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
Open Access articles citing this article.
Re-thinking research impact: voice, context and power at the interface of science, policy and practice
Sustainability Science Open Access 15 September 2022
Human Ecology Open Access 09 September 2022
Nature Communications Open Access 26 August 2022
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
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.
The codes used in R to produce all statistics and figures can be made available upon request.
Wyborn, C. et al. Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 319–346 (2019).
Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T. & Pestoff, V. Co-production: the state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas 23, 1083–1101 (2012).
Miller, C. A. & Wyborn, C. Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environ. Sci. Policy 113, 88–95 (2018).
Bremer, S. & Meisch, S. Co‐production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 8, e482 (2017).
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).
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).
Lemos, M. C. et al. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nat. Sustain. 1, 722–724 (2018).
Bodin, Ö. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357, eaan1114 (2017).
Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020).
Sorrentino, M., Sicilia, M. & Howlett, M. Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool. Policy Soc. 37, 277–293 (2018).
Slater, K. & Robinson, J. Social learning and transdisciplinary co-production: a social practice approach. Sustainability 12, 7511 (2020).
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).
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).
Mauser, W. et al. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 420–431 (2013).
Polk, M. Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65, 110–122 (2015).
Cockburn, J., Cundill, G., Shackleton, S. & Rouget, M. Towards place-based research to support social–ecological stewardship. Sustainability 10, 1434 (2018).
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).
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).
Harvey, B., Cochrane, L. & Epp, M. V. Charting knowledge co-production pathways in climate and development. Environ Policy Gov. 29, 107–117 (2019).
van Kerkhoff, L. E. & Lebel, L. Coproductive capacities: rethinking science–governance relations in a diverse world. Ecol. Soc. 20, 14 (2015).
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).
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).
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).
Jagannathan, K. et al. Great expectations? Reconciling the aspiration, outcome, and possibility of co-production. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 22–29 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Pereira, L. et al. Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the global south. Sustain. Sci. 15, 161–178 (2019).
Flyvbjerg, B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12, 219–245 (2006).
Haller, T., Acciaioli, G. & Rist, S. Constitutionality: conditions for crafting local ownership of institution-building processes. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29, 68–87 (2016).
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).
Dumrongrojwatthana, P. & Trébuil, G. in Knowledge in Action Vol. 11 (eds van Paassen, A. et al.) 191–219 (Wageningen Academic, 2011).
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).
Goldstein, B. E. et al. Transformative learning networks. In Proc. 60th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) (2018).
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).
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).
Brandeis, A. in River Basin Restoration and Management (eds Ostfeld, A. & Tyson, J. M.) 3–13 (IWA, 2005).
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).
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).
Mitchell, M. et al. The Montérégie Connection: linking landscapes, biodiversity, and ecosystem services to improve decision making. Ecol. Soc. 20, 15 (2015).
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).
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).
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).
Montana, J., Sandbrook, C., Robertson, E. & Ryan, M. Revealing research preferences in conservation science. Oryx 55, 404–411 (2019).
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).
Barnett, M. & Duvall, R. Power in international politics. Int. Organ. 59, 39–75 (2005).
Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).
Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Polity Press, 1984).
Leimona, B. et al. Boundary work: knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services in Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 15, 45–62 (2015).
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).
Avelino, F. Power in sustainability transitions: analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environ. Policy Gov. 27, 505–520 (2017).
Lasswell, H. D. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (McGraw-Hill, 1936).
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).
Nagendra, H. The global south is rich in sustainability lessons that students deserve to hear. Nature 557, 485–488 (2018).
Turnheim, B. et al. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 239–253 (2015).
Nel, J. L. et al. Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conserv. Biol. 30, 176–188 (2016).
Ward, J. H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 236–244 (1963).
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).
van Kerkhoff, L. et al. Towards future-oriented conservation: managing protected areas in an era of climate change. Ambio 48, 699–713 (2019).
Lejano, R. P. & Ingram, H. Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 653–662 (2009).
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).
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).
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).
Wuelser, G. & Pohl, C. How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory. Sustain. Sci. 11, 789–800 (2016).
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).
Harvey, L. Beyond member-checking: a dialogic approach to the research interview. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 38, 23–38 (2015).
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).
Urquhart, C. Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide (SAGE, 2012).
Ragin, C. C. Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Univ. Chicago Press, 2000).
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).
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).
Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019).
Maechler, M., Rouseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M. & Hornik, K. cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions (2019).
Kassambara, A. & Mundt, F. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses (2017).
Galili, T. dendextend: an R package for visualizing, adjusting and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 31, 3718–3720 (2015).
Nakazawa, M. Package ‘fmsb’: Functions for Medical Statistics Book with some Demographic Data (2019).
Vu, V. Q. ggbiplot: A ggplot2 Based Biplot. R package version 0.55 (2011).
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).
Wand, M. et al. SemiPar: An R Package for Semiparametric Regression. Version 1.0. (2005); http://matt-wand.utsacademics.info/SPmanu.pdf
Harrell, F. E. Jr Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. Version 4.3-0 (2019).
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).
The authors declare no competing interests.
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.
About this article
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
This article is cited by
Nature Communications (2022)
Exploring mechanisms for systemic thinking in decision-making through three country applications of SDG Synergies
Sustainability Science (2022)
Re-thinking research impact: voice, context and power at the interface of science, policy and practice
Sustainability Science (2022)
Human Ecology (2022)