Knowledge co-production in the Helge a catchment: a comparative analysis

被引:4
作者
Malmborg, Katja [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Wallin, Ida [4 ,5 ]
Brukas, Vilis [5 ]
Do, Thao [6 ]
Lodin, Isak [5 ,7 ]
Neset, Tina-Simone [8 ]
Norstrom, Albert, V [1 ,9 ]
Powell, Neil [6 ,10 ]
Tonderski, Karin [11 ]
机构
[1] Stockholm Univ, Stockholm Resilience Ctr, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Univ Bergen, Dept Biol Sci, Bergen, Norway
[3] Univ Bergen, Ctr Sustainable Area Management CeSAM, Bergen, Norway
[4] Univ Freiburg, Chair Forest & Environm Policy, Freiburg, Germany
[5] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Southern Swedish Forest Res Ctr, Alnarp, Sweden
[6] Uppsala Univ, Sustainabil Learning & Res Ctr, Dept Womens & Childrens Hlth, Uppsala, Sweden
[7] WWF Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden
[8] Linkoping Univ, Ctr Climate Sci & Policy Res, Dept Themat Studies Environm Change, Linkoping, Sweden
[9] Stockholm Univ, Global Resilience Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden
[10] Univ Sunshine Coast, Sustainabil Res Ctr, Sippy Downs, Qld, Australia
[11] Linkoping Univ, Dept Management & Engn, Environm Technol & Management, Linkoping, Sweden
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
Berta Martin-Lopez; Futures methods; ecosystem services; landscape management; participatory methods; process evaluation; transdisciplinarity; TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; PARTICIPATION; GOVERNANCE; SCIENCE; POLICY; SYSTEMS; FRAMEWORK; IMPACTS; LESSONS;
D O I
10.1080/26395916.2022.2125583
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Addressing sustainability challenges in landscape management requires processes for co-producing usable knowledge together with those who will use that knowledge. Participatory futures methods are powerful tools for attaining such knowledge. The applications of such methods are diverse and understanding the intricacies of the knowledge co-production process is important to further develop these research practices. To improve participatory futures methods and contribute to systematic and critical reflections on methodology, we present a comparative analysis of four research projects that applied participatory futures methods in the same study area. Conducted between 2011 and 2020, these projects aimed to co-produce knowledge about the future provision of ecosystem services in the Helge a catchment area in southern Sweden. For structuring the post-hoc, self-reflexive analysis, we developed a framework dividing the knowledge co-production process into three dimensions: settings, synthesis and diffusion. We based the analysis on documentation from the projects, a two-step questionnaire to each research team, a workshop with co-authors and interviews with key participants. The comparison highlights steps in project decision-making, explicit and implicit assumptions in our respective approaches and how these assumptions informed process design in the projects. Our detailed description of the four knowledge co-production processes points to the importance of flexibility in research design, but also the necessity for researchers and other participants to adapt as the process unfolds.
引用
收藏
页码:565 / 582
页数:18
相关论文
共 82 条
  • [1] Rethinking the 'Project': Bridging the Polarized Discourses in IWRM
    Allan, Catherine
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING, 2012, 14 (03) : 231 - 241
  • [2] Mobilizing transdisciplinary collaborations: collective reflections on decentering academia in knowledge production
    Alonso-Yanez, Gabriela
    House-Peters, Lily
    Garcia-Cartagena, Martin
    Bonelli, Sebastian
    Lorenzo-Arana, Ignacio
    Ohira, Marcella
    [J]. GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2019, 2
  • [3] Sweden does not meet agreed national and international forest biodiversity targets: A call for adaptive landscape planning
    Angelstam, Per
    Manton, Michael
    Green, Martin
    Jonsson, Bengt-Gunnar
    Mikusinski, Grzegorz
    Svensson, Johan
    Sabatini, Francesco Maria
    [J]. LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2020, 202
  • [4] Solving Problems in Social-Ecological Systems: Definition, Practice and Barriers of Transdisciplinary Research
    Angelstam, Per
    Andersson, Kjell
    Annerstedt, Matilda
    Axelsson, Robert
    Elbakidze, Marine
    Garrido, Pablo
    Grahn, Patrik
    Jonsson, K. Ingemar
    Pedersen, Simen
    Schlyter, Peter
    Skarback, Erik
    Smith, Mike
    Stjernquist, Ingrid
    [J]. AMBIO, 2013, 42 (02) : 254 - 265
  • [5] Just another buzzword? A systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science
    Apetrei, Cristina I.
    Caniglia, Guido
    von Wehrden, Henrik
    Lang, Daniel J.
    [J]. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2021, 68
  • [6] (Dis) integrated valuation - Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support
    Barton, D. N.
    Kelemen, E.
    Dick, J.
    Martin-Lopez, B.
    Gomez-Baggethun, E.
    Jacobs, S.
    Hendriks, C. M. A.
    Termansen, M.
    Garcia-Llorente, M.
    Primmer, E.
    Dunford, R.
    Harrison, P. A.
    Turkelboom, F.
    Saarikoski, H.
    van Dijk, J.
    Rusch, G. M.
    Palomo, I.
    Yli-Pelkonen, V. J.
    Carvalho, L.
    Baro, F.
    Langemeyer, J.
    van der Wal, J. Tjalling
    Mederly, P.
    Priess, J. A.
    Luque, S.
    Berry, P.
    Santos, R.
    Odee, D.
    Martines Pastur, G.
    Garcia Blanco, G.
    Saarela, S-R.
    Silaghi, D.
    Pataki, G.
    Masi, F.
    Vadineanu, A.
    Mukhopadhyay, R.
    Lapola, D. M.
    [J]. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2018, 29 : 529 - 541
  • [7] Bennich T., 2020, Int Social Sci J, DOI [10.1111/issj.12245, DOI 10.1111/ISSJ.12245]
  • [8] Complex global governance and domestic policies: four pathways of influence
    Bernstein, Steven
    Cashore, Benjamin
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2012, 88 (03) : 585 - +
  • [9] Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability
    Blackstock, K. L.
    Kelly, G. J.
    Horsey, B. L.
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2007, 60 (04) : 726 - 742
  • [10] How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer
    Boecher, Michael
    [J]. FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS, 2016, 68 : 65 - 72