Participation and co‐production in climate adaptation: Scope and limits identified from a meta‐method review of research with European coastal communities

Julian V. Sartorius, Alistair Geddes, Alexandre S. Gagnon, Kathryn A. Burnett
{"title":"Participation and co‐production in climate adaptation: Scope and limits identified from a meta‐method review of research with European coastal communities","authors":"Julian V. Sartorius, Alistair Geddes, Alexandre S. Gagnon, Kathryn A. Burnett","doi":"10.1002/wcc.880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As climate change impacts increase, there are growing calls for strengthening relationships between researchers and other stakeholders to advance adaptation efforts. Participation and co‐production are widely held to be key to such relationships, both intended to open substantive engagement in science and research to non‐experts. Gains commonly attributed to participation and co‐production include improved understanding of user needs and contexts, enhanced trust, creating actionable knowledge for adaptation planning and decision‐making, and other new outcomes and practices supporting adaptation progress. At the same time, scrutiny of existing efforts to use participation and co‐production reveals limits and gaps in understanding the conditions and processes required to undertake them in meaningful, appropriate, and effective ways. This review assesses such limitations and gaps across the growing volume of research focused on adapting coastal and island communities within Europe. We systematically reviewed 60 peer‐reviewed papers, drawing on a novel meta‐method review approach to synthesize patterns in participation and co‐production implementations, types of outcomes, and the latter's associations with study research designs. We identify a propensity toward using more simplistic definitions of community, more conventional, extractive research methods in working with study communities, and emphasizing knowledge generation over other outcomes. These issues are all limits on participation and co‐production effectiveness, and we make recommendations to reduce them. We also recommend further recourse to systematic review methods to aid the development of participation and co‐production knowledge for adaptation.This article is categorized under:\nAssessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change\nPerceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Perceptions of Climate Change\nClimate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development\n","PeriodicalId":501019,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Climate Change","volume":"1 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WIREs Climate Change","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As climate change impacts increase, there are growing calls for strengthening relationships between researchers and other stakeholders to advance adaptation efforts. Participation and co‐production are widely held to be key to such relationships, both intended to open substantive engagement in science and research to non‐experts. Gains commonly attributed to participation and co‐production include improved understanding of user needs and contexts, enhanced trust, creating actionable knowledge for adaptation planning and decision‐making, and other new outcomes and practices supporting adaptation progress. At the same time, scrutiny of existing efforts to use participation and co‐production reveals limits and gaps in understanding the conditions and processes required to undertake them in meaningful, appropriate, and effective ways. This review assesses such limitations and gaps across the growing volume of research focused on adapting coastal and island communities within Europe. We systematically reviewed 60 peer‐reviewed papers, drawing on a novel meta‐method review approach to synthesize patterns in participation and co‐production implementations, types of outcomes, and the latter's associations with study research designs. We identify a propensity toward using more simplistic definitions of community, more conventional, extractive research methods in working with study communities, and emphasizing knowledge generation over other outcomes. These issues are all limits on participation and co‐production effectiveness, and we make recommendations to reduce them. We also recommend further recourse to systematic review methods to aid the development of participation and co‐production knowledge for adaptation.This article is categorized under: Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Evaluating Future Impacts of Climate Change Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Perceptions of Climate Change Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development

Abstract Image

气候适应中的参与和共同生产:对欧洲沿海社区研究的元方法审查所确定的范围和局限性
随着气候变化影响的加剧,人们越来越强烈地呼吁加强研究人员与其他利益相关者之间的关系,以推进适应工作。人们普遍认为,参与和共同生产是这种关系的关键,两者都旨在向非专家开放对科学和研究的实质性参与。参与和共同生产通常带来的收益包括:更好地了解用户需求和背景、增强信任、为适应规划和决策创造可操作的知识,以及其他支持适应进展的新成果和实践。与此同时,对利用参与和共同生产的现有努力的审查也揭示了在理解以有意义、适当和有效的方式开展参与和共同生产所需的条件和过程方面存在的局限和差距。本综述评估了欧洲沿海和岛屿社区适应性研究的局限性和差距。我们系统地审查了 60 篇经同行评审的论文,采用了一种新颖的元方法审查方法来综合参与和共同生产的实施模式、成果类型以及后者与研究设计之间的关联。我们发现,在与研究社区合作时,研究人员倾向于使用更简单的社区定义、更传统的提取式研究方法,以及强调知识生成而非其他成果。这些问题都限制了参与和共同生产的有效性,我们提出了减少这些问题的建议。本文分类:评估气候变化的影响 > 评估气候变化的未来影响气候变化的认知、行为和交流 > 气候变化的认知气候与发展 > 社会正义与发展政治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信