Joint knowledge production in climate change adaptation networks

Joint

knowledge

production

in

climate

change

adaptation

networks

Veruska

Muccione

,

Christian

Huggel

,

David

N

Bresch

,

Christine

Jurt

,

Ivo

Wallimann-Helmer

,

Meeta

K

Mehra

and

Jose´ Daniel

Pabo´n

Caicedo

Adaptationtochangingandnewenvironmentalconditionsisof fundamentalimportancetosustainabilityandrequiresconcerted effortsamongstscience,policy,andpracticetoproduce solution-orientedknowledge.Jointknowledgeproductionor co-productionofknowledgehavebecomeincreasinglypopularterms todescribetheprocessofscientists,policymakersandactors fromthecivilsocietycomingtogethertocooperateinthe production,dissemination,andapplicationofknowledgetosolve wickedproblemssuchasclimatechange.

Networksareparticularlysuitedtoproduceknowledgeinajoint fashion.However,theprocessofjointknowledgeproduction(JKP) innetworkshasrarelybeenexamined.Inthispaper,wepresenta sketchoftheadaptationnetworklandscapeandassesshowjoint knowledgeproductionsupportsthedevelopmentof solution-orientedknowledgeinclimatechangeadaptationnetworks.We conclude that the processes of JKP are diverse, complex, and highly dependent on the interests and roles of actors within the network. To keepsuchprocessesalive,signpostsinformofanalysisand intermediaryproductsalongthenetworklifetimeshouldbe positionedasmeansofstocktakingandmonitoringforthefuture. Addresses

1_{DepartmentofGeography,UniversityofZurich,Zurich,Switzerland} 2_{InstituteforEnvironmentalDecisions,ETHZurich,Zurich,Switzerland} 3

SwissFederalOfficeofMeteorologyandClimatologyMeteoSwiss, Zurich,Switzerland

4_{BernUniversityofAppliedSciences,SchoolofAgriculture,Forestand} FoodSciences(HAFL),Bern,Switzerland

5_{DepartmentofGeosciences,UniversityofFribourg,Fribourg,Switzerland} 6

SchoolofInternationalStudies,JawaharlalNehruUniversity, NewDelhi,India

7_{DepartmentofGeography,NationalUniversityofColombia,Bogota´,} Colombia

Correspondingauthor:Muccione,Veruska(veruska.muccione@geo.uzh.ch)

Introduction

Climate change has repeatedly been referred to as a

wickedproblem[1].Wickedproblems arecomplexand

contestedproblemsthatbytheirverynaturearedifficult

toframeandsolve.Recently,therehasbeenacalltoshift

the focus from wicked problem definition, drivers and

process understandingto problemsolutions [2–4].

Solu-tions to wicked problems are context-dependent and

thereisingeneralnosinglesolutiontoawickedproblem

duetoanever-changingcombinationoffactorsandactors,

which in turn influencethe solutions [5].Moving from

understanding climate change science and its inherent

processes (which are bio-physical, socio-economic, and

cultural by nature) to the solution space requires new

formsofknowledgegeneration.Researchhasshownhow

collaborationsthroughsocialnetworksconnecting

differ-ent actors and stakeholders to develop knowledge and

informationcanbepivotalinachievingsociallydesirable

adaptationoutcomes[6,7].

Intheirseminalpaperontheresearchforglobal

sustain-abilitywithinFuture Earth,Mauser et al.[8] refersto

this knowledge as the co-production of knowledge for

sustainabilitywhereresearchers,policymakersandactors

of the civil society cooperate in the production and

dissemination of knowledge that is based on mutual

recognition and learning. Co-production of knowledge

requiresintegratedformsofknowledgegenerationandis

performedthroughacontinuousexchangeamongst

scien-tistsandstakeholders[9,10].

Inthepastfewyears,theterm‘co-productionof

knowl-edge’ and its synonymous ‘joint knowledgeproduction

(JKP)’(seeBox1)havegainedincreasingpopularity[10]

intheclimatechangecommunity.Inasystematicreview

of the use of the terms ‘co-production of knowledge’,

Bremer and Meisch[10]found eight different

perspec-tivesgoing fromthe jointproduction of publicservices

between citizens and government agencies to the

extendedscience lens which looks atincluding

knowl-edgefromnon-scientificactorsasanintegralpartofthe

knowledge generation process. A shared view amongst

thedifferent lensesis that co-productionof knowledge

requires collaborative tools or arrangements to solve

challenges inherent to wicked problems [6,15,16].

