Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Six modes of co-production for sustainability

Nature Sustainability volume 4, pages 983–996 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Overview of the 32 cases.
Fig. 2: Eight key differences in how cases approach co-production.
Fig. 3: Six modes of co-production identified by approaches to purpose, power, politics and pathways.
Fig. 4: Comparison of co-production modes by main features and outcomes.
Fig. 5: The unique opportunities and critical risks of different modes of co-production.
Fig. 6: Dimensions most strongly associated with higher attainment of sustainability outcomes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data analysed in this study can be made available upon request, with a few limitations. Quantitative data on outcomes cannot be shared at the level of individual cases because some projects are still ongoing and some projects have not met their anticipated outcomes; thus, sharing this data could negatively impact projects and their participants. However, complete quantitative data can be provided at the level of each of the six modes, keeping the specific case identities anonymous. In addition, qualitative codes can be shared to provide further details of the qualitative analytical process. At the level of individual cases, if people wish to access data for a specific case, they will be put in touch with the contributor of that case (also a co-author of this manuscript), who must be informed of the data being requested and the intended use for it. Each case contributor will then provide the final say on whether they wish to share their own quantitative and qualitative case data on a case-by-case basis. These protective steps were critical for ensuring a safe environment for case contributors to share many critical perspectives related to the challenges and outcomes of their cases, thereby ensuring an ethical analysis with accurate results.

Code availability

The codes used in R to produce all statistics and figures can be made available upon request.

References

  1. Wyborn, C. et al. Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 319–346 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T. & Pestoff, V. Co-production: the state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas 23, 1083–1101 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller, C. A. & Wyborn, C. Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environ. Sci. Policy 113, 88–95 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bremer, S. & Meisch, S. Co‐production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 8, e482 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Clark, W. C., Kerkhoff, L., van Lebel, L. & Gallopin, G. C. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4570–4578 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen, J.-S., Tsou, H.-T. & Ching, R. K. H. Co-production and its effects on service innovation. Ind. Mark. Manage. 40, 1331–1346 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lemos, M. C. et al. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nat. Sustain. 1, 722–724 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bodin, Ö. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357, eaan1114 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sorrentino, M., Sicilia, M. & Howlett, M. Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool. Policy Soc. 37, 277–293 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Slater, K. & Robinson, J. Social learning and transdisciplinary co-production: a social practice approach. Sustainability 12, 7511 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Page, G. G. et al. Co-designing transformation research: lessons learned from research on deliberate practices for transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 20, 86–92 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Knapp, C. N., Reid, R. S., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Klein, J. A. & Galvin, K. A. Placing transdisciplinarity in context: a review of approaches to connect scholars, society and action. Sustainability 11, 4899 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mauser, W. et al. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 420–431 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Polk, M. Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65, 110–122 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cockburn, J., Cundill, G., Shackleton, S. & Rouget, M. Towards place-based research to support social–ecological stewardship. Sustainability 10, 1434 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Musch, A.-K. & von Streit, A. (Un)intended effects of participation in sustainability science: a criteria-guided comparative case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 104, 55–66 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van der Hel, S. New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environ. Sci. Policy 61, 165–175 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harvey, B., Cochrane, L. & Epp, M. V. Charting knowledge co-production pathways in climate and development. Environ Policy Gov. 29, 107–117 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. van Kerkhoff, L. E. & Lebel, L. Coproductive capacities: rethinking science–governance relations in a diverse world. Ecol. Soc. 20, 14 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. & Louder, E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 15–21 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Järvi, H., Kähkönen, A.-K. & Torvinen, H. When value co-creation fails: reasons that lead to value co-destruction. Scand. J. Manage. 34, 63–77 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schneider, F. et al. Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environ. Sci. Policy 102, 26–35 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jagannathan, K. et al. Great expectations? Reconciling the aspiration, outcome, and possibility of co-production. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 22–29 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Newig, J., Jahn, S., Lang, D. J., Kahle, J. & Bergmann, M. Linking modes of research to their scientific and societal outcomes. Evidence from 81 sustainability-oriented research projects. Environ. Sci. Policy 101, 147–155 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Seijger, C., Dewulf, G., van Tatenhove, J. & Otter, H. S. Towards practitioner-initiated interactive knowledge development for sustainable development: a cross-case analysis of three coastal projects. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 227–236 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Malinauskaite, L., Cook, D., Davíðsdóttir, B. & Ögmundardóttir, H. in Nordic Perspectives on the Responsible Development of the Arctic: Pathways to Action (ed. Nord, D. C.) 181–202 (Springer, 2021).

