Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMalmborg, Katja
dc.contributor.authorWallin, Ida
dc.contributor.authorBrukas, Vilis
dc.contributor.authorDo, Thao
dc.contributor.authorLodin, Isak
dc.contributor.authorNeset, Tina-Simone
dc.contributor.authorNorström, Albert V.
dc.contributor.authorPowell, Neil
dc.contributor.authorTonderski, Karin
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-22T14:57:11Z
dc.date.available2022-12-22T14:57:11Z
dc.date.created2022-10-28T15:39:54Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.issn2639-5908
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3039286
dc.description.abstractAddressing 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 å 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2125583
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleKnowledge co-production in the Helge å catchment: a comparative analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2022 the authorsen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/26395916.2022.2125583
dc.identifier.cristin2066185
dc.source.journalEcosystems and Peopleen_US
dc.source.pagenumber565-582en_US
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 12490000en_US
dc.identifier.citationEcosystems and People. 2022, 18 (1), 565-582.en_US
dc.source.volume18en_US
dc.source.issue1en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal