2016. New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environ. Sci. Policy 61:165–75
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Dunn G, Bos JJ, Brown RR 2018. Mediating the science-policy interface: insights from the urban water sector in Melbourne, Australia. Environ. Sci. Policy 82:143–50
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Taylor-Phillips S, Clarke A, Grove A, Swan J, Parsons H et al. 2014. Coproduction in commissioning decisions: Is there an association with decision satisfaction for commissioners working in the NHS? A cross-sectional survey 2010/2011. BMJ Open 4:e004810
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    van Eijk CJA, Steen TPS 2014. Why people co-produce: analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Manag. Rev. 16:3358–82
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Bremer S, Meisch S. 2017. Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 8:6e482
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    McGeechan GJ, Woodall D, Anderson L, Wilson L, Neill GO 2016. A coproduction community based approach to reducing smoking prevalence in a local community setting. J. Environ. Public Health 2016.5386534
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Willis P, Almack K, Hafford-Letchfield T, Billings B, Mall N 2018. Turning the co-production corner: methodological reflections from an action research project to promote LGBT inclusion in care homes for older people. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:4695
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Clark BY, Brudney JL. 2013. Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: investigating the distributional biases. Public Adm. Rev. 73:5687–701
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Wutzke S, Redman S, Bauman A, Hawe P, Shiell A et al. 2017. A new model of collaborative research: experiences from one of Australia's NHMRC Partnership Centres for Better Health. Public Health Res. Pract. 27:1e2711706
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Doherty AJ, Chauhan U, Jones S, Gibson J 2018. Eating well, living well and weight management: a co-produced semi-qualitative study of barriers and facilitators experienced by adults with intellectual disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629518773938
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Horgan A, Manning F, Bocking J, Happell B, Lahti M et al. 2018. ‘To be treated as a human’: using co-production to explore experts by experience involvement in mental health nursing education—the COMMUNE project. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 27:1282–91
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Nyström ME, Karltun J, Keller C, Gäre BA 2018. Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher's experiences from 20 projects. Health Res. Policy Syst. 16:46
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Kjærgaard Thomsen M, Jakobsen M 2015. Influencing citizen coproduction by sending encouragement and advice: a field experiment. Int. Public Manag. J. 18:2286–303
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Chowdhury MR, Jahan F, Rahman R 2017. Developing urban space: the changing role of NGOs in Bangladesh. Dev. Pract. 27:2260–71
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Frey JB, Berkes F. 2014. Can partnerships and community-based conservation reverse the decline of coral reef social-ecological systems?. Int. J. Commons 8:126–46
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Mayer C, McKenzie K. 2017. ‘… it shows that there's no limits’: the psychological impact of co-production for experts by experience working in youth mental health. Health Soc. Care Community 25:31181–89
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Page GG, Wise RM, Lindenfeld L, Moug P, Hodgson A et al. 2016. Co-designing transformation research: lessons learned from research on deliberate practices for transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 20:Sept.86–92
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Latif A, Tariq S, Abbasi N, Mandane B 2018. Giving voice to the medically under-served: a qualitative co-production approach to explore patient medicine experiences and improve services to marginalized communities. Pharmacy 6:13E13
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Davidson DJ. 2013. We still have a long way to go, and a short time to get there: a response to Fikret Berkes and Helen Ross. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26:121–24
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Moon K, Blackman DA, Brewer TD 2015. Understanding and integrating knowledge to improve invasive species management. Biol. Invasions 17:92675–89
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Patel Z, Greyling S, Parnell S, Pirie G 2015. Co-producing urban knowledge: experimenting with alternatives to ‘best practice’ for Cape Town, South Africa. Int. Dev. Plann. Rev. 37:2187–203
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Rubenstein N, Wallis PJ, Ison RL, Godden L 2016. Critical reflections on building a community of conversation about water governance in Australia. Water Altern 9:181–98
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Aldunce P, Bórquez R, Adler C, Blanco G, Garreaud R 2016. Unpacking resilience for adaptation: incorporating practitioners’ experiences through a transdisciplinary approach to the case of drought in Chile. Sustainability 8:9905
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Trimble M, Berkes F. 2013. Participatory research towards co-management: lessons from artisanal fisheries in coastal Uruguay. J. Environ. Manag. 128:768–78