  28. Oteros-Rozas, E. et al. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social–ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol. Soc. 20, 32 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pereira, L. et al. Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the global south. Sustain. Sci. 15, 161–178 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Flyvbjerg, B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12, 219–245 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Haller, T., Acciaioli, G. & Rist, S. Constitutionality: conditions for crafting local ownership of institution-building processes. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29, 68–87 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brennan, R. E. Re-storying marine conservation: integrating art and science to explore and articulate ideas, visions and expressions of marine space. Ocean Coast. Manage. 162, 110–126 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dumrongrojwatthana, P. & Trébuil, G. in Knowledge in Action Vol. 11 (eds van Paassen, A. et al.) 191–219 (Wageningen Academic, 2011).

  34. Steyaert, P. & Jiggins, J. Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 575–586 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goldstein, B. E. et al. Transformative learning networks. In Proc. 60th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) (2018).

  36. Österblom, H., Jouffray, J.-B., Folke, C. & Rockström, J. Emergence of a global science–business initiative for ocean stewardship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9038–9043 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Christie, P. et al. Why people matter in ocean governance: incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 84, 273–284 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Brandeis, A. in River Basin Restoration and Management (eds Ostfeld, A. & Tyson, J. M.) 3–13 (IWA, 2005).

  39. Chatterton, P., Owen, A., Cutter, J., Dymski, G. & Unsworth, R. Recasting urban governance through Leeds City Lab: developing alternatives to neoliberal urban austerity in co-production laboratories. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 42, 226–243 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hill, R. et al. Knowledge co-production for Indigenous adaptation pathways: transform post-colonial articulation complexes to empower local decision-making. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102161 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mitchell, M. et al. The Montérégie Connection: linking landscapes, biodiversity, and ecosystem services to improve decision making. Ecol. Soc. 20, 15 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gerber, J.-D. Regional nature parks in Switzerland. Between top-down and bottom-up institution building for landscape management. Hum. Ecol. 46, 65–77 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reid, R. S. et al. Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 113, 4579–4584 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Charli-Joseph, L., Siqueiros-Garcia, J. M., Eakin, H., Manuel-Navarrete, D. & Shelton, R. Promoting agency for social–ecological transformation: a transformation-lab in the Xochimilco social–ecological system. Ecol. Soc. 23, 46 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Montana, J., Sandbrook, C., Robertson, E. & Ryan, M. Revealing research preferences in conservation science. Oryx 55, 404–411 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lövbrand, E. Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Sci. Public Policy 38, 225–236 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Barnett, M. & Duvall, R. Power in international politics. Int. Organ. 59, 39–75 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Polity Press, 1984).

  50. Leimona, B. et al. Boundary work: knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services in Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 15, 45–62 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Brandt, F., Josefsson, J. & Spierenburg, M. J. Power and politics in stakeholder engagement: farm dweller (in)visibility and conversions to game farming in South Africa. Ecol. Soc. 23, 32 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Avelino, F. Power in sustainability transitions: analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environ. Policy Gov. 27, 505–520 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lasswell, H. D. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (McGraw-Hill, 1936).

  54. Cockburn, J. et al. How to build science–action partnerships for local land-use planning and management: lessons from Durban, South Africa. Ecol. Soc. 21, 28 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nagendra, H. The global south is rich in sustainability lessons that students deserve to hear. Nature 557, 485–488 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Turnheim, B. et al. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 239–253 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Nel, J. L. et al. Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conserv. Biol. 30, 176–188 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ward, J. H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 236–244 (1963).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Fernández-Giménez, M. E. et al. in Collaboration Across Boundaries for Social-Ecological Systems Science: Experiences Around the World (ed. Perz, S. G.) 185–225 (Springer, 2019).