Therefore, collaboration is a pre-requisite to JKP

[15,16,17].Notwithstanding,collaborationspersecannot

http://doc.rero.ch

Published in "Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39(): 147–152, 2019"

which should be cited to refer to this work.

guarantee that theprocess of JKPor co-productionwill

succeedindefiningasolutionspacetowickedproblems

[18–20].

Thescarcityof evidenceonhowcollaborationprocesses

happen andevolvehasbeen highlightedinrecent

liter-ature on the role of JKP in climate change adaptation

[16,21] and it is notsurprising thatlittle evidence is

availablesofaronwhethernetworksareindeed

deliver-ingknowledgeinajointfashionormerelyclaimingtodo

so[17,21].Thecomplexityofproducingknowledgeina

jointfashionor co-producingknowledgeamongst

scien-tists, decision-makersandpractitionershasbeen known

for a while[22,23]. Conceptssuch as ‘co-production of

knowledge’ and ‘JKP’ have attracted much resonance

[10,24,25]to thepoint thatastocktakingonwhetheror

notsuchconceptsareusefulinthequestforsolutionsis

timelyneeded.

In this piece, we investigate the conditions under

whichnetworksfacilitate theco-productionof

knowl-edge and ultimately are able to generate actionable

knowledge for climate changeadaptation. In the

fol-lowing, we understand networks as social structures

composed of scientists from different disciplines and

societalactorsfrompolicyandpractice.Theterms

‘co-productionofknowledge’andJKPwill beused

inter-changeably (see Box1).

Weexploretheadaptationnetworklandscapetocritically

assess whether and how JKP can potentially lead to

actionable knowledge, where actionable knowledge is

consideredaprerequisiteforenablingsolutionstowicked

problems suchas climatechange[7,16,26]. Wethen

exploremoregenerallytheprocessesofJKPinnetworks

andtowardtheendconvenesomerecommendationsfora

moreeffectiveprocessofjointknowledgeproductionin

networks.

Progress

toward

JKP

in

climate

change

adaptation

networks

Inknowledgeactionnetworksownersofrelevanttypesof

knowledge and those capable of acting upon come

together to solve wicked problems [27]. Knowledge

actionnetworksultimatelyaimatproducing,

disseminat-ingandusingknowledgeindecision-makingandaction

forsustainability.Knowledgeactionnetworkshavebeen

identified as keyinstruments for JKPunder theFuture

Earth’s vision and future agenda [26,14] (see Box 1).

StudieshaveshownthatthesuccessofJKPin

knowledge-action-networks depends on the degrees of actors’

involvement and the level of deliberation in terms of

openandaccountableprocesses,whichallowforinclusive

andcontinuouslearning[2,11].Inthissense,knowledge

action networks accommodate the different interests,

values and perspectives of societalactors [26]. In the

following,weprovideafewkeyexamplesofadaptation

networksdrawnfromthewiderlandscapeofcollaboration

inadaptationresearch-policyandpracticetoillustratethe

dynamics of actor’s involvement and their level of

deliberation.

Practice oriented adaptationnetworks are civilsociety–

public–privatepartnershipswhosegoalistofoster

adap-tation through institutional capacity building [28]. An

example is the Global Adaptation Network and its

regionalnetworks,whichaimtobuildclimateresilience

worldwidebyconnectingthematicUNplatformswiththe

broadercommunity(includingscientists)[29].

Participa-toryactionresearchhasbeenidentifiedasakeyprocessin

practice oriented networks to improve communications

and collaborations amongst science–policy–local actors

because it overcomes barriers in knowledge exchange

and facilitates evidence informed decision making

[30,19].Participatoryactionresearchrecognizesthevalue

of scientific knowledge on pair with other forms of

knowledgeand it isparticularlysuitedto accommodate

traditionalandindigenousknowledgeasformsof

knowl-edgeintheirown rights[12,30].

