Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

=== 7.6.4 Participation ===

<div id="section-7-6-4-participation-block-1"></div>

It is recognised that more benefits are derived when citizens actively participate in land and climate decision-making, conservation, and policy formation ( ''high confidence'' ) (Jansujwicz et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1385|1385]]</sup> ; Coenen and Coenen 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1386|1386]]</sup> ; Hurlbert and Gupta 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1387|1387]]</sup> ). Local leaders supported by strong laws, institutions, and collaborative platforms, are able to draw on local knowledge, challenge external scientists, and find transparent and effective solutions for climate and land conflicts (Couvet and Prevot 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1388|1388]]</sup> ; Johnson et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1389|1389]]</sup> ). Meaningful participation is more than providing technical/scientific information to citizens in order to accept decisions already made – rather, it allows citizens to deliberate about climate change impacts to determine shared responsibilities, creating genuine opportunity to construct, discuss and promote alternatives ( ''high confidence'' ) (Lee et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1390|1390]]</sup> ; Armeni 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1391|1391]]</sup> ; Pieraccini 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1392|1392]]</sup> ; Serrao-Neumann et al. 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r1393|1393]]</sup> ; Armeni 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1394|1394]]</sup> ). Participation is an emerging quality of collective action and social learning processes (Castella et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1395|1395]]</sup> ) when barriers for meaningful participation are surpassed (Clemens et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1396|1396]]</sup> ). The absence of systematic leadership, the lack of consensus on the place of direct citizen participation, and the limited scope and powers of participatory innovations, limits the utility of participation (Fung 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1397|1397]]</sup> ).

Multiple methods of participation exist, including multi-stakeholder forums, participatory scenario analyses, public forums and citizen juries (Coenen and Coenen 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1398|1398]]</sup> ). No one method is superior, but each method must be tailored for local context ( ''high confidence'' ) (Blue and Medlock 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1399|1399]]</sup> ; Voß and Amelung 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1400|1400]]</sup> ). Strategic innovation in developing policy initiatives requires a strategic adaptation framework involving pluralistic and adaptive processes and use of boundary organisations (Head 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1401|1401]]</sup> ).

The framing of a land and climate issue can influence the manner of public engagement (Hurlbert and Gupta 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1402|1402]]</sup> ) and studies have found that local frames of climate change are particularly important (Hornsey et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1403|1403]]</sup> ; Spence et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1404|1404]]</sup> ), emphasising diversity of perceptions to adaptation and mitigation options (Capstick et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1405|1405]]</sup> ) – although Singh and Swanson (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1406|1406]]</sup> found ''little evidence'' that framing impacted on the perceived importance of climate change.

Recognition and use of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is an important element of participatory approaches of various kinds. ILK can be used in decision-making on climate change adaptation, SLM and food security at various scales and levels, and is important for long-term sustainability ( ''high confidence'' ). Cross- Chapter Box 13 discusses definitional issues associated with ILK, evidence of its usefulness in responses to land-climate challenges, constraints on its use, and possibilities for its incorporation in decision-making.

'''Citizen science'''

Citizen science is a democratic approach to science involving citizens in collecting, classifying, and interpreting data to influence policy and assist decision processes, including issues relevant to the environment (Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1407|1407]]</sup> ). It has flourished in recent years due to easily available technical tools for collecting and disseminating information (e.g., cell phone-based apps, cloud-based services, ground sensors, drone imagery, and others), recognition of its free source of labour, and requirements of funding agencies for project-related outreach (Silvertown 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1408|1408]]</sup> ). There is significant potential for combining citizen science and participatory modelling to obtain favourable outcomes and improve environmental decision- making ( ''medium confidence'' ) (Gray et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1409|1409]]</sup> ). Citizen participation in land-use simulation integrates stakeholders’ preferences through the generation of parameters in analytical and discursive approaches (Hewitt et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1410|1410]]</sup> ), and thereby supports the translation of narrative scenarios to quantitative outputs (Mallampalli et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1411|1411]]</sup> ), supports the development of digital tools to be used in co-designing decision- making participatory structures (Bommel et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1412|1412]]</sup> ), and supports the use of games to understand the preferences of local decision- making when exploring various balanced policies about risks (Adam et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1413|1413]]</sup> ).

There is ''medium confidence'' that citizen science improves SLM through mediating and facilitating landscape conservation decision- making and planning, as well as boosting environmental awareness and advocacy (Lange and Hehl-Lange 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1414|1414]]</sup> ; Bonsu et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1415|1415]]</sup> ; Graham et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1416|1416]]</sup> ; Bonsu et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1417|1417]]</sup> ; Lange and Hehl-Lange 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1418|1418]]</sup> ; Sayer et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1419|1419]]</sup> ; McKinley et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1420|1420]]</sup> ; Johnson et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1421|1421]]</sup> , 2014; Gray et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1422|1422]]</sup> ). One study found ''limited evidence'' of direct conservation impact (Ballard et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1423|1423]]</sup> ) and most of the cases derive from rich industrialised countries (Loos et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1424|1424]]</sup> ). There are many practical challenges to the concept of citizen science at the local level. These include differing methods and the lack of universal implementation framework (Conrad and Hilchey 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1425|1425]]</sup> ; Jalbert and Kinchy 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1426|1426]]</sup> ; Stone et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1427|1427]]</sup> ). Uncertainty related to citizen science needs to be recognised and managed (Swanson et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1428|1428]]</sup> ; Bird et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1429|1429]]</sup> ; Lin et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1430|1430]]</sup> ) and citizen science projects around the world need better coordination to understand significant issues, such as climate change (Bonney et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1431|1431]]</sup> ).

