Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

==== 6.4.3.4 Enables the Co-production of Adaptation Strategies with Citizens ====

<div id="h3-48-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Co-production can advance urban sustainability and social justice in cities and settlements to provide infrastructure adapted to the human scale and advancing SDGs ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#McGranahan--2015|McGranahan, 2015]] ; [[#McGranahan--2016|McGranahan and Mitlin, 2016]] ; Chowdhury, Jahan and Rahman, 2017; [[#Moretto--2017|Moretto and Ranzato, 2017]] ; Nastiti et al., 2017). Co-production involves the active involvement of citizens and citizens’ organisation in iterative public service planning and delivery, and has become increasingly central in climate change responses alongside other bottom-up, community-led strategies (Bremer et al., 2019; Vasconcelos, Santos and Pacheco, 2013).

Co-production builds on public participation that brings together diverse sets of citizen interests, values and ideas to inform change and solve problems relating to a collective adaptation challenge (Archer et al., 2014; Bisaro, Roggero and Villamayor-Tomas, 2018; [[#Sarzynski--2015|Sarzynski, 2015]] ), and is increasingly important in environmental policy more widely ( [[#McGranahan--2015|McGranahan, 2015]] ; [[#Moretto--2017|Moretto and Ranzato, 2017]] ). For example, in three cities across the Czech Republic, stakeholder participation exercises were used to prioritise climate change risks, provide impetus and opportunity for knowledge co-production, and support adaptation planning (Krkoška Lorencová et al., 2018). In municipalities in Malaysia, stakeholders and citizens are active in the adaptation policy cycle ( [[#Palermo--2020|Palermo and Hernandez, 2020]] ). In Quebec, Canada, citizens collaborated with the municipal authority to bring together climate science and ‘ordinary’ urban management and design solutions (Cloutier et al., 2015). Service co-production enables integrating multiple actors in the management and delivery of public services ( [[#Pestoff--2013|Pestoff and Brandsen, 2013]] ; Pestoff, Brandsen and Verschuere, 2013). Civil society-driven, co-productive approaches can pioneer new forms of institutional relations and practices filling gaps where the public sector is absent or retreating (Frantzeskaki et al., 2016).

A co-production approach to climate change governance addresses the increasing public interest on climate change (Davies, Broto and Hügel, 2021). Youth movements such as Forum for Future have joined forces with other environmental and Indigenous organisations to lobby governments and institutions to action ( [[#Kenis--2021|Kenis, 2021]] ; [[#Fisher--2021|Fisher and Nasrin, 2021]] ; [[#Davies--2021|]] [[#Davies--2021|Davies and Hügel, 2021]] ; [[#Hayward--2021|Hayward, 2021]] ). These movements have built momentum moving local governments and other institutions to declare a climate emergency and have supported the creation of new forums where climate change can be addressed collectively, such as citizens’ assemblies. In the UK, for example, initial scepticism has led to the proliferation of citizen-centric Climate Assemblies at the local level (Sandover, Moseley and Devine-Wright, 2021).

Cooperative governance models provide insights for designing forms of participatory and collaborative planning through which communities and state actors can identify concrete actions and resources to improve services and mitigate structural vulnerabilities to disasters (Castán Broto et al., 2015). Experiences of co-production of sanitation services show how co-production may improve outcomes, while at the same time opening up avenues for grassroots organisations to claim political influence ( [[#McGranahan--2016|McGranahan and Mitlin, 2016]] ). Co-production may change institutions in response to external interventions ( [[#Das--2016|Das, 2016]] ). Although there are drawbacks in terms of the extent to which co-production can be used to legitimise unfair interventions within a given context, co-production may also be a tool for improving the accountability of dominant groups to vulnerable sectors of the population (Nastiti et al., 2017). There are limitations to co-production. The city of Barcelona, Spain, used co-production methodologies to develop the Barcelona Climate Plan. However, policymakers and civil servants were reluctant to use lay knowledge from participants and political deadlines constrained the time dedicated to deliberation (Satorras et al., 2020).

<div id="6.4.3.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="addresses-inequalities-through-intersectional-perspectives"></span>