Participatoryactionresearchhasbeendirectlyassociated

withtheco-productionofknowledgewhereactorsarenot

merely associatedto aprocessof knowledgegeneration

Box1Co-productionofknowledgeandJointKnowledge Production(JKP)

AclarificationoftheconceptofJointKnowledgeProduction(JKP)is providedinRef.[11].Ref.[11]discussJKPinthecontextofpost normalscienceasaformofknowledgegenerationwhichishighly contextualized,heterogeneousandbenefitsfromcontributionsofan extendedandlocallyspecificpeercommunity(e.g.policy-makers andsocietalactors).Ref.[11]assumeJKPasdistinctfrom co-productionofknowledgeastheknowledgethatexplicitlyhappensin projectsandprogramsbetweenscience-policy-practice[11]. WhereasthedistinctionbetweenJKPandco-productionof knowl-edgeseemsappropriateifJKPisunderpinningrecognizableactions thathappeninwell-definedadaptationprojects,inmorenuanced andindirectsettingssuchasthoseofadaptationnetworksthis distinctionisnotnecessarilyneeded.WethusassumeJKPand co-productionofknowledgeequivalenttermsandusethem inter-changeablysincebothunderpinknowledgethatwouldnothave beenproducedhadtheactorsfromscience,policy,andsociety workedinisolation[12,13].

AtangibleexampleofJointKnowledgeProductionNetworksis providedbytheFutureEarthKnowledgeActionNetworks(KANs) whosescope,objectives,andoperationalizationispresentedinRef. [14].KANsarenetworksofacademics,public,andprivate stake-holdersthatimplementknowledgeco-productiontoimprovethe contributionofsciencetosolvemajorsustainabilitychallenges.Their objectivesaretogenerateintegratedknowledgewhichisusable, solutiondriven,interdisciplinaryandtransdisciplinary.Research questionsandactivitiesaredesignedthroughaninclusiveprocess whichinvolvesbothscientificcommunitiesandactorsoutside academia.

butarethereasonsfortheprocesstotakeplace.Recent

research has highlighted a number of challenges and

subsequent risks of relying too much on participatory

approaches as a way to informing adaptation decision

making [31]. It shows that participatory research can

createchallengestoscientificintegrity,willhaveimpacts

oncareerprogressionofscientistsaswellasontheir

well-beingandcanbecostlyforresearchfounders(asaresult

of,interalia,thehighnumberofparticipants,operational

costs,costsofcoordinatingimplementation,andpotential

costsoffailure).

Along thesamelinesas thepractice-oriented networks,

albeitbeingguidedbypolicyobjectives,arenetworksas

enablersofpolicyprocessesandactiontowardadaptation

[32]. These networks are initiated as collaborations

amongst science, policy, and practice to inform policy

andpolicyprocessesandtosupportthedevelopmentand

implementationofadaptationatthenationaland

subna-tionallevel.Collaborativeentitiesassuchbearthe

aspi-rationtoproduce knowledgein atransdisciplinary

fash-ion,wheretransdisciplinarity istobeunderstood as the

full participationof scientists fromdifferent disciplines

(inter) and non-scientific actors in the production of

knowledge (trans) [33]. Relevant examples are given

bytheregionalnetworkscreatedas partof theKlimzug

ProgrammeinGermany[16,34]andtheKnowledgefor

ClimateintheNetherlands[16].

Empirical investigations of these networks have shown

thattheirunderlyingsuccess,whichisoftenobviousbut

shouldnottobeunderestimated,istheopportunitythey

offer to non-scientists to acquire system knowledge on

scientific issues such as climate change. Still the way

scientist’s managetheroleof communicatorsand distill

appropriate information onwicked problems remainan

underestimatedchallenge,whichcantoacertainextent

hinderthemovefromknowledgeformulationand

learn-ingtoactionableknowledge[16].Hence,akeyfeature

foranefficaciousco-productionprocessinpolicyenabling

networks comprises building ongoing associations and

interactions between scientists and other stakeholders,

makingsurethatthereismorethanatwo-way

communi-cationbetweenthegroups,andmaintainingafocusonthe

productionofactionableknowledge[35].

