基于自然的解决方案中共同概念的综合文献综述

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Simo Sarkki , Mia Pihlajamäki , Katriina Soini , Ann Ojala , Tatiana Kluvankova , Martin Spacek , Himansu Mishra , Juha Hiedanpää
{"title":"基于自然的解决方案中共同概念的综合文献综述","authors":"Simo Sarkki ,&nbsp;Mia Pihlajamäki ,&nbsp;Katriina Soini ,&nbsp;Ann Ojala ,&nbsp;Tatiana Kluvankova ,&nbsp;Martin Spacek ,&nbsp;Himansu Mishra ,&nbsp;Juha Hiedanpää","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collaborative approaches are increasingly analyzed in literature on environmental planning, governance, and management. However, three recent systematic literature reviews found that several co-concepts such as co-creation, co-design and co-production are often used interchangeably. We aim to add conceptual clarity on the co-concepts by using Nature-based solutions (NBS) as a case study. We conduct an integrative qualitative literature review on the concepts of co-creation, co-design, co-production and co-governance as used in connection to NBS. We screened 93 papers to identify key principles associated with the co-concepts linking especially to who are included in collaboration (stakeholders from policy, business, society and science), and why these collaborative approaches are needed (e.g. to develop contextual NBS approaches). We identified also key differences relating especially on the targeted output of the collaboration, and on how the collaboration is envisaged to happen across the co-concepts. Based on the results, we propose definitions for these concepts where co-creation refers to overall NBS “cycle”, co-design links to tools, co-production targets knowledge, and co-governance wider socio-environmental system. Furthermore, we also discuss emerging theme to consider multispecies actors as active collaborators in shaping NBS grounded in coevolutionary view. Our review helps to bring conceptual clarity on the use of co-concepts in NBS literature, and also to enhance their collaborative development, implementation, evaluation and finally impact. This is especially important in the era when co-concepts are widely used, but without clear definitions on their meaning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"169 ","pages":"Article 104073"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrative literature review on co-concepts in connection with nature-based solutions\",\"authors\":\"Simo Sarkki ,&nbsp;Mia Pihlajamäki ,&nbsp;Katriina Soini ,&nbsp;Ann Ojala ,&nbsp;Tatiana Kluvankova ,&nbsp;Martin Spacek ,&nbsp;Himansu Mishra ,&nbsp;Juha Hiedanpää\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Collaborative approaches are increasingly analyzed in literature on environmental planning, governance, and management. However, three recent systematic literature reviews found that several co-concepts such as co-creation, co-design and co-production are often used interchangeably. We aim to add conceptual clarity on the co-concepts by using Nature-based solutions (NBS) as a case study. We conduct an integrative qualitative literature review on the concepts of co-creation, co-design, co-production and co-governance as used in connection to NBS. We screened 93 papers to identify key principles associated with the co-concepts linking especially to who are included in collaboration (stakeholders from policy, business, society and science), and why these collaborative approaches are needed (e.g. to develop contextual NBS approaches). We identified also key differences relating especially on the targeted output of the collaboration, and on how the collaboration is envisaged to happen across the co-concepts. Based on the results, we propose definitions for these concepts where co-creation refers to overall NBS “cycle”, co-design links to tools, co-production targets knowledge, and co-governance wider socio-environmental system. Furthermore, we also discuss emerging theme to consider multispecies actors as active collaborators in shaping NBS grounded in coevolutionary view. Our review helps to bring conceptual clarity on the use of co-concepts in NBS literature, and also to enhance their collaborative development, implementation, evaluation and finally impact. This is especially important in the era when co-concepts are widely used, but without clear definitions on their meaning.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"169 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104073\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125000899\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125000899","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境规划、治理和管理方面的文献越来越多地分析了协作方法。然而,最近的三篇系统性文献综述发现,共同创造、共同设计和共同制作等几个共同概念经常被交替使用。我们的目标是通过使用基于自然的解决方案(NBS)作为案例研究来增加概念上的清晰度。我们对与国家统计局相关的共同创造、共同设计、共同生产和共同治理等概念进行了综合定性文献综述。我们筛选了93篇论文,以确定与共同概念相关的关键原则,特别是与谁包括在合作中(来自政策、商业、社会和科学的利益相关者)相关的原则,以及为什么需要这些合作方法(例如,开发上下文NBS方法)。我们还确定了关键的差异,特别是在协作的目标输出方面,以及在如何设想跨共同概念进行协作方面。基于这些结果,我们提出了这些概念的定义,其中共同创造指的是整个NBS“周期”,共同设计与工具的联系,共同生产目标知识,以及共同治理更广泛的社会环境系统。此外,我们还讨论了在共同进化观点的基础上,将多物种行动者视为塑造NBS的积极合作者的新兴主题。我们的回顾有助于厘清NBS文献中共同概念的概念,并加强其协同发展、实施、评估和最终影响。在共同概念被广泛使用,但对其含义没有明确定义的时代,这一点尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Integrative literature review on co-concepts in connection with nature-based solutions
Collaborative approaches are increasingly analyzed in literature on environmental planning, governance, and management. However, three recent systematic literature reviews found that several co-concepts such as co-creation, co-design and co-production are often used interchangeably. We aim to add conceptual clarity on the co-concepts by using Nature-based solutions (NBS) as a case study. We conduct an integrative qualitative literature review on the concepts of co-creation, co-design, co-production and co-governance as used in connection to NBS. We screened 93 papers to identify key principles associated with the co-concepts linking especially to who are included in collaboration (stakeholders from policy, business, society and science), and why these collaborative approaches are needed (e.g. to develop contextual NBS approaches). We identified also key differences relating especially on the targeted output of the collaboration, and on how the collaboration is envisaged to happen across the co-concepts. Based on the results, we propose definitions for these concepts where co-creation refers to overall NBS “cycle”, co-design links to tools, co-production targets knowledge, and co-governance wider socio-environmental system. Furthermore, we also discuss emerging theme to consider multispecies actors as active collaborators in shaping NBS grounded in coevolutionary view. Our review helps to bring conceptual clarity on the use of co-concepts in NBS literature, and also to enhance their collaborative development, implementation, evaluation and finally impact. This is especially important in the era when co-concepts are widely used, but without clear definitions on their meaning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
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