Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

===== 17.4.4.2.1 Co-production =====

<div id="h4-15-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

The co-production of knowledge by different actors provides important avenues for exchanging and integrating climate-related knowledge in decisions made across society ( ''high confidence'' ). Though many definitions of co-production have been offered in recent years ( [[#Bremer--2017|Bremer and Meisch, 2017]] ; [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent et al., 2018]] ; [[#Bremer--2019|Bremer et al., 2019]] ; [[#Harvey--2019a|Harvey et al., 2019a]] ), most describe a set of individuals or organisations who work together to generate a set of products that entail new knowledge products and that guide action ( [[#Miller--2020|Miller and Wyborn, 2020]] ). Some major forms of co-production include action research ( [[#Baztan--2017|Baztan et al., 2017]] ; [[#Laursen--2018|Laursen et al., 2018]] ; [[#Zanocco--2018a|Zanocco et al., 2018a]] ), trans-disciplinarity ( [[#Howarth--2016|Howarth and Monasterolo, 2016]] ; [[#Wamsler--2017|Wamsler, 2017]] ; [[#Lanier--2018|Lanier et al., 2018]] ; [[#Scott--2018|Scott et al., 2018]] ; [[#Knapp--2019|Knapp et al., 2019]] ; Young et al., 2019), rapid assessment processes ( [[#Atkinson--2018b|Atkinson et al., 2018b]] ) and participatory integrated assessments ( [[#Howarth--2018|Howarth et al., 2018]] ; [[#Krkoška%20Lorencová--2018|Krkoška Lorencová et al., 2018]] ; [[#Bitsura-Meszaros--2019|Bitsura-Meszaros et al., 2019]] ; [[#Carter--2019a|Carter et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Cremades--2019|Cremades et al., 2019]] ; [[#Leitch--2019|Leitch et al., 2019]] ; [[#Martínez-Tagüeña--2020|Martínez-Tagüeña et al., 2020]] ; [[#17.3.1.3.1|Section 17.3.1.3.1]] ).

Co-production promotes iterative dialogue, experimentation, the tailoring of knowledge to context, needs and priorities, and learning, often promoting integration of Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge and practitioner knowledge with scientific knowledge ( ''high confidence'' ). It generally entails long-lasting ties and fully inclusive partnerships between different parties ( [[#Kench--2018|Kench et al., 2018]] ). Governance measures and adequate financing can act as enablers of such co-production. This integration is most extensive, and promotes a wider consideration of alternatives where governance arrangements promote ongoing exchanges of information and discussion of solutions, whether through formal mechanisms such as regional committees ( [[#Gim--2019|Gim et al., 2019]] ; [[#Ostovar--2019|Ostovar, 2019]] ; [[#Rasmus--2020|Rasmus et al., 2020]] ; [[#Zarei--2020|Zarei et al., 2020]] ) or informal mechanisms such as personal networks and local discussion groups ( [[#Madsen--2019|Madsen et al., 2019]] ; [[#Yumagulova--2019|Yumagulova and Vertinsky, 2019]] ). Where such arrangements are absent, practitioner knowledge is side-lined from the formulation and implementation of decisions ( [[#Orleans%20Reed--2013|Orleans Reed et al., 2013]] ; [[#Aguilar-Barajas--2019|Aguilar-Barajas et al., 2019]] ; [[#Matsler--2019|Matsler, 2019]] ; [[#Ramsey--2019|Ramsey et al., 2019]] ).