Science-driven adaptation networks comprise of

scien-tists, decision-makersandpractitioners,who collaborate

torespondtospecificpolicyneedsintermsofproviding

information,furtherevidenceandfillingknowledgegaps.

The process of enquiry to synthetizing existing

knowl-edgeandtheexplorationoffundamentallynewinsights

(knowing that the former – also generates new

knowl-edge)arethedrivingforces behindthesecollaborations

[12].AnexampleofsuchnetworksisgivenbytheLoss

and Damage (L&D)Network, which provides

science-based evidence and approaches to inform the policy

discourseonL&D[36].TheL&Dnetworkencompasses

both scientists and practitioners and at the same time

interactswithclimatepolicymakers.Itfocuseson

knowl-edgegenerationthroughexchangebetweentheinvolved

actors, including new theoretical and conceptual

approaches to L&D accompanying the policy process.

Ithassofaroperateddeliveredanumberofinitiativesat

keypolicyeventsandarecentbookasakeyknowledge

resource[36].

Notwithstanding,some researchhighlights theriskthat

theprocess of JKP in stronglyscience rootednetworks

might deliver more of the same kind of output albeit

under a different name rather than in fact actionable

knowledge[26].An examplerelatesto thegeneration

and dissemination of climate impact scenarios where

thereisononesideaclaimtojointlydevelopanddeliver

the scenarios but in reality attemptsoften fall back on

traditionalunilateralscientificmeansof knowledge

pro-duction[37].Insuchcases,theroleofJKPinadvancing

bothscienceand policy action hasto beassessed [21].

While the former can be tracked through more easily

monitorable metrics, such as number of peer-reviewed

journalarticles,theindicatorstomeasurethelatter vary

from scientist–stakeholder relationships, access to

sci-ence-based knowledge generated, how well users’

per-ceptionof newinformation fitstheirneedsandexisting

knowledgeframes,and intensityand qualityof

interac-tion between science and societal actors [38]. And so,

whattoconcludefromthis?Maybe:Measuringoutcomes

by incorporating all these factors is quite complex and

oftenfindsnoconsideration.

Discussions

and

the

way

forward

Theprevioussectionprovidesanon-exhaustivesketchof

the adaptation network landscape. The commonality

amongstadaptationnetworksdrivenbyeitherscientists,

practitionersordecisionmakersisthattheyallaresome

form of knowledge action networks, where knowledge

action networks are to be understood in the sense of

initiativesamongstscientists,practitioners,and

decision-makers to producing actionable knowledge to inform

solutionsto wickedproblems.

Farfromclaimingtofindcommoncharacteristicsamongst

these networks our aim is to highlight the contested

processesof jointknowledgeproductionamongst

seem-inglycomparableentities.Wefoundthatexistingmodels

ofJKP,suchassketchingdifferentstagesinaJKPprocess

fromco-designtoco-productionandco-disseminationas

inMauser etal. [8]orclearlydelineatingobjectivesof

knowledgeactionnetworks[14]needtobebroadenedto

betterconsiderthehighdiversityandhighnon-linearity

inJKPprocesses.OurJKPnetworkanalysissuggeststhat

whilewemaylookforcommonelements,everynetwork

and JKP process is eventually a unique process and

endeavor that embarks on an uncertain journey [26].

Themoreexperiencescanbedocumentedandanalyzed

themoremomentumtheprocessgains.Hence,aneedfor

more systematic reviews of knowledge production

pro-cesses in climate change adaptation and sustainability

networkswill benecessary[16,39].

Our experiencewithand reviewof adaptationnetworks

alsoindicate thatJKPas suchdoesnothappenbymere

collaboration,buttheprocessesofknowledgeproduction

have to be recognized, continuously reflected and

researched, updated and upgraded. The most pertinent

challenge in these networks is often to establish trust

amongsttheverydiverseactorsandthusdedicateenough

time for theframing stage,whileprogressing in the

co-production of knowledge to movecloser to actions and

solutions.Indeed,someknowledge action networks remain

at theproblemframing or agenda setting stageand the

actualJKPmaythenratherbeleftasanaspiration[23,25].