'''Participation, collective action, and social learning'''

As land and climate issues cannot be solved by one individual, a diverse collective action issue exists for land-use policies and planning practices (Moroni 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1432|1432]]</sup> ) at local, national, and regional levels. Collective action involves individuals and communities in land-planning processes in order to determine successful climate adaptation and mitigation (Nkoana et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1433|1433]]</sup> ; Liu and Ravenscroft 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1434|1434]]</sup> ; Nieto-Romero et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1435|1435]]</sup> ; Nikolakis et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1436|1436]]</sup> ), or as Sarzynski (2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1437|1437]]</sup> finds, a community ‘pulling together’ to solve common adaptation and land-planning issues.

Collective action offers solutions for emerging land and climate change risks, including strategies that target maintenance or change of land-use practices, increase livelihood security, share risk through pooling, and sometimes also aim to promote social and economic goals such as reducing poverty (Samaddar et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1438|1438]]</sup> ; Andersson and Gabrielsson 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1439|1439]]</sup> ). Collective action has resulted in the successful implementation of national-level land transfer policies (Liu and Ravenscroft 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1440|1440]]</sup> ), rural development and land sparing (Jelsma et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1441|1441]]</sup> ), and the development of tools to identify shared objectives, trade-offs and barriers to land management (Nieto-Romero et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1442|1442]]</sup> ; Nikolakis et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1443|1443]]</sup> ). Collective action can also produce mutually binding agreements, government regulation, privatisation, and incentive systems (IPCC 2014c <sup>[[#fn:r1444|1444]]</sup> ).

Successful collective action requires understanding and implementation of factors that determine successful participation in climate adaptation and mitigation (Nkoana et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1445|1445]]</sup> ). These include ownership, empowerment or self-reliance, time effectiveness, economic and behavioural interests, livelihood security, and the requirement for plan implementation (Samaddar et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1446|1446]]</sup> ; Djurfeldt et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1447|1447]]</sup> ; Sánchez and Maseda 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1448|1448]]</sup> ). In a UK study, dynamic trust relations among members around specific issues, determined the potential of agri-environmental schemes to offer landscape-scale environmental protection (Riley et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1449|1449]]</sup> ). Collective action is context specific and rarely scaled up or replicated in other places (Samaddar et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1450|1450]]</sup> ).

Collective action in land-use policy has been shown to be more effective when implemented as bundles of actions rather than as single-issue actions. For example, land tenure, food security, and market access can mutually reinforce each other when they are interconnected (Corsi et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1451|1451]]</sup> ). For example, Liu and Ravenscroft (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1452|1452]]</sup> found that financial incentives embedded in collective forest reforms in China have increased forest land and labour inputs in forestry.

A product of participation, equally important in practical terms, is social learning ( ''high confidence'' ) (Reed et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1453|1453]]</sup> ; Dryzek and Pickering 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1454|1454]]</sup> ; Gupta 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1455|1455]]</sup> ), which is learning in and with social groups through interaction (Argyris 1999 <sup>[[#fn:r1456|1456]]</sup> ) including collaboration and organisation which occurs in networks of interdependent stakeholders (Mostert et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r1457|1457]]</sup> ). Social learning is defined as a change in understanding measured by a change in behaviour, and perhaps worldview, by individuals and wider social units, communities of practice and social networks (Reed et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1458|1458]]</sup> ; Gupta 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1459|1459]]</sup> ). Social learning is an important factor contributing to long-term climate adaptation whereby individuals and organisations engage in a multi- step social process, managing different framings of issues while raising awareness of climate and land risks and opportunities, exploring policy options and institutionalising new rights, responsibilities, feedback and learning processes (Tàbara et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1460|1460]]</sup> ). It is important for engaging with uncertainty (Newig et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1461|1461]]</sup> ) and addressing the increasing unequal geography of food security (Sonnino et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1462|1462]]</sup> ).

Social learning is achieved through reflexivity or the ability of a social structure, process, or set of ideas to reconfigure itself after reflection on performance through open-minded people interacting iteratively to produce reasonable and well-informed opinions (Dryzek and Pickering 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1463|1463]]</sup> ). These processes develop through skilled facilitation attending to social differences and power, resulting in a shared view of how change might happen (Harvey et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1464|1464]]</sup> ; Ensor and Harvey 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1465|1465]]</sup> ). When combined with collective action, social learning can make transformative change, measured by a change in worldviews (beliefs about the world and reality) and understanding of power dynamics (Gupta 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1466|1466]]</sup> ; Bamberg et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1467|1467]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-6-4-participation-block-2" class="box"></div>

<span id="ccb-13-indigenous-and-local-knowledge-ilk"></span>