An important mechanism of co-production is the boundary organisation, a knowledge-producing organisation composed of individuals who reflect different disciplines or knowledge systems and who represent different activities, sectors or forms of governance ( [[#Blades--2016|Blades et al., 2016]] ; [[#Graham--2016|Graham and Mitchell, 2016]] ; [[#Guido--2016|Guido et al., 2016]] ; [[#Jeuring--2019|Jeuring et al., 2019]] ; [[#Serrao-Neumann--2020|Serrao-Neumann et al., 2020]] ; [[#Zarei--2020|Zarei et al., 2020]] ). Boundary organisations themselves can be linked into boundary chains ( [[#Lemos--2014|Lemos et al., 2014]] ; [[#Meyer--2015|Meyer et al., 2015]] ; [[#Kirchhoff--2015a|Kirchhoff et al., 2015a]] ; [[#Pretorius--2019|Pretorius et al., 2019]] ; [[#Daniels--2020|Daniels et al., 2020]] ). When individuals and organisations from different disciplinary backgrounds and missions coordinate their activities informally, the resulting ties have been termed ‘knowledge networks’ ( [[#Ziaja--2015|Ziaja and Fullerton, 2015]] ; [[#Brugger--2016|Brugger et al., 2016]] ; [[#Guido--2016|Guido et al., 2016]] ; [[#Davies--2018|Davies et al., 2018]] ; [[#Klenk--2018|Klenk, 2018]] ; [[#Muccione--2019|Muccione et al., 2019]] ; [[#Ziaja--2019|Ziaja, 2019]] ). When such networks interact with each other, the resulting associations have been called ‘communities of practice’, which can work to collectively shape information to shared contextual circumstances ( [[#Orsato--2018|Orsato et al., 2018]] ; [[#Wang--2019b|Wang et al., 2019b]] ).

There is extensive evidence that co-production can generate useful climate knowledge ( [[#Djenontin--2018|Djenontin and Meadow, 2018]] ; [[#Bisbal--2019|Bisbal, 2019]] ; [[#Ryan--2019|Ryan and Bustos, 2019]] ; [[#Hewitt--2020|Hewitt et al., 2020]] ; [[#Jack--2020|Jack et al., 2020]] ; [[#Lavorel--2020|Lavorel et al., 2020]] ; [[#Ruiz-Mallén--2020|Ruiz-Mallén, 2020]] ) and that it can increase the likelihood that knowledge will be used in decision-making ( [[#Vogel--2016|Vogel et al., 2016]] ; [[#Prokopy--2017|Prokopy et al., 2017]] ; [[#Skelton--2017|Skelton et al., 2017]] ; [[#Sylvester--2020|Sylvester and Brooks, 2020]] ). Co-production is not without its costs, since it requires more time, money, facilitation expertise and personal commitment from participants than more conventional modes of knowledge production ( [[#Lemos--2018|Lemos et al., 2018]] ; [[#Sletto--2019|Sletto et al., 2019]] ; [[#Wamsler--2019|Wamsler et al., 2019]] ; [[#Blair--2020|Blair et al., 2020]] ). Some research has shown ways to decrease the costs of co-production for participants, such as funding and time to enable and sustain interactions and to build trust and legitimacy, or to create boundary organisations ( [[#Young--2016|Young et al., 2016]] ; [[#Klenk--2017|Klenk et al., 2017]] ).

Co-production is supported by project cycles that provide for the involvement of stakeholders from the outset ( [[#Daly--2019|Daly and Dilling, 2019]] ; [[#Brady--2020|Brady and Leichenko, 2020]] ); flexible research agendas that do not assume a climate related question ( [[#Daniels--2020|Daniels et al., 2020]] ); support for interactivity and reflexivity ( [[#Araujo--2020|Araujo et al., 2020]] ); and institutionalising incentives which address the different values, norms, perceptions and work patterns of scientists, policymakers and civil society representatives ( [[#Cvitanovic--2015|Cvitanovic et al., 2015]] ; [[#Vincent--2015|Vincent et al., 2015]] ; Bruno [[#Soares--2016|Soares and Dessai, 2016]] ; [[#Singh--2017|Singh et al., 2017]] ; [[#Djenontin--2018|Djenontin and Meadow, 2018]] ; [[#Norström--2020|Norström et al., 2020]] ; [[#Turnhout--2020|Turnhout et al., 2020]] ). Certain roles, such as policy entrepreneurs ( [[#Tanner--2019|Tanner et al., 2019]] ), embedded researchers ( [[#Pretorius--2019|Pretorius et al., 2019]] ) and knowledge brokers ( [[#Cvitanovic--2015|Cvitanovic et al., 2015]] ), can facilitate co-production.

<div id="17.4.4.2.2" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="climate-services"></span>