Thetrade-offsbetweenaccommodatingasufficientlysolid

framingprocessand moving intothe knowledge production

spaceappeartobeachallengeinJKPnetworks.JKPthus

callsforanextendedtimescaletoproduceresultsinterms

ofknowledgeproduction[40],yetthiscontrastswiththe

scopeofcommonfinancinginstruments,whichareoftena

basisofenablingthenetwork,andoperationsarethentoo

quicklyupscaled[41].Thus,theshortcomingisthatseveral

ofthesenetworksremainfocusedeitheronestablishinga

framework[23]ortooquicklymovetoanoperationalstage

withouttheknowledgeproducedbeingabletoretainthe

interestsofalltheactorsinvolvedandthusrunningagainst

established principles of JKP [11] and falling short of

deliveringintegratedadaptationsolutions.

We argue that in order to maintain the interests of all

scientific actors a balance needs to be found between

harmonizing different forms of knowledge and

approachesandacknowledgingandharvestingthe

diver-sity and possibly limited consensus [26]. Where this

balance lies, isnot aprioripredictable andneeds to be

actively negotiated in a network. Notwithstanding,

thechallengeremains onhow torespect thecredibility

oftheknowledgeproducedforalltheactors,whichmight

differaccordingtodifferenttypesofknowledgeandthe

systems within they are produced whether scientific,

local,indigenousortacit[11].

We suggestthat the process ofproducing joint

knowl-edge is followed in parallel by an analysis of the

pro-cesses of knowledge generation (within the network)

while signposts and intermediary products are to be

provided along thetimeline such astheones sketched

in Figure1.Signpostsaremeantto monitorand survey

JKPandarepositionedearlyenoughtoallowfortimely

adjustments aheadofinstanceswhere the agendasand

expectations of the different actors start to diverge

considerably or where interest is lost and achieving

actionable outputsbecomes challenging.Workshops or

other forms of close exchange are an integral part of

adaptation networks. However, the goal ofsuch

work-shops must go beyond a mere exercise of exchange

Figure1 Knowledge 1 Knowledge 2 Knowledge 3 Joint knowledge Actions Actions Actions

Analysis and intermediate products as signposts Framing

Time

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

ProcessofJointKnowledgeProduction(JKP)inNetworks.

ThefiguredepictstheprocessofJKPinnetworksasitstartsfromanumberofdifferentformsofknowledgesinteractingandbecoming interwovenalongthetimeline,wherethepathwaysofknowledgeincreasinglynarrowdownbutmaynotfullyconverge.Theoriginalknowledges areenriched,transformedbuttheiridentityispreserved.Intheend,wemayhaveco-existenceandnotnecessarilyharmonizationofknowledges. Jointknowledgeisproducedintheindicatedspace(rectangle)basedinwhichdifferentadaptationactionsareinformed.Hence,knowledge processesmaynotendupinonesingle‘solution’,butratherinasuitofmoreflexibleandadaptiveapproaches.Furthermore,signpostsand intermediaryproductsarepositionedalongthetimeline,inparticularatorbeforespaceswherethedifferentknowledgesinteractandareshared, forexample,atjointworkshops.Changingcolorsofthedifferentknowledgestreamsindicateapossibletransformationofknowledge.Involvement andtrustoftheparticipantsoftheJKPprocesswouldideallyincreasealongthetimeline.

withoutanyevaluationofthenetworkobjectives,

activi-ties,and agenda.

Amethodologywidely usedforrevealing the

character-isticsof social networksand thecollaborations amongst

diverse actors is social network analysis (SNA) [6,42].

SNA has been a tool extensively used in the current

literaturetounderstandsocialstructuresthrough

graphi-calrepresentationofnodesandlinkstoexemplifyactors

andtheirties[27,43,44].Theproblemaddressedthrough

socialnetworkanalysisinclimatechangeadaptationisthe

collaborationpotentialofnetworksasenablersaswellas

hindererstotheimplementationofadaptation[45].Thus,

acombinedsystematicassessmentofprocessesandactors

overthetimelineofthenetworkbyemployingmethods

suchasSNAcandeliver robustsignpostsonthe

knowl-edgegenerationprocesses,theroleofactors,theirtiesand

howthese structuresmightevolveovertime.