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Millerand F, Ribes D, Baker KS, Bowker GC 2012. Making an issue out of a standard: storytelling practices in a scientific community. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 38:17–43
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Baker K, Irving A. 2016. Co-producing approaches to the management of dementia through social prescribing. Soc. Policy Adm. 50:3379–97
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Jasanoff S. 2005. Designs on Nature Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    van Kerkhoff L. 2013. Knowledge governance for sustainable development: a review. Challenges Sustain 1:282–93
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Jones M, Ferguson M, Walsh S, Martinez L, Marsh M et al. 2018. Perspectives of rural health and human service practitioners following suicide prevention training programme in Australia: a thematic analysis. Health Soc. Care Community 26:356–63
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Djenontin INS, Meadow AM. 2018. The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ. Manag. 61:885–903
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Alessa L, Kliskey A, Gamble J, Fidel M, Beaujean G, Gosz J 2016. The role of Indigenous science and local knowledge in integrated observing systems: moving toward adaptive capacity indices and early warning systems. Sustain. Sci. 11:91–102
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    van Eijk C. 2018. Helping Dutch neighborhood watch schemes to survive the rainy season: studying mutual perceptions on citizens’ and professionals’ engagement in the co-production of community safety. VOLUNTAS 29:1222–36
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Gutberlet J, Kain J, Nyakinya B, Ochieng DH, Odhiambo N et al. 2015. Socio-environmental entrepreneurship and the provision of critical services in informal settlements. Environ. Urban. 28:1205–22
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Irvine F, Wah Yeung EY, Partridge M, Simcock P 2017. The impact of personalisation on people from Chinese backgrounds: qualitative accounts of social care experience. Health Soc. Care Community 25:3878–87
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Lundin M, Mäkitalo Å 2017. Co-designing technologies in the context of hypertension care: negotiating participation and technology use in design meetings. Inform. Health Soc. Care 42:118–31
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Webb R, Bai X, Smith MS, Costanza R, Griggs D et al. 2018. Sustainable urban systems: co-design and framing for transformation. Ambio 47:157–77
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. 
    Dunn G, Brown RR, Bos JJ, Bakker K 2017. Lessons from Rotterdam. Environ. Sci. Policy 73:71–79
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Davidson-Hunt IJ, Idrobo CJ, Pengelly RD, Sylvester O 2013. Anishinaabe adaptation to environmental change in Northwestern Ontario: a case study in knowledge coproduction for nontimber forest products. Ecol. Soc. 18:444
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Risvoll C, Fedreheim GE, Sandberg A 2014. Does pastoralists’ participation in the management of national parks in Northern Norway contribute to adaptive governance. ? Ecol. Soc. 19:271
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Buffel T, Phillipson C. 2018. A manifesto for the age-friendly movement: developing a new urban agenda. J. Aging Soc. Policy 30:2173–92
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Evans T, Bellon M, Matthews B 2017. Leisure as a human right: an exploration of people with disabilities’ perceptions of leisure, arts and recreation participation through Australian Community Access Services. Ann. Leis. Res. 20:3331–48
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Preller B, Affolderbach J, Schulz C, Fastenrath S, Braun B 2017. Interactive knowledge generation in urban green building transitions. Prof. Geogr. 69:2214–24
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Kirkegaard S, Andersen D. 2018. Co-production in community mental health services: blurred boundaries or a game of pretend?. Sociol. Health Illn. 40:5828–42
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 143. 
    Scholes R, Schreiner GO, Snyman-Van der Walt L 2017. Scientific assessments: matching the process to the problem. Bothalia 47:2a2144
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Petersen B, Aslan C, Stuart D, Beier P 2018. Incorporating social and ecological adaptive capacity into vulnerability assessments and management decisions for biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 68:5371–80
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    Dalgarno M, Oates J. 2018. The meaning of co-production for clinicians: an exploratory case study of practitioner trainers in one recovery college. J. Psychiatry Ment. Health Nurs. 25:349–57
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Andrews R, Brewer GA 2013. Social capital, management capacity and public service performance. Public Adm. Rev. 15:119–42
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147. 
    Williams BN, Kang S, Johnson J 2016. (Co)-Contamination as the dark side of co-production: public value failures in co-production processes. Public Manag. Rev. 18:5692–717
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 148. 
    Hutchins K, Lindenfeld LA, Bell KP, Leahy J, Silka L 2013. Strengthening knowledge co-production capacity: examining interest in community-university partnerships. Sustainability 5:3744–70
    [Google Scholar]
  149. 149. 
    Decrappeo NM, Bisbal G, Meadow AM 2018. A path to actionable climate science: perspectives from the field. Environ. Manag. 61:181–87
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error