  60. van Kerkhoff, L. et al. Towards future-oriented conservation: managing protected areas in an era of climate change. Ambio 48, 699–713 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lejano, R. P. & Ingram, H. Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 653–662 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Clark, W. C. et al. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4615–4622 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Reed, M. S. et al. A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor. Ecol. 26, S7–S17 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Belcher, B. M., Claus, R., Davel, R. & Ramirez, L. F. Linking transdisciplinary research characteristics and quality to effectiveness: a comparative analysis of five research-for-development projects. Environ. Sci. Policy 101, 192–203 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wuelser, G. & Pohl, C. How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory. Sustain. Sci. 11, 789–800 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Van Epp, M. & Garside, B. Towards an evidence base on the value of social learning-oriented approaches in the context of climate change and food security. Environ. Policy Gov. 29, 118–131 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Harvey, L. Beyond member-checking: a dialogic approach to the research interview. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 38, 23–38 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Fazey, I. et al. Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101724 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Urquhart, C. Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide (SAGE, 2012).

  70. Ragin, C. C. Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Univ. Chicago Press, 2000).

  71. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).

  72. Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V. & Niknafs, A. NbClust: an R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. J. Stat. Softw. 61, 36 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Maechler, M., Rouseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M. & Hornik, K. cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions (2019).

  75. Kassambara, A. & Mundt, F. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses (2017).

  76. Galili, T. dendextend: an R package for visualizing, adjusting and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 31, 3718–3720 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Nakazawa, M. Package ‘fmsb’: Functions for Medical Statistics Book with some Demographic Data (2019).

  78. Vu, V. Q. ggbiplot: A ggplot2 Based Biplot. R package version 0.55 (2011).

  79. Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D. & Borsboom, D. qgraph: network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 18 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wand, M. et al. SemiPar: An R Package for Semiparametric Regression. Version 1.0. (2005); http://matt-wand.utsacademics.info/SPmanu.pdf

  81. Harrell, F. E. Jr Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. Version 4.3-0 (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project and paper were supported by the Luc Hoffmann Institute and MAVA Foundation. We acknowledge the Center for Collaborative Conservation, PECS, the Cambridge Conservation Initiative and The Pew Charitable Trusts for hosting our workshops. We thank J. Lokrantz at Azote for improving the graphics design. J.M.C. received support from the Economic and Social Research Council (grant RG97777). J.J.C. was funded by a Rhodes University Postdoctoral Fellowship and acknowledges the contributions of P. Singh and S. Behngu to analysing the Durban Research Action Partnership case. H.Ö. was funded by the Walton Family Foundation (grant 2018-1371), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (grant 2019-68336) and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (grant GBMF5668.02). J.M.H.G. was supported by the UK Research and Innovation’s Global Challenges Research Fund through the Trade, Development and the Environment Hub project (project ES/S008160/1). A.-I.H.-M. was supported from a Volkswagen Stiftung and the Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur grant (A112269), followed by a Marie Sklodowska–Curie grant (840207). A.-I.H.-M also acknowledges support from the Leverage Points project practice partners and all project team members. J.M. was supported by the Leverhulme Trust. J.G.Z. was funded by the r4d programme of the Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development (grant 400440 152167). Elements of this work were undertaken while J.G.Z. was a visiting scholar at the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge (May 2018–April 2019), supported through Scientific Exchange funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant IZSEZ0_180391).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Josephine M. Chambers

  2. Luc Hoffmann Institute, IUCN Conservation Centre, Gland, Switzerland

    Josephine M. Chambers, Carina Wyborn, Melanie E. Ryan, Anca Serban & Jon Hutton

  3. Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Josephine M. Chambers

  4. Institute for Water Futures, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Carina Wyborn

  5. Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Robin S. Reid

  6. Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Maraja Riechers

  7. Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Nathan J. Bennett

  8. The Peopled Seas Initiative, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Nathan J. Bennett

  9. Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Christopher Cvitanovic

  10. Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Christopher Cvitanovic

  11. Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    María E. Fernández-Giménez