Methods employed in social network analysis can be

directly integrated in the evaluation of the network

and made explicit during stocktaking events such as

workshops. In addition, visualizing networks and their

productsbyusingpowerfultoolsofknowledge

visualiza-tionscanhelptomonitorthecomplexwebofinteraction

processesandactortiesandto identifywheresignposts

forstocktakingshouldbelocated[46,47].Itisindeedsuch

signpostsand(intermediary)productsthatkeepJKPalive

andparticipantscommittedand engagedovertime.

Conflict

of

interest

statement

Nothingdeclared.

Acknowledgements

Thisworkhasbeensupportedbyagrantofthe“swissuniversities DevelopmentandCooperationNetwork(SUDAC)programme”.We acknowledgesupportoftheExecutiveBoardandtheFacultyofScienceof theUniversityofZurich.

References

and

recommended

reading

 ofspecialinterest ofoutstandinginterest

1. WaddockS,MeszoelyGM,WaddellS,DentoniD,WaddockS, WaddellS,DentoniD:Thecomplexityofwickedproblemsin largescalechange.JOrganChangeManage2018,28:993-1012.

2. KowarschM,GarardJ,RioussetP,LenziD,DorschMJ:Scientific assessmentstofacilitatedeliberativepolicylearning.Palgrave Commun2016,2:16092.

3. KowarschM,FlachslandC,RioussetP,GarardJ,JabbourJ:The treatmentofdivergentviewpointsinglobalenvironmental assessments.EnvironSciPolicy2017,77:225-234.

4. KowarschM,JabbourJ,FlachslandC,KokMTJ,WatsonR, HaasPM,MinxJC,AlcamoJ,GarardJ,RioussetPetal.:Aroad mapforglobalenvironmentalassessments.NatPublGr2017, 7:379-382.

5. WaddellS:Societalchangesystems:aframeworktoaddress wickedproblems.JApplBehavSci2016,52:422-449.

6.

 CalliarimovingE,fromMichettiplanningM,FarniatoimplementationL,RamieriE:Anetworkinclimateapproachchangefor adaptation:evidencefromsouthernMexico.EnvironSciPolicy 2019,93:146-157.

Calliarietal.isaresearchpaperabouttheuseofSocialNetworkAnalysis torevealconnectionsinmulti-actornetworks.

7. LaursenS,PuniwaiN,GenzAS,NashSAB,CanaleLK, Ziegler-ChongS:Collaborationacrossworldviews:managersand scientistsonHawai’iislandutilizeknowledgecoproductionto facilitateclimatechangeadaptation.EnvironManage2018, 62:619-630.

8.

 MauserLeemansW,R,KlepperMooreH:G,TransdisciplinaryRiceM,SchmalzbauerglobalBS,changeHackmannH, research:theco-creationofknowledgeforsustainability.Curr OpinEnvironSustain2013,5:420-431.

ThepaperofMauseretal.providesaframeworkontheconceptof co-productionofknowledgeandtheintegrationofscientificresearchacross andbeyondacademia.

9. HowarthC,MonasteroloI:Opportunitiesforknowledge co-productionacrosstheenergy-food-waternexus:making interdisciplinaryapproachesworkforbetterclimatedecision making.EnvironSciPolicy2017,75:103-110.

10. BremerS,MeischS:Co-productioninclimatechange research:reviewingdifferentperspectives.WileyInterdiscip RevClimChange2017,8:1-22.

11.

 HeggerConceptualisingD,LamersjointM,VanknowledgeZeijl-RozemaproductionA,DieperinkinregionalC: climatechangeadaptationprojects:successconditionsand leversforaction.EnvironSciPolicy2012,18:52-65.

Theauthorsdesignaframeworkforjointknowledgeproductioninclimate changeadaptationprojects.Thepaperanalysesthesuccessofjoint collaborationamongstscientistsandpolicyactors.Itconcludesthatthe success depends on the degree of involvement of the actors and dominantdiscourse.

12. HeggerD,LamersM,VanZeijl-RozemaA,DieperinkC: Conceptualisingjointknowledgeproductioninregional climatechangeadaptationprojects:successconditionsand leversforaction.EnvironSciPolicy2012,18:52-65.

13. HeggerD,DieperinkC:Towardsuccessfuljointknowledge productionforclimatechangeadaptation:lessonsfromsix regionalprojectsintheNetherlands.EcolSoc2014,19.

14. FutureEarth:KnowledgeActionNetworks.Framingand Operationalisation.2016.

15. BeersPJ,Geerling-EiffF:Networksaspolicyinstrumentsfor innovationnetworksaspolicyinstrumentsforinnovation. JAgricEducExt2014,20:363-379.

16.

 SchmidnetworksJC,onKnierimclimateA,changeKnuthU:adaptationPolicy-induced–anex-postinnovationsanalysis ofcollaborationsuccessanditsinfluencingfactors.Environ SciPolicy2016,56:67-79.

Theauthorsgiveacomprehensiveoverviewoftheprocessesofjoint researchinclimatechangeadaptationnetwork.Itprovidesinsights onthecooperation’ssatisfaction,learningeffects,andpotentialfor implementation.

17. HermansF,KlerkxL,RoepD:Structuralconditionsfor collaborationandlearningininnovationnetworks:usingan innovationsystemperformancelenstoanalyseagricultural knowledgesystems.JAgricEducExt2015,21:35-54.

18. BodinO¨ ,RobinsG,McallisterRRJ,GuerreroAM,CronaB, LubellM:Theorizingbenefitsandconstraintsincollaborative environmentalgovernance:atransdisciplinary social-ecologicalnetworkapproachforempiricalinvestigations.Ecol Soc2016,21:40.

19. CvitanovicC,HobdayAJ,vanKerkhoffL,WilsonSK,DobbsK, MarshallNA:Improvingknowledgeexchangeamongscientists anddecision-makerstofacilitatetheadaptivegovernanceof marineresources:areviewofknowledgeandresearchneeds. OceanCoastManage2015,112:25-35.

20. CvitanovicC,HowdenM,ColvinRM,Norstro¨mA,MeadowAM, AddisonPFE:Maximisingthebenefitsofparticipatoryclimate adaptationresearchbyunderstandingandmanagingthe

associatedchallengesandrisks.EnvironSciPolicy2019, 94:20-31.

21.

 HeggerprinciplesD,VanforjointZeijl-RozemaknowledgeA,DieperinkproductionC:projects:Towarddesignlessons fromthedeepestpolderofTheNetherlands.RegEnviron Change2014,14:1049-1062.

Areflectiononhowknowledgeinadaptationprogramme,projects,plans, andstrategiescanbeturnedintoaction.

22. vanBuurenA,EdelenbosJ:Whyisjointknowledgeproduction suchaproblem? SciPublicPolicy2004,31:289-299.

23. VogelC,MoserSC,KaspersonRE,DabelkoGD:Linking vulnerability,adaptation,andresiliencesciencetopractice: pathways,players,andpartnerships.GlobEnvironChange 2007,17:349-364.

24. PollittC,HupeP:Talkingaboutgovernment–theroleofmagic concepts.PublicManageRev2011,13:641-658.

25. SwartR,BiesbroekR,CapelaLourenc¸oT:Scienceofadaptation toclimatechangeandscienceforadaptation.FrontEnvironSci 2014,2.

26.

 vanforglobalderHelsustainability?S:EnvironmentalThescienceinstitutionalisation&policynewofscience knowledgeco-productioninFutureEarth.EnvironSciPolicy 2016,61:165-175.

Thepaperhighlightstheprocessofco-producingknowledgeinFuture Earth.Thepaperassertsthattheambiguityaroundtheconceptof co-productionofknowledgeisusefulsinceitallowsactorswithdifferent perspectivestoengageintheknowledgeproductionprocess. 27. Mun˜oz-EricksonTA,CuttsBB:Structuraldimensionsof

knowledge-actionnetworksforsustainability.CurrOpin EnvironSustain2016,18:56-64.

28. BaudoinM,ZiervogelG:Whatroleforlocalorganisationsin climatechangeadaptation?InsightsfromSouthAfrica.Reg EnvironChange2017,17:691-702.

29. GlobalAdaptationNetwork:GlobalAdaptationNetwork.2017.

30. Burnside-LawryJ,FranquetR,WairiuM,HollandE,ChandS: Communication,collaboration,andadvocacy:astudyof participatoryactionresearchtoaddressclimatechangeinthe Pacific.IntJClimChangeImpactsResponses2017,9.

31. CvitanovicC,HowdenM,ColvinRM,Norstro¨mA,MeadowAM, AddisonPFE:Maximisingthebenefitsofparticipatoryclimate adaptationresearchbyunderstandingandmanagingthe associatedchallengesandrisks.EnvironSciPolicy2019, 94:20-31.

32. HaugeA˚L,HanssenGS,FlyenC:Multilevelnetworksforclimate changeadaptation–whatworks? IntJClimChangStrateg Manage2018,9:58-69.

33. PohlC:Fromsciencetopolicythroughtransdisciplinary research.EnvironSciPolicy2008,11:46-53.

34. BardtH,BiebelerH,ChrischillesE,MahammadzadehM:Klimzug: climatechangeinregions.AdaptationStrategiesforSeven Regions.2012.

35. ArmitageD,BerkesF,DaleA,Kocho-schellenbergE,PattonE: Co-managementandtheco-productionofknowledge: learningtoadaptinCanada’sArctic.GlobEnvironChange2011, 21:995-1004.

36. MechlerR,CalliariE,BouwerLM,SchinkoT,SurminskiS, Linnerooth-bayerJ,AertsJ,BotzenW,BoydE,DeckardNDetal.: Scienceforlossanddamage.Findingsandpropositions.In LossandDamagefromClimateChange.EditedbyMechlerR. SpringerInternationalPublishing;2019:2-37.

37. SkeltonM:Thesocialandscientificvaluesthatshape nationalclimatescenarios:acomparisonofthe

Netherlands,SwitzerlandandtheUK.RegEnvironChange 2017,17:2325-2338.

38. MeadowAM,FergusonDB,GuidoZ,HorangicA,OwenG: Movingtowardthedeliberatecoproductionofclimatescience knowledge.AmMeteorolSoc2015,7:179-191.

39. TrogrlicRS,CumiskeyL,TriyantiA,DuncanMJ,EltinayN, HogeboomRJ,JasujaM,MeechaiyaC,PickeringCJ,MurrayV: Scienceandtechnologynetworks:ahelpinghandtoboost implementationoftheSendaiframeworkfordisasterrisk.IntJ DisasterRiskSci2017,8:100-105.

40. BairdJ,PlummerR,BodinO:Collaborativegovernancefor climatechangeadaptationinCanada:experimentingwith adaptiveco-management.RegEnvironChange2016, 16:747-758.

41. MuccioneV,OrlowskyB,AllenSK,HuggelC,SalzmannN, MontoyaN,RandhawaSS,StoffelM:Climatechangeresearch inbilateraldevelopmentprogrammes:experiencesfromIndia andPeru.DevPract2018,29:336-348http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09614524.2018.1559799.

42. KettleNP,TrainorSF,LoringPA:Conceptualizingthe science-practiceinterface:lessonsfromacollaborativenetworkon thefront-lineofclimatechange.FrontEnvironSci2017,5:1-9.

43. CunninghamR,CvitanovicC,MeashamT,DowdA,HarmanB: Engagingcommunitiesinclimateadaptation:thepotentialof socialnetworks.ClimPolicy2016,16:894-908.

44. ZiervogelG,PasquiniL,HaidenS:Nodesandnetworksinthe governanceofecosystem-basedadaptation:thecaseofthe Bergriviermunicipality,SouthAfrica.ClimChange2017, 144:271-285.

45. TherrienM,JutrasM,UsherS:Includingqualityinsocial networkanalysistofosterdialogueinurbanresilienceand adaptationpolicies.EnvironSciPolicy2019,93:1-10.

46. KhouryCK,KiselY,KantarM,BarberE,RicciardiV,KlirsC, KuceraL,MehrabiZ,JohnsonN,KlabinSetal.:Science–graphic artpartnershipstoincreaseresearchimpact.CommunBiol 2019,2:1-5.

47. HermansLM,HaasnootM,KwakkelJH:Environmentalscience &policydesigningmonitoringarrangementsforcollaborative learningaboutadaptationpathways.EnvironSciPolicy2017, 69:29-38.