  12. Department of Anthropology and Geography, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Kathleen A. Galvin

  13. Program in Environmental Design, University of Colorado Boulder, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Bruce E. Goldstein

  14. Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Nicole L. Klenk

  15. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Maria Tengö, Henrik Österblom & Angela M. Guerrero

  16. Trinity Centre for Environmental Humanities, School of Histories and Humanities, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Ruth Brennan

  17. Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa

    Jessica J. Cockburn

  18. CSIRO Land and Water, Cairns, Queensland, Australia

    Rosemary Hill

  19. Division of Tropical Environments and Societies, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia

    Rosemary Hill

  20. Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Claudia Munera

  21. Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela University, George, South Africa

    Jeanne L. Nel

  22. Earth Observation and Environmental Informatics Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Jeanne L. Nel

  23. The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington DC, USA

    Angela T. Bednarek & K. Curran

  24. Department of Natural Resource Science and Bieler School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Elena M. Bennett

  25. Architecture, Urban & Regional Planning, LTD, Hod HaSharon, Israel

    Amos Brandeis

  26. Laboratorio Nacional de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

    Lakshmi Charli-Joseph

  27. School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Paul Chatterton

  28. Department of Biology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Pongchai Dumrongrojwatthana

  29. Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales y Evolutivas, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile

    América Paz Durán

  30. Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad, Santiago, Chile

    América Paz Durán

  31. School of Nature Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

    Salamatu J. Fada

  32. University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria

    Salamatu J. Fada

  33. Institute of Geography & Center for Regional Economic Development (CRED), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Jean-David Gerber

  34. Stockholm Environment Institute York, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK

    Jonathan M. H. Green

  35. Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Tobias Haller

  36. Hungarian Department of Biology and Ecology, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu

  37. World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia

    Beria Leimona

  38. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Jasper Montana

  39. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Renee Rondeau

  40. Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands

    Marja Spierenburg

  41. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

    Marja Spierenburg

  42. UPEM LISIS INRA, Champs sur Marne, France

    Patrick Steyaert

  43. Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Julie G. Zaehringer

  44. Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Rebecca Gruby

  45. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland

    Jon Hutton

  46. Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Tomas Pickering

Authors
  1. Josephine M. Chambers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carina Wyborn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melanie E. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robin S. Reid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maraja Riechers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anca Serban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nathan J. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christopher Cvitanovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. María E. Fernández-Giménez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kathleen A. Galvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Bruce E. Goldstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nicole L. Klenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Maria Tengö
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ruth Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Jessica J. Cockburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Rosemary Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Claudia Munera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Jeanne L. Nel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Henrik Österblom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Angela T. Bednarek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Elena M. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Amos Brandeis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Lakshmi Charli-Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Paul Chatterton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. K. Curran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Pongchai Dumrongrojwatthana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. América Paz Durán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Salamatu J. Fada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Jean-David Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Jonathan M. H. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Angela M. Guerrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Tobias Haller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Beria Leimona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Jasper Montana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Renee Rondeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Marja Spierenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  38. Patrick Steyaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  39. Julie G. Zaehringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Rebecca Gruby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  41. Jon Hutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  42. Tomas Pickering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.M.C., C.W. and M.E.R. conceived the project and co-led the design of methods, with contributions from R.S.R., M.R., A.S., N.J.B., C.C., M.E.F.-G., K.A.G., B.E.G., N.L.K., M.T., A.T.B., K.C., R.G. and T.P. Authors J.M.C., M.E.R., C.W., R.S.R. and A.T.B organized and designed all workshops. J.M.C. coordinated the study, gathered all data and led the data analysis in collaboration with all authors. J.M.C. and C.W. drafted the manuscript and all authors contributed to and commented on drafts and the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josephine M. Chambers.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks William C. Clark, Catherine Durose and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–5 and Fig. 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Ryan, M.E. et al. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4, 983